Plea for publicity on oil conservation

Press, 17 November 1977, Page 13

Plea for publicity on oil conservation

Oil provided 62 per cent of New Zealand’s total primary energy in 1974 — and transport accounted for about 70 per cent of this oil use. An article, “Who Should Conserve?” in the October issue of “Live Lines,” the official publication of the Electrical Supply Authorities Association, examines oil, coal, and natural gas in New Zealand — their availability, their present use, and their future prospects. The comment is made that “People in- the electrical supply industry get very tired of the constant reference to electricity conservation as if it were the whole field in which conservation is necessary.” lit 1974, 18 per cent of total energy came from coal, and 4 per cent from natural gas, and both these sources contributed to electricity generation. Electricity supplied 16 per cent of total energy, the article said.

Transport used 42 per cent of the oil consumed, and of this, internal aircraft used 3 per cent, international transport, — which presumably included aircraft and ships — 10 per cent, and other users, including electricity generation, about 36 per cent. “Unfortunately, these

‘other users’ were not defined,” said the magazine. “Electricity generation used about 8.4 per cent of the country’s oil in 1974,” it said. Nearly all the oil used was imported. Its cost had risen enormously in the last few years, and would probably continue to do so in the future. It was fast disappearing from the earth, and although estimates differed widely, output would decline appreciably before the end of the century. “The future oil outlook is dark, to say the least, and yet one does not see large-scale advertising urging people to conserve the use of oil. Perhaps the Government considers that oil is being conserved by its pricing policy. It is a fact that the growth in the use of oil has been curtailed.” Coal was an irreplaceable fuel, but the country probably had a reasonable supply of it. “One would hardly accuse the Government of encouraging people to use it to the exclusion of electricity. Coal and electricity are not competing fuels. It seems likely that the real future of coal is as a fuel for electricity generation, unless it is re-

served for conversion to other products.” Although the Maui gas fiebt was large, and there might be others, natural gas was also an irreplaceable fuel. On occasions it might be a better fuel to supply energy than electricity, but it had to be borne in mind that the supply was limited on “ a long-term basis.” The article continued: “Even the public must be confused by television advertisements encouraging the widespread use of gas: advertisements which appear to come very close to ‘knocking’ other fuels in the process. “It is odd. to say the least, that within minutes of each other there can be advertisements to go easy on electricity, and other advertisements to use gas — an irreplaceable fuel, with a limited life. Why on earth aren’t we conserving the use of natural gas. “Adapting the definition adopted by the Burns factfinding group, conservation means the reduction in the growth of demand for energy achieved by measures adopted for that purpose. “Why does the ordinary man-in-the-street have the impression that only electricity needs to be conserved?” the article ended.