Critical problems — and the price to be paid

Press, 26 April 1978, Page 21

Critical problems — and the price to be paid

New Zealanders should use less energy, and use it more efficiently, because they cannot afford to do less.

That is the message to be found in a review of energy research issued by the Energy Research and Development Committee. The document is a care-fully-worded indictment of the nation’s failure to take the energy crisis seriously. More efficient use of New Zealand’s present energy resources might delay the need for nuclear

energy for 50 years. But if there is to be continued economic growth — and no lowering of the standard of living — then New Zealand must commit itself wholeheartedly to conserving energy and to restrain the demand for electricity. Like many other countries New Zealand has a critical supply problem in liquid fuel, but the Energy Research and Development Committee has seen no sign that recognition of this problem has led to

action that might ease the problem. The price of crude oil is now five times higher than it was five years ago, and the price will continue to rise steeply as production continues to about the year 2000, when world supplies are expected to run dry. The price of oil might then be so high that the production of liquid fuels from sources that are at present uneconomic could look more attractive and competitive.

Incentives will be high for developing new ways of recovering crude oil, but New Zealand would still have to pay a high price for any oil discovered here. The committee admits that the recovery of such oil is at the “frontier of existing technology.” Only large-scale energy farming — producing biomass from forests and plants — could make New Zealand completely independent of imported liquid fuel. And the committee sees a ray of hope in the

country’s climate, which is favourable to agriculture and forestry. I Energy fanning uses renewable sources of energy, and the committee stresses that renewable resources can be used to supply substantial ; amounts of energy. The Government has recently ' given its blessing to recycled oil, saying that I every litre recycled is a ' dollar saved in overseas ■ funds. I Energy farming might : also make nuclear power j irrelevant to New Zealand.

All the same, nuclear fuel should be considered to help solve the liquid fuel supply problem, the committee believes. However, the protesters have left their mark. The report concedes that the technical, environmental, ethical, and economic issues associated with nuclear energy would have to be resolved. Alternatively, these issues could pale into insignificance beside the “depradation caused by the loss of liquid fuel.” The report states that

nuclear energy “for electricity generation is not f necessary in the foreseeable future,” and the t serious doubts that shroud < large-scale electric devel- < opment in transport possi- i bly rules out nuclear i power as a future trans- t port fuel. f Coal Will not provide the solution by itself. The t report suggests that there s would have to be massive I extraction of coal, but i admits that there are < major technical problems , hindering the exploitation of deep, thick seams. c

Industry is given a gentle nudge in the report. The committee believes that industry could use energy more efficiently, and save the country more in the long term than it would lose in the short term paying for more efficient processes. Ironically, any saving in the future fuel bill by conservation is now hampered by lack of capital. But money spent on conservation will seem more worth while as the price of energy goes up and up.