A few tricks to keep more fuel in your tank, more money in your pocket and more CO2 out of the atmosphere
May 23, 2008
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...I would like to thank you for all the comments written on my previous week’s blog entry. I have read them with a great interest. Once again it proves that nuclear energy is a “hot” subject. Yesterday I took part in the 2nd meeting of the European Nuclear Energy Forum in Prague, where I had a very interesting discussion on different aspects of nuclear energy.
But now let’s go to this week’s subject. It’s now more than one and a half years since the Commission proposed an Energy Package with a commitment to reduce our overall CO2 emissions by 20%, one of the famous objectives 20-20-20 by 2020. As policy makers, we can undertake a lot of initiatives to steer the process, and companies should also adapt their structures and products to the new challenges. However, it is obvious that the overall objective of reducing our emissions will be achieved only if it is shared by each and everyone. It we only be achieved if we all change our way of living.
I’m convinced, and indeed many polls indicate this trend, that European citizens want to be more energy efficient in their daily lives, but in order to do so someone has to explain “how” to them. Before being a Commissioner I was a teacher. I know the power of education. By educating society to trigger changes politicians will follow. It is on that rationale that I launched in 2005 the Sustainable Energy Europe Campaign (SEEC). I intended to invite public and private operators to act as multipliers making citizens aware of the opportunities offered by more intelligent uses of energy, and to support and highlight those initiatives that could convey the sustainable energy message close to the citizens.
One good example is the action organised by Europia one partners of the SEEC. Next week, I will participate in the launching of the Eco-driving campaign to teach private car users how to drive more efficiently, or if you prefer, how to save oil, money and CO2 emissions by driving cleverly.
I made recently a short test with an eco-driving simulator. By applying all eco-driving tips, a normal driver is able to reduce his energy consumption in an urban circuit from 7.3 l/100km to 5 liters. That means, at a price of 1.40 € per litre of gasoline and 15 000 km per year, that the driver is saving 500 €. Let’s imagine that the drivers would apply just some of the tips, we are still speaking of impressive savings, in money terms for the citizens and in CO2 emissions for the planet.
Eco-driving entails no investment, no need for sacrifice. It is simply a matter of responsible behaviour, keeping in mind some principles when driving, which make sense and are beneficial in all respects: not only for our planet and economy, but also for our health and our safety. One could ask: Why do so few people eco-drive? The reply is quite obvious: because we have not been educated to do that! Only recently are eco-driving principles really becoming part of the syllabus for obtaining a driver’s licence. That means that only new drivers have been taught to drive intelligently.
No doubt, it is when filling your tank, particularly at today’s oil prices, that you realise how important eco-driving can be. This is what the European oil industry, within EUROPIA, will do by making these tips available in your own language in fuel stations across the Union.
I am really convinced that this is a sensible campaign full of opportunities, launched by EUROPIA, as a partner of the SEEC. I look forward to getting feedback on the impact and results. But let me say in advance that I strongly believe that, after this campaign, eco-driving will be a much more usual practice in a slightly more intelligent world.
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Dear Mr. Piebalgs,
Your previous blog entry, “discussing nuclear without taboos”, quickly gathered over a 100 original comments in favor and against nuclear power. These comments quite accurately reflect the official polls, that a mere 20% of the European citizens is in favor and 80% is against nuclear power.
I have not been invited to the European Nuclear Energy Forum, but from what I understand from the media, and from the published speech of your colleague, Commission President Mr. Barroso, is that the ENEF not at all reflected this broadly felt resent of nuclear power.
Given the few democratic tools which are available for European citizens to control the work of the Commission, I am disappointed that such an impressive amount of prompt and direct input from Europeans couldn’t motivate you beyond concluding that nuclear “is a “hot” subject” and, at the forum, you from having “a very interesting discussion”.
I wonder what more concerned European citizens could do to counteract the tremendous push for nuclear power which is currently being deployed at, amongst others, the European Nuclear Energy Forum, and and which seems to be beyond any democratic control.
yours,
Daniël Meijers
Friends of the Earth Europe
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Dear Mr.Piebalgs-all for Sustainable Energy Europe Campaign 2005-2008 and…2009-2012!
http://www.eficientaenerg.ro/www.SOSTerra.go.ro : Your project in Intelligent Energy for Efficiency and Prevent Climate Change for Europe and Globe with Sustainable Energy Europe Campaign 2005-2008.:
1. Romania –with primarily -Naidin : Sustainable energy promotion and communication http://www.sustenergy.org/tpl/page.cfm?pagID=15&id=391&submod=details OR http://www.sustenergy.org :Partenerships-Partenership database SEARCH By geographical scope :Romania –Naidin Promotion of Energy Intelligent Building PLAN .
2. In my quality of Deputy in the Romanian Parliament-1992-2004, I initiate Law no. 199/2000 regarding the energy efficient use and the reinforcing use of energy labelling through the revision of the Energy Directive …in1990;1995;2000,2005,etc-work!,is necessary:That promotion initiative Legislation Energy efficiency also encourages citizens to use energy in the most rational manner possible and contribute to the fight against climate change,equivalent S.O.S Live Earth !.
Coherence of relevant EU policies My position:
Legislation for the use Intelligent Energy through project of Directive- “on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market ” and the internal legislative Initiative in more energy efficient Appliances- is necessary for the SIMPLIFICATION and UNIQUE:
-the implantation of the law, regulation or administrative action in Member States;
-the improve the energy-efficient and energy saving behaviour of all energy consumers, including by demonstrating the benefits of available energy efficient technology.! Evaluating the National Energy Efficiency Action Plan measures: Energy efficiency constitutes a key competitive factor and, therefore, locational policy; Energy efficiency contributes to greater security of supply and coverage of the
exhaustible energy sources.
3.Future???.Even if : import dependency is rising ;in the next 20 to 30 years around 70 % of the Union’s energy requirements, compared to 50% today, will be met by imported products – some from regions threatened by insecurity; reserves are concentrated in a few countries,roughly half of the EU’s gas consumption comes from only three countries;gas imports would increase to 80 % over the next 25 years ; world energy demand - and CO2 emissions – is expected to rise by some 60% by 2030 ;global oil consumption has increased by 20% since 1994, and global oil demand is projected to grow by 1.6% per year;Oil and gas prices are rising. They have nearly doubled in the EU over the past two years, with electricity prices following. With increasing global demand for fossil fuels, stretched supply chains and increasing dependence on imports, high prices for oil and gas are probably here to stay. Source:Euractiv.com.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Dear Mr. Meijers, do you have any sources on these polls ?
Because, here in France where 78% of electricity is provided by nuclear, only 5000 people demonstrated for the anniversary of Chernobyl. That’s virtually nothing.
I mean, it is more than tiring to read endless activists saying that nuclear is evil and so on. We have a choice to answer our growing energy needs : coal or nuclear ? I prefer by far nuclear. Italian and British governments well understood that dilemma… and they did their choice.
Make no mistake, I am a huge fan of solar and other renewables - as well as energy efficiency and behavioral changes - but they don’t provide much yet. Solar and wind especially begun too little too late to provide all the energy we will need before quite a long time.
Yes we have to work on them, but so we have on nuclear. It is only by combining both that we will be able to avert climate change and energy scarcity.
As the French President, Mr. Sarkozy, stated once : why should we choose between nuclear and renewables since we need both ?
May 25th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Daniel Meijers is spreading misinformation. Because only within his group of zealots is there a majority against nuclear power. Yes there has been a very effective scaremongering campaign by people like him but fact remains, nuclear power is the way to go. Fantasies about wind energy are not going to get us anywhere, or solar power which cannot be relied on.
And also, Andris Piebalgs, where is your mandate to make laws and decisions? I didn’t vote for you or any of your fellow EU politburo/commission members. And why have you people abolished parliamentary democracy? Where is the democratic parliamentary control on you? Where is it?
May 25th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Each EU country/society has a different skill-level to implement sustainable energy like windturbines or energy conservation.
What we need is capacity building in energy conservation in homes and buildings, and better implementation for wind energy.
This capacity building is a group of activities of:
- knowlegge creating, sharing and presenting
- network building, between institutions NGO’s, government, politicians civilian organisations and companies in the field of sustainable energy
- the development of a mobilisation capacity, to activate everyone to really do something and not remain in the talking and thinking phase.
- required laws and regulations and budget to dstimulate where necessary
The guys of the CO2 capture, CCS, try to get 10 bilion from the EU in this way.
Mr Pielbalgs, we need something like this for sustainable energy too.
Dr Sylvia Breukers wrote an interesting dissertation about this phenomena and the differences in this capacity building in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands. “Changing institutional landscapes for implementing wind power” http://dare.uva.nl/document/41189, please have someone studying it, there is much to be improved, in various capacities.
May 25th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
And, of course, one of these fields where the EU urgently needs to develop a new capacity is energy efficient cars.
It is obvious that the current EU does not have the capacity to drive its carmakers to better fuel economy.
Given the price of gas and diesel, we urgently need electric propulssion.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:04 am
peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil
Dear Andris,
Energy analyst Robert Hirsch warns that $12 to $15 a gallon gas may not be far away and gas rationing may not be far behind that. What do you say to that?
Truck drivers and fishermen strike over high fuel prices. That’s only the beginning and you know it.
Drastic measures are needed. Commuting by car should be banned, teleworking made mainstream, eating local foods the norm, consumption of meat drasticly reduced and kids need to be taught about permaculture and growing their own food.
Talk to us about how the infrastructure of our cities need to be adapted to this changing world.
Please don’t blind us for the reality of what is going to happen with your tips and tricks to reduce emissions. It does not reflect the urgency of the situation.
Have some guts and grow a vision. Don’t do it for me, do it for your grand children.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Now the process, about which I wrote in one of my first comments in Commissioner’s blog, is going on - willing or not consumers will have to cut their energy (and not only energy) consumption and lower exagerated western living standards.
The target for next 20-40 years - cuban-like economy under Fidel’s reign after disappearance of USSR.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Peak oil writes:
peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil
I myself work at the Commission. After four years of writing totally futile letters to our internal forum ‘IntraComm’ on the subject of ‘peak oil’ – and after oil hit $135 per barrel — I felt tempted to do exactly what ‘Peak Oil’ has done. Here is an extract from a letter that was published on Monday last:
“[I]t’s time for me to go into PowerPoint mode. No subordinate clauses. Maximum sentence length six words. Assume that the audience has an average IQ of 85.
Start PowerPoint presentation.
Slide one (font size 96, bold type):
peak oil
End of slide one.
Slide two:
We’re done for.
End of slide two.
End PowerPoint demonstration.
In fact, the term ‘peak oil’ seems to be DG TREN’s equivalent to the N-word in civilised society. It’s literally verboten, its use presumably creating grounds for disciplinary action. I’ve checked it out. At DGT [the Commission’s translation service – CO] we have access to the Commission’s entire translation corpus. This electronic database contains a vast range of documents emanating from all the Commission’s services as well as a huge volume of incoming mail from other EC institutions, national authorities, industry, private associations, and individual citizens.
Yet in DG TREN’s corner there is not one single document in which the term ‘peak oil’ occurs – not once, over the past 30 years, in texts dating back to 1977, the year I was recruited. As to the Commission as a whole, the taboo term crops up only twice in the entire text base – once in an open letter […] (2006) and once in draft report from the European Parliament (also 2006). And that’s it. There is no Commission document containing a term that may well encapsulate the defining moment of our century.Not even in an attempt to refute the theory.
In contrast, ‘climate change’ scores over 12196 hits – giving us a ratio of 6000 to 1, although oil depletion may well have a more disastrous impact on our lives than global warming: misery today, rather than misery tomorrow. Even the term ‘Mickey Mouse’ mysteriously scores 57 hits –almost 30 times more than ‘peak oil’. ‘Donald Duck’, with 39 hits, still does 10 times better. Such are our priorities in Never-Never Land.”
So keep it coming, PO!
Not so sure that your proposed drastic measures will win the hearts and minds of the general public, though …
May 28th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Andris,
It is now nearly three months since you started your most welcome blog but progress seems to be incredibly slow. WTI is hovering around $130 and there is talk about $200/barrel. Since the blog started WTI has increased by nearly 30% and still we are talking, in this thread about driving economically!!
In this time we could have:
Banned production of cars with emissions over say 225g/km.
Introduced a European speed limit of 90km/h 55mph.
Stopped expansion of airports and roads.
None of the above would require new technology or training or huge funding.
So let’s stop moving the deckchairs around. I have lots more ideas but we all need to take action and responsibility especially those in positions of leadership.
The Oil Age is ending and there are no easy answers so very few want to face the problem. We have squandered the past and will continue
to squander the future until many options are unattainable. Without plentiful cheap energy the world cannot sustain 6.5+ billion people. The pain will be excruciating it is likely that billions will die before we can again have a sustainable world.
Think, if the future of all human civilisation depended on me, what would I do, how would I be?
Best hopes for a sustainable future - because it’s the only long term future.
tonyw
May 28th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Dear Commissioner Piebalgs :
Coal is a reality, Europa has 50 to 80 billion tonnes of natural coal and 50 % of electricity comes from coal ( aprox.) , so why not a PRIZE OF 10 MILLION EUROS CASH,( or 50 million if they really break down pollution into simple elements and in storage/transport methods ) TAX FREE, to whichever University,Research center,individual, who gets CO2 in the bag?
Europa,Russia,United States and China get 50 % of their electricity from coal, we need to find a way to capture the CO2, money incentives can work…
with chemical reactions, with filters for power plants, with engineering tricks,you name it, whoever captures CO2 gets the 10 million euros tax free,why not ?
The European Aviation Industry and the Military Air Forces are showing the first big cracks under 135 dollars a barrel ,we are witnessing the urgent need for alliances, mergers and re-structuring as well as Military slowdown of projects, we need SYNTHETIC JET FUEL FOR TURBOPROP,ROTOR,TURBOFAN,ETC., right now !
so why not a massive Fischer -Tropsch plant chain across the EU to convert natural coal to liquids for aviation jet-fuel mixes and diesels for cars,trucks and trains, right now ?
Italy just send its Naples garbage to the Hamburg area to burn for water-steam-vapor to heat homes at 150-200 dollars a ton of garbage by train, so why not a chain to turn all the garbage of Europe into electricity and vapor? we need leaders and action !
But above all, we need leaders to get us out of the “Oil and Gas Only” mentality , even when we will use Oil and Gas for a long time,from now on it can never be more than 50% ,we need a new balance, a new formula …. Europa needs this leadership right now !
May 29th, 2008 at 10:52 am
As per the post from Carolus Obscurus, it is appalling that the EU has no plans for peak oil. Why is it being avoided?
As per the post from o.w. Back in February 2007 Richard Branson launched a prize of $25m or a method that will remove at least one billion tonnes of carbon per year from the atmosphere. He said “The Earth cannot wait 60 years”. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) have a Seven Billion Tree Campaign. In just 18 months catalyzed the planting of two billion trees.
The two problems of peak oil and CO2 are linked and we cannot wait any longer for real action. So what is the EU doing to help with this? We should be leading the way.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
To my mind, only one feasible option of CO2 capture exists - biological one. There are researches going on in this regard in US (I hope not only)
May 29th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Tonyw writes:
it is appalling that the EU has no plans for peak oil. Why is it being avoided?
…
Because the vast majority of the general public and the politicians they elect still live in a world of fantasy and wishful thinking. A textbook example is Andris’s own account of his experience with an eco-driving simulator (see above). He writes:
By applying all eco-driving tips, a normal driver is able to reduce his energy consumption in an urban circuit from 7.3 l/100km to 5 liters.
Well, yes – but only on one of those simulator thingummies. On the real existing streets of real existing cities the likelihood of any normal driver being able to reduce her fuel consumption by 37% simply by applying a few eco-tips approaches zero. Perhaps amber or red light jumping would help, but that could have nasty consequences.
On a similar vein, Commissioner Wallstrom has recently divulged on her own blog that
… by boiling less water – i.e. only just enough for your cup of tea – you could help save a lot of energy. If all Europeans boiled just the water they needed, thus avoiding 1 litre of unnecessarily boiled water per day, the energy saved could power one third of Europe’s streetlights.
Fairy tales of this kind tempt one to award a prize for the most ridiculous energy-saving tip of the month, something fit for ‘Private Eye’ or ‘The Onion’:
– don’t keep your cat in the fridge overnight. If all Europeans avoided keeping their cats in the fridge overnight, the energy saved could power one trillionth of Europe’s streetlights …
etc., gotta go now and take my piping hot soup out of the deep freeze. Oops.
Now there’s a cool tip for the eco-warriors of Europe.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I’m disappointed to see that the best you can come up with, in regard to energy efficiency, is ECO-driving.
This shows that you, like most people, do not understand the true size of our energy and climate-problem.
Don’t you think that it would be more useful to use all your influence to get people out of their car and into public transport or onto their bike, than learning them to ECO-drive? By promoting this ECO-driving you give people the idea that it is OK to drive as much as they do. And since when is driving a car ECO?
It is interesting to read your blog but I would be more interested to see what you have achieved up to now and what your plans are for the future.
Also interesting to know would be what kind of effort you are doing at a personal level (I hope leading-by-example is your motto).
May 30th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
“A few tricks to keep more fuel in your tank”? What tank? I bike, I take public transportation, I walk, when I travel I try to use (electric) trains. Did you know (allegedly Carbon-neutral) Eurostar London-Brussels is typically under £50 return and takes under 2h? And you can spend your travel time relaxing or working as you’re not the one doing the driving!
Oh, and peak oil, peak oil, peak oil…
June 1st, 2008 at 4:25 am
I’ve used eco-driving techniques for 30 years. Interestingly, they’re the same techniques taught in professional driver training courses for Fedex drivers. When I was farming, there was a campaign to encourage farmers to “upshift and throttle down” on light duty field operations. Most of my time in manual transmission cars has been with Chrysler undersquare, long stroke engines: the 225 Slant-Six and 2.5 liter four. These engines will lug all day long without complaint, just like a big tractor diesel. As long as the load is light, upshift and throttle down.
During our big Memorial Day holiday week, I had to drive 2,400 miles (3,900 km.) cross country to stay with my mother in hospital. Half the miles were on two lane country roads with numerous small towns. I also made three trips to hilly downtown Pittsburgh. In a 2000 Plymouth Voyager minivan with the 2.4 liter petrol engine and 3-speed automatic transmission, I averaged 30 U.S. mpg (7.8 l/100k). My high was 33 mpg (7.1 l/100k) driving across Iowa, the low was 27 (8.7 l/100k) in Pennsylvania. The EPA rating for this vehicle is 20 city/25 highway (11.8/9.4). These older EPA ratings were considered optimistic. (My main vehicle is a 1998 Plymouth Neon with 5-speed manual, and 175,000 miles on the odometer. I average 38 mpg (6.2 l/100k) in mixed driving and get over 42 mpg (5.6 l/100k) on the highway. I should note that I live in a very hilly city, Mankato, Minnesota, USA.)
Unless I’m in heavy traffic, where I maintain speed to go with the flow, I try not to go over 62 mph (100 kph). That is the speed at which fuel economy starts to drop off the cliff. Driving on Interstate 80 across Illinois, I noticed that I was passed by only two trucks (both Canadian). Nearly all trucks were going 60 mph. Cars were zooming by at 70. Truckers have definitely changed their behavior as a result of high diesel prices.
I think eco-driving should give most people a 20% improvement in fuel economy. If 20% of trip miles are eliminated (plan ahead to combine functions into one trip), then fuel use could be cut by 1/3. That’s not shabby and is doable without investing in new infrastructure. Eco-driving should be an integral part of driver training courses and could be encouraged through insurance discounts. (Eco-driving techniques are plan-ahead techniques that also work to reduce chances of accidents.)
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Dear Commissioner,
Your blog is highly appreciated even if I notice that some remarks are not so constructive, but is it ok.
I would start with a fundamental shift of perception, we should start to think not where we can take energy but how we use energy.
Is too easy considering energy as something that is not blended in our everyday life decision and always and not thinking in a reasonable way how to save it.
Is it worth driving with low tyre pressure and wasting money? Is it worth driving a 5000cc engine when nowadays any 2000cc engine can give the same power and consume less and less fuel? Is it worth keep the engine running like while the car is parked just to keep the temperature inside few degrees lower while we go shopping inside? In other word I think is worth try to save a bit of fuel even if I recognize that seems a mental block, for a lot of people, thinking that with few action we could save a bit of energy…because we always excuse ourselves for not doing something.
Final comment on the peak oil, I would like to remind a small fact that for me is obviously excluded, in the Oil Report from Energy Group, on the figure 49 you can see a nice graph how 3 super major are spending their money, in 1996 the expenses for exploration were around 4 billion USD, then in 2006 the amount invested was almost the same and probably a little bit less, this means that in 10 years no SUBSTANTIAL EFFORTS HAS BEEN MADE BY THESE MAJOR TO FIND NEW RESERVES, on the other side the amount spent for share payback almost jumped from 0 in 1996 up to 55 billion in 2006, THIS MEAN THAT THEY SPEND 10 TIMES MORE IN SHARE PAYBACK THAN EXPLORATION !!!!!
A final small question for you and all readers, why in a global free commerce world we can still admit to have producer cartel like OPEC ?
Regards
Massimo Merighi