Less Carbon, More Cars?

More or Less?

I keep getting people telling me how excited they are about electric cars.

The number of passenger vehicles registered in New Zealand has been just over 2.5 million for the past 10 years. There are 600 cars per 1000 people, compared to 400 per 1000 for the USA.

In 2015 the government of NZ spent $3 billion on roading and local govt spent $1 billion. New Zealand drivers consume 152,000 barrels of oil per day and at $70 NZD per barrel, that is about $4 billion on fuel per year.

There are about 100 registrations of electric cars per month which is about 0.4% of the registrations. There is no economic benefit to NZ if we import an electric car or a petrol car - it's the same. If Kiwi's changed to the same car ownership rates as the car mad, car dependent USA - that would reduce the amount of money flying out of the country. to import cars and parts and reduce congestion and fuel spend by 30%.

We wouldn't get to save much on roads, as we would have the same roads, but we might have fewer crashes with fewer cars. And with fewer cars there would be better conditions for cyclists and buses. So - I am working on figuring out why we have so many cars in NZ compared to other countries, and what can be done to reduce the number of cars. This would keep a huge amount of money in the country (close to $300 million on vehicles and $1 billion on fuel) and reduce congestion. The evidence is pretty compelling that MORE of anything is the answer to what ever problem you want to think about at this time. Whether it is buildings or appliances or plastic bottles or cars... the answer is LESS. The transition innovations and engineering projects are about achieving less consumption and more benefit and more real value for people.

What would it take to get you as excited about a reducing car ownership and reducing vehicle kilometres driven rate in New Zealand as you are getting about Tesla taking orders for electric battery cars?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-power-autos-analysis/britain-faces-huge-costs-to-avoid-power-shortages-with-electric-car-plan-idUSKCN1BC3VU

Comments

What about that Michael Moore Movie?

How dare they cast doubt on the sanctity of Renewable Energy? Why am I feeling like this about that movie? I have been asked by a LOT of people what I thought of Planet of the Humans ? Of course the movie has its story to tell and its own perspective that makes it interesting - it is a movie. The facts about renewable energy weren't off the mark. I don't know about the implied corporate handshake of our esteemed environmental leaders. I have only worked with Richard Heinberg, and have found him to be straight up. What it is that is disturbing for people is that their perspective is being shifted. You find out about climate change and climate destruction and you get over your shock and horror and denial, and then you want to bargain. You want to save the world. We will be good. We will use only good energy. We need wind and solar. We are good pe ople. And so the narrative is formed and the story begins to become impervious to facts. You can find a talk that I

What is Energy Transition Engineering and why it is imperative, with Sus...

I had a really interesting conversation with Jason Marmon of US Energy. He has worked in Oil and Gas and then decided to work on energy transition. We had a nice time brainstorming what energy transition means for oil and gas industry. Like everything these days, the go-to framework for debate is opposites positioning. In energy and climate change the position used to be "I'm not worried about climate change" vs "I'm freaked out about climate change". That framing didn't get a lot done, and it was masking the real issues, questions and potentials. The opposites positioning has moved on a bit and now the "it's not happening" people are off in their own bubble cooking up conspiracies. Now the opposites positioning is "Energy transition is switching to renewables" vs "energy transition is hydrogen and CCS". These two positions usually argue about the other not being able to replace fossil fuels at scale. That is correct

Transition Engineering Perspective Shift

Transition Engineering - what is it you are really doing? The answer is the same as for any engineering discipline - we make things work. What works totally depends on your perspective. Perspective Since 1950, and the end of the devastating world wars, making things work meant growth. Growth was the way to keep running ahead of that dark beast in the rear view mirror - The Great Depression and his nasty minions - bank failure, hyperinflation, unemployment, scarcity and hunger. We have been looking in the rear-view mirror so much that we have become future blind, letting the headlight dim until the way ahead is only a dark space bounded by ghostly converging white lines. I have a theory that “perspective shift” is key at this time for everyone. If you've been looking behind, turn around and look ahead, slow down, and turn up the high beams. If you already get the climate science and the urgent need for action, then you need to shift your perspective from

Energy Transition Engineering

Search This Blog