Ocean Recovery

In a recent New Scientist, (May 30, 2009 p8) it was suggested that the human induced demise of fish stocks, both fresh water and oceanic, began long before the modern era. Many lines of enquiry are quoted to support this contention. This may well be so and would parallel the destruction of populations of land animals as humans invaded each new area. Be that as it may, modern humans with their technology have finished off the job quite nicely and we are now in the situation in the oceans that Southern Africa was before the whites woke up to the fact that most of the animals of their forefathers were just about to go extinct. They took the appropriate measures and at least, in reserves which they set aside, the fauna of Africa recovered. (it is now on the way out again)

With respect to the oceans, lets consider the problem from a different perspective; to explore a different way of thinking. We have, at a conservative estimate, destroyed at least 70% of the fish resources of the world that existed at the start of the modern era and in the case of, for instance, the Grand Banks off Newfound Land, even though fishing has been banned for decades, the fish resources are not recovering. Lets look at the problem from the point of view of primary production; from the point of view of phytoplankton.

Ultimately, the productivity of 99.9%+ of biological systems on earth is based on photosynthesis. The ultimate limit to productivity depends on how much sun energy falls on the system. This is something which we can not increase  Ultimately the limit to primary production is sunshine. The more of this sunshine we can absorb by building simple mollecules into more complex mollecules throught he agency of life, the greater the productivity of a system.

There is a principle in the growth of individual animals and plants and in the productivity of ecological systems that says that growth/increase/primary productivity depends on the most limiting factor; that is to say the factor which is in shortest supply in comparison with the amount which would not limit growth. In an ocean system, water is not limited and sunshine is whatever nature provides so the main limiting factor is the availability of nutrients. And the potential for production is enormous.

Look at, for instance, the water off Peru in non-El Ninio years. In these years there is upwelling of nutrient rich waters from the deep ocean. We don't actually see primary production (phytoplankton) or even secondary production (zoo plankton) but only tertiary production which in Peru takes the form of Anchovies. The fisheries is humongous and provides much of the fish meal for the world from this one small patch of ocean. This fish meal is used in feed for most land based domestic animals and in the huge fish farming (feed lot) industry.

Another relevant fact is that only 10% of the material goes from one tropic level to the next. A hundred kg of phytoplankton will make 10kg of zoo plankton and 10 kg of zoo plankton will make 1kg of anchovy. The primary production off Peru must therefore be about 100 times as large as the Anchovy production. Lesson:-- Potential primary production in the oceans is very very large.

So how does this relate to our subject. Lets do a thought exercise with a simple system consisting of phytoplankton, krill, penguin, leopard seal and killer whale. Each feeds on the layer below it. OK so the killer whales sometimes take penguins but lets keep it simple. We'll assume a moderate level of nutrient input from upwelling sea water. Oh and we will need a population of bacteria to recycle carcases and the poop of these various animals.

We start with the water full of nutrients and inoculate with phytoplankton. The phytoplankton starts to grow explosively and remember some algae can double every hour when the sun shines. Sunshine in the Antarctic summer is 24 hours a day. Raise 2 to the 24th power for one day and then add on a couple more days and pretty soon you have masses of algae. The nutrients are quickly used up including the small amount being added and the algae become senescent (old and dying). Primary production slows and dead algae begin to sink to the bottom. A small amount of mineralization by bacteria returns some nutrients to the system. Primary production ticks along at a much reduced level limited by the influx of new nutrients and some bacterial mineralization.

Incidentally, in systems such as coral reefs and tropical jungles the input of nutrients is very low and the whole, incredibly rich system only remains vibrant due to the very tight circulation of nutrients within the system. More on this later.

