Barry Palmer

Dear Minister,

I refer to your letter of the 25 Aug 2011. ( in response to Alan Preston's letter 6 July 2011, questioning the National Party's approach to provision of transport infrastructure in light of recent warnings from the International Energy Agency )

1) The possibility of rapid or sudden decline in oil is real.

2) Cost of oil will compromise the average person’s mobility

3) Decline of Oil will most likely outstrip the rate at which replacement energy sources can become available in adequate rate of production, volume and at a cost which will be tolerable to the community.

4) Biofuel and other sources of energy will fail to replace the total energy provided by oil.

5) What happened to the “hydrogen economy” that was supposed to seamlessly replace oil? Will the fate of other replacements be the same?

6) To reduce the use of a finite supply of oil we must decrease consumption.

7) Small-scale biofuel production has not been converted into large-scale production anywhere in the world at a satisfactory volume and price and without need of subsidies.

8) Cost of new technology determines uptake of new technology, not availability (e.g. hybrid car).

9) Electric cars, when fossil fuels are no longer available to support use of hybrids, have serious drawbacks in, cost of vehicle, cost of battery replacement, range, acceleration, and quick battery set changes.

10) Government is taking a monumental risk in placing all its eggs in one basket by allowing branch lines to close.

11) Gap between decline of fossil fuels and the alternatives to oil or no oil is dangerously under-estimated.

12) Freight trains use a quarter of the fuel that trucks use per tonne-kilometre.

13) The fallacy of the “84% of people use cars to get to work” argument for reason to build more roads is flawed. Compare Zurich where 80% use public transport. Both are the product of conscious policy of respective governments, not random choice of population. Auckland and other NZ cities have been given no adequate choice.

14) Zurich operates 17 tram/light rail routes, 7 trolley bus routes and 28 electrified commuter rail lines.

15) In the event of scarcity of fossil fuels Zurich would survive, Auckland would collapse.

16) Scandinavian cities have nearly 100% electrified public transport. Freight trains are nearly 100% electrified. France, Germany, Russia have policy of moving to 100% electrification.

16) Perth, Brisbane each about the size, (but less dense than Auckland), have 6 to 8 times the amount of electrified rail. Adelaide plans for a similar outcome.

17) In contrast New Zealand is planning for greater use of roads leading to more cars and trucks. What happened to our Kyoto pledge to reduce use of fossil fuels?

18) Electric locomotives use 40% less energy than diesel locomotives which in turn use the equivalent of 25% of the energy used by trucks.

19) Health risks of diesel exhaust. PM 2.5 exhaust components are not eliminated by Euro 5 engines and are the most lethal particularly to young.

20) Sweden has less cancer, emphysema and heart disease in cities than NZ. There is a massive saving to be had on the health budget if electrification is introduced.

21) Puhoi to Wellsford RONS, Gisborne/Napier and North Wairarapa areas are examples of the danger of putting all eggs in one basket. Letting the alternative of rail decline is fatal. Flawed cost comparisons of road V rail no longer valid. Ability to service area is the only valid criterion under fossil fuel shortages.

22) Government must be frank. How sure are they of their policy of backing dubious alternatives against existing confirmed technology?

23) Peak Oil Conference. Professor Bob Doll of Otago University concluded we are in big trouble compared with Ministry of Economic Development claims that fossil fuel substitutes are available, but without stating when, in what quantity and at what price.

24) Why was the Bolland Report suppressed?

Dear Minister,

I refer to your letter of the 25 Aug 2011.

At what rate do you expect the price of oil to rise? There are 18 reasons [1] why it could be swift and dramatic as opposed to the implication in your letter of a gradual smooth transition to new energy sources. There will come a point where the vast majority of road users will have to sacrifice personal mobility because fuel costs are beyond what their budget will tolerate or worse still there is little or no fossil fuel available. What is your government doing now to address such a situation?

The advent of new energy sources will gradually come on stream, but will not fill the void left by lack of oil. No biofuel will be produced in the quantities required either here or overseas. I refer to the August 2011 issue of Scientific America P40 as representative of a large number of similar articles: -

“Despite extensive research biofuels are still not commercially competitive. The breakthroughs needed revealed by recent science, may be tougher to realize than previously thought. Corn ethanol is widely produced because of subsidies and it diverts massive tracts of farmland needed for food. Converting cellulose in cornstalks, grasses (note this includes switch grass) and trees into biofuels is proving difficult and expensive. Algae that produce oil still have not grown in scale. And more advanced genetics are needed to successfully engineer synthetic microorganisms that secrete hydrocarbons. Many start-up companies are abandoning biofuels and are instead using the same processes to make higher margin chemicals for products such as plastics or cosmetics,”

The full article in Scientific America elaborates on the issues highlighted here. A further record of research papers is listed at the end.

Have we seen this scenario repeated before? Yes! What happened to the much-vaunted hydrogen economy which was supposed to seamlessly replace oil?

To reduce the reliance on fossil fuel, conservation is still the primary strategy. There is no instant weaning on conventional petroleum and diesel. It is quite impossible to totally replace them, but instead the consumption must be decreased [2]. Other sources of energy such as solar, wind, biofuels, wave, tidal etc. are needed to fill the considerable gap. How long will it take each to come on stream, at what production quantities and at what cost? These questions must be asked of bioenthanol production from the milk processing industry mentioned in your letter and the Fulton Hogan experiment with biodiesel and other local small-scale projects. These have been occurring worldwide for years, but none has translated into high production, low cost and without support of subsidies.

The present uptake of hybrid cars is indicative of the slow acceptance of new expensive technology by those motorists that you claim value mobility over all other considerations. In fact there is a slow but perceptible decline in traffic commensurate with increasing fuel costs. It is cost that is the controlling factor for these people, not availability of new technology. Electric cars are going to be even more expensive possibly in excess of $100,000 and every three to four years the lithium-ion batteries must be replaced at about $10,000 a time. Prices will come down, but unlikely to a level that a large proportion of the population can afford. What of personal mobility then? We already have a similar situation with the price of houses now. A decreasing minority own their own home and diminishing numbers are able to buy their own homes. Your government’s policies are in fact leading to the disenfranchisement of large numbers of people from any mobility at all, let alone any hope of personal mobility you hold up as the ideal. Included here are the growing number of financially disadvantaged, the elderly, the invalided, and the non-drivers.

In addition the following disadvantages of an electric car must be considered:-

1. Costs covered above

2. The batteries will need to be recharged every 160 km or less. The idea of having available transferable battery packs as a way of getting a quick charge is fraught with peril if you happen to swap your new set with a set soon to require replacement.

3. Limits on driving distance. Some manufacturers claim a distance of up to 160 km per single charge, but many people drive more kilometres than that on a daily commute to work potentially to be made worse with your RONS opening up cheaper land remote from employment. At this stage hybrids are no longer practical due to scarcity of fossil fuels.

4. Lack of power. There are going to be times when you will need to accelerate quickly to merge into traffic.

There is a danger of a substantial gap between the end of oil and the adequate availability of affordable, practical alternatives. This may be anywhere between a smooth transition and many years. Even one year of shortages of replacement fuels would be disastrous. Your government is taking a monumental risk on the size and length of that gap.

As stated in the scientific article quoted above, fossil fuel consumption must be decreased. This is not happening with more and more trucks and cars being introduced and induced to use roads by your government’s policy of building endless roads and leaving alternatives to wither. Freight trains use a quarter of the fuel per tonne-kilometre compared with trucks[1]. Rail nurtures available supplies.

Your argument that you should build more roads because 84% of persons drive to work is erroneous and illogical. This statistic is a result of successive governments providing no viable alternative. In contrast let’s examine Zurich , a city the size of Auckland .

Public transport is used for 80% of journeys in the inner city, and for 50% of journeys from the suburbs and hinterland into the city. This is almost the complete reverse of Auckland . Both Auckland and Zurich ’s statistics are the result of conscious policies over fifty years. Zurich has public transport almost entirely electrified; trams/light rail service the 17 main routes and trolley buses operate over seven routes. Further extensions are underway or planned through to 2025,

In addition Zürich S-Bahn is an electric suburban rail system that links the city of Zurich to its metropolitan regions..

Mid 2008, there were 380 kilometres of railway track, 171 stations and 28 lines. In 2007, about 355,653 passengers used the system every day. (130,000,000 passengers per annum).

If Zurich lost its oil supply tomorrow it would still function whereas Auckland would collapse into chaos.

The Scandinavian countries have all nearly fully electrified public transport, Germany and France intend to reach this status by 2020 and Russia surprisingly enough is aiming to follow by 2025. In Australia all the main cities have or are planning electrification of their railways. Comparing public transport in Auckland with Perth , Adelaide and Brisbane all cities of similar size and less density than Auckland , is an embarrassment.

New Zealand is building more and more roads and ignoring electrical energy. It has more renewable electrical energy pro rata than most countries and has the ability to gradually move to 100%. With the development of electric transport for passengers and freight, it could then be independent of the price of oil, use home grown fuel, and stop exporting large amounts of cash overseas. This seems to be lost on your government whom it would seem has been captured by the road industry.

Electric locomotives use 40% less energy than that consumed by diesel locomotives. Electric transport is proven technology that is available now against dubious alternatives to fossil-fuelled transport that your government is relying on to be there when we need it at a price we can afford. Your government is taking an awful risk.

One last observation; it is interesting how Sweden ’s cancer, emphysema and cardiovascular rates are far lower than New Zealand ’s. Four of my five children are doctors (ironically the fifth is an electrical engineer). Two of them have done a purely non-scientific investigation in which they plotted their patients’ home and work addresses on a map. The patients suffering from the above afflictions were mainly concentrated around major arterial routes. The new Euro 5 diesel engines will do little to alleviate health hazards as the PM 2.5 exhaust components which do most of the damage because of their 2.5µm diameter cannot be eliminated by any filter including the human nose and thus lodge in the alveoli of the lungs where they accumulate and eventually cause rupture of the cells. Too many ruptures led to emphysema. There is also the danger of developing cancer in the lungs or heart disease. These particles can also penetrate the barrier to the brain. The government got rid of asbestos and leaded petrol, These PM 2.5 diesel exhaust products are worse but because vested interests are a powerful lobby it would be a brave government that would dare to move against this lethal product. The young are especially vulnerable to its effects[2]. Are we New Zealanders mad? Electric transport alleviates these risks dramatically. How much would be saved in the health budget? Premature deaths and all the emotional and financial grief that goes with it would be reduced

You state the Puhoi to Wellsford road will cater for both passengers and freight. Your government is again placing its faith on a smooth transition from oil to alternative biofuels, an extremely risky decision. You are repeating this risk in the Gisborne to Napier and the North Wairarapa regions. The railway lines serving these routes are in danger of being closed eliminating our alternatives when fossil fuel becomes scarce. Rail will husband this shortage by using a quarter of it to shift the same freight and passengers. Comparisons of costs and time are not valid in these circumstances. The crucial question is whether we can service these areas at all. Rail is your best insurance. Kiwi Rail will not manage to retain these routes without more government help, a fact that you are surely aware of. I am sure you would not like to go down in history as the minister who placed all his eggs in one basket and as a result large areas of New Zealand were paralyzed.

The government has got to be frank with the people and either assure them that they know there will be a seamless transition of fossil fuel to biofuel and electric power (I doubt you can made that promise) or alternatively you can cover your bases by seeing that rail routes stay open whatever the skewed accounting, which a large proportion of us do not believe, suggests about their economics. This will not be popular with the large and powerful trucking industry, but they could learn to work together with rail like Mainfreight does now. Their choice is to cooperate or risk going down themselves during the transition.

I have attended the conference on Peak Oil hosted by Sustainability NZ, in which Professor Bob Doll of Otago University concluded that the future is grim. He was counteracted by the Ministry of Economic Development officials who assured us that everything would be fine because there will be biofuels as substitutes. They however gave no assurance that these substitutes would be there and in time, in sufficient quantities and at prices that will be tolerable. You should be querying these officials and if their answers ring alarm bells you will have to put an urgent programme in to retain and upgrade rail. Whatever funding you are putting into rail in the future, is miniscule compared with what is going into roads.