Drop in some krill. The krill start to eat the phytoplankton. Now remember that only 10% of the eaten phytoplankton becomes krill. The rest is pooped out into the water. This 90% is phytoplankton-nutrient. Even better, not all phytoplankton need completely mineralized nutrients (broken right down into phosphates nitrates and other 'ates') but can use higher molecules much as bacteria do. And you can depend on it that with all these more energetic molecules

The penguins eat krill and poop out nutrients. As with the krill, 90% of what they eat becomes available for the algae. By suppressing the population of krill they delay or might even stop the krill from crashing the system. Unlikely. The system is still too simple. Algae production increases once more. Penguins live longer than krill and boom and bust at a slower rate. Having a longer cycle also avoids resonance which can occur if the eater and the eaten have the same length cycle or a cycle which is a multiple of each other. Note that if there is a standing crop of a million kg of krill, there is likely to be a tenth or less that this of penguins. Less and less biomass as you go up the ladder. The surprise here is that over the long term, there will be more biomass of krill than there was without the penguins and far more total biomass.  More of the available sun energy, which is the ultimate limiting factor, will be used.

Add in the leopard seals which eat penguins and then the killer whales which eat the leopard seals. Each layer is smaller in terms of kilograms than the one before it, each layer poops out (cycles) nutrients for the use of the phytoplankton. Each layer improves stability. Each layer increases total primary production. If the nutrient cycling is very tight (not much exiting the system by, for instance, falling to the bottom and becoming buried), you can get an extremely rich environment such as exists in a tropical forest or a coral reef.

If on the other hand we have a system in which all the nutrients except what is returned by old age, is trapped in a given level, then primary productivity stagnates. It is like money in an economy. It only does its job if it is circulation. If money is put in a bank, it is invested and it continues to work. If it is put under a mattress, it stops enabling the system. The total biomass that can be supported in the system increases as you add an extra layer and by more than just the amount added by that layer. In other words, as you add the leopard seals, the total biomass of algae, krill and penguin increases. Of most importance, the total amount of sun energy which is being captured increases.

This might be the solution to such mysteries as why the grand banks are not recovering as expected. I can think of a few other contributors to that problem but as the cod are removed, which are a third or fourth level predator, nutrients are not being recycled nearly as quickly and primary production is reduced. One wonders what is the effect of the demise of the whales. Remember that some of them, after feeding in the rich arctic or Antarctic oceans, traverse less productive areas and even though they will soon cease to defecate, they will continue to urinate as they use up their stored energy. In the polar regions, they feed at the same level as the penguins and so recycle nutrients very quickly. Some whales hunt at depth and poop on the surface;  a biological upwelling system. What loss to total primary productivity is due to them no longer being extant. And similarly what was the contribution to their environment of the huge schools of tuna that once cruised the oceans.

Going back to our example, if we eliminated all the penguins, leopard seals and killer whales, we would look at the system and see a greatly reduced krill population. We would make our calculations and surmise that we could only support a relatively small population of penguins if we returned them to the system. We forget the lesson of the tropical jungles and the coral reefs. If a system can circulate its nutrients within itself, it can support a huge population on very small net inputs. As long as nutrients are recycled to the photo synthesizers, huge primary production can occur with huge biomass. The populations of lower levels in the chain  depend on higher levels keeping nutrients in circulation.

This brings us to how much we can harvest. If we note that despite the best efforts of the phytoplankton, there is an excess of nutrients in the water, we may be able to mine the system to an extent. As we do, we are removing nutrients from the system like a farmer who takes a sheep or a cow off a field and sells it. We will reach a point where there are just enough nutrients to allow unlimited growth of the photosynthesizers. At that point we can only harvest whatever crop we are after at the rate that nutrients are being added from the outside to the system. In the case of our farmer, this is at the rate that he adds fertilizer back on to his field. In the case of the ocean, it is at the rate of replenishment by upwelling (biological or pysical). If we deplete the system so that photosynthesis is not running at the "sun limit" then we reduce the productivity of the system and hence the amount we can harvest sustainably. In the long term, you can only harvest a system at the rate at which nutrients are being added to the system. Mining a system (taking more than the input) will eventually crash the system.

The demise of Lodge Pole pines in BC

Lodge pole pines, which clad much of the interior of BC, are disappearing. The villain in the piece is a fungus which is transmitted by a beetle.  The beetle and the fungus were always there but harsh winters once knocked the beetle back sufficiently to keep the damage at a tolerable level. If you read Three Against the Wilderness by Eric Collier, in the years from the 30's to the 50's, the temperature regularly fell to around 50 below or less; below the measuring ability of a mercury thermometer. With the demise of pines the woods are changing.

Fall colours in the Chilcoten

As the pines die, poplars are springing up. In a recent trip to BC in the fall, the woods, which formerly would have been dark green, were yellow with the changing leaves of the poplar trees, interspersed with the rusty red of dying pines. This must look like a horrible fungus to the people who make their living from the pine forests. One of two things can be done.

The people of BC can either try to find a way of getting rid of the beetle or at least keeping it under control or they can see what they can salvage from the situation. Getting rid of the beetle seems to be a very hard ask and if past experience with similar problems is any indication, will probably involve the spreading of vast quantities of insecticide over the woods. Not a nice prospect. So before looking at possible solutions to the demise of the existing forests, what are the likely results of the take over by Poplars.

The poplars are probably only the pioneer species. In the fullness of time, other tree species will spread as well. No one can be sure what the natural succession will be but at the very least it will be 'interesting'.

Soils under evergreen trees are generally pretty sour and unfavorable to many herbs and shrubs. Pines even have the ability to kill off other plants. A pine extract developed in New Zealand is used in an organic herbicide. Soil under deciduous forests by contrast are rich and sweet due to the yearly production of leaf mulch and encourage a wide variety of under-story plants. These plants provide food for a wide variety of animals. The woods are likely to become much more ecologically diverse and much more productive as deciduous trees replace evergreens.

With the spread of deciduous trees there will be food and building material for beavers. With the beavers come a whole range of benefits. The people of Williams Lake, right in the heart of the pine forests, know all about this. In the 30's Their own Eric Collier began to rebuild the beaver dams by hand in the head waters of Meldrum Creek and in the 40's obtained two pair of beaver which multiplied and took over the work. The benefits both to his area and for downstream farmers were huge.

Water flowed year round in the creeks instead of mainly in spring, Animals and plants returned, trout and salmon came back to the streams, forest fires greatly decreased. Cattle had sweet water to drink instead of muddy bogs to get stuck in and die. What sort of industry could come out of such an environment.

Eco tourism. Much of the world depends on tourism to top up their GDP. With a hugely enriched environment, the interior of BC could greatly expand this part of their economy with horse trecks, photo tours hiking and so forth.

Hunting. It is likely with increased forage that ungulate populations (deer, moose etc.) will increase and with them the population of wolves, Mountain Lions and bears. Trophy hunting could play an increasing part in the economy of The Chilcotin.

Fishing. If the experience of Eric is anything to go on, the fishing will improve immeasurably when there is a large healthy population of beavers in the area. This also attracts tourism and provides recreation and food for the locals.

Maple Syrup. And how about an experimental planting of sugar maples. The weather should still be harsh enough in the Chilcotin to accommodate the life cycle of these trees. Perhaps Williams Lake could give Eastern Canada a run for their money.

Fur Trapping. Who knows if fur will ever become PC again. If so, beaver dams breed masses of muskrats which have beautiful fur. One warning, though. Leave the beavers alone. They are the goose that lays the golden egg.

Lumber. This may seem a strange suggestion since the lumber industry is disappearing. But how about investigating which trees could be planted that can be used for pulp and which other types of trees could be grown for lumber. It is long term investment but a farmer might plant a few hectares of oaks, black walnut or other prime timber, for instance, and keep them pruned as New Zealanders do with Pinus radiata to make clear wood. Oak will always command a high price and this could be a farmers retirement fund. There must be many other species of valuable trees that would prosper in the new climate of the interior of BC including varieties of nut trees. How about an experimental planting of every species of tree that could conceivably be of economic benefit in the area. Trees already planted in private gardens may already give an indication of which species prosper in the area.

There will be many other opportunities from the change that is occurring. The trick is to find them.

The Inexpensive Electric Car

At some point one of the major car manufacturers is going to wake up to the fact that there is a huge market out there for a simple, no bells and whistles, robust, easily repaired, distinctive but not particularly stylish electric car. This will cause them great problems but will also bring them huge benefits. First the problems.

Such an electric car will cut deeply into the sales of their other models. It will greatly reduce their sales of spare parts such as filters, engine parts, brake pads (most of the braking in electric cars is regenerative) and so forth. In addition if they make this car so that parts from one model fit other models both across the models and across the years, they will eventually pretty well saturate the market. From then on they will have steady but much smaller sales volumes. So why should they bother. Here comes the good part.

They will have an enormous market and the first company that realizes this will cut deeply into the sales of all other car companies. Fortunately, unlike when America dominated the car market, we have lots of other countries making cars. One can picture Tata of India or Renault of France or BYD of China joining the dots and deciding to produce this car.

And just think what it would mean for the environment and our chance of surviving not only as a species, but in a fairly comfortable sort of life style such as we have now. Never mind the reduced use of fossil fuels as you charge this car with wind, hydro or solar power but such a car would reduce the mining of metals, garbage to land fills, degradation of our roads due to leaking fuel and oil, use of lubricants, pollution of our water ways and on and on.

So lets see what sort of car this would be.

First, like those iconic cars, the Model T Ford, Volks Wagen, Deux Cheveaux, and Mini, it would look distinctive (not attractive) and would not change over the years. But this would be more than skin deep. After the initial shake down process to get the bugs out, the inner workings of the car would not change. The same door handles and window winders, the same instruments (how many do you need in an electric car), interior lights, head light bulbs and so forth would fit the first car built and one built 10 years later. Sure there will likely be advances in, for instance, the efficiency of head light bulbs and these will be incorporated but the new bulbs will fit in the socket of any car in the series. And for that matter, if new more efficient electric motors or better batteries are developed, they will likewise fit in any car of any age.

The car will be designed to be very easily fixed by a mechanic of modest ability with a basic set of tools and the excellent manual that will be produced by Time Life books or Readers Digest. These manuals will set an industry standard for beauty and clearness. They will be tested by the tea lady, secretaries and wives of the executives of the car company and if they can't do any necessary repair on the car, back to the drawing board. Either the manual or the car or both will have to be changed. (no fair changing the tea lady)

There will be no warranty on the car. None whatsoever. At first this will be a negative selling point but as people gain confidence in the incredible reliability and robustness of the car, it will become one of the main selling points. Of course the savings from not having a warranty will be passed on in full to the customer. People will then take care of their car from the beginning and not thrash it during the warranty period. Anyone who doesn't want to get his hands dirty will easily find a garage to do any necessary work.

Just as radical, there will be no advertising. Advertising costs money and is built into the price of goods. Fortunately today there is another solution. If you have a really desired, unique product, with the internet, it goes "viral". Initially, the workers in the factory will be sold the first cars. As they drive them around, they will be noticed. People will start to enquire about them. An added benefit of a slow start up is that if there are any bugs that need sorting out, it can be done without the need for huge recalls. Initially, the car will only be sold in New Zealand but with our tourism, as the number of cars visible on our roads grows, we will start to get orders from overseas. By the time the big boys wake up to the fact that there is a new kid on the block, we will have magazines and radio hosts clamoring for interviews and the car will be well and truly launched.

The bumpers around the car will be high tech. Perhaps pneumatic with a pop out valve that absorbs energy by the squeezing of air out of the vent; sort of an all car airbag. The car would be able to take, say, a 10kph bump from any side without damage to the body of the car. Parts damaged by slightly faster collisions will be repairable by bolt on bolt off parts. Crush zones as in all modern cars would help to protect the passengers in more serious crashes.

The battery in this car will be made up of modules of a size agreed to with as many other car manufacturers as can be brought on board. Say a 20 by 30 by 50 mm unit that could be combined in series and parallel to achieve whatever voltage is required and configured to fit any available space(s). The car will be designed around this battery module just as rifles are designed around existing ammunition. And don't forget recycling. The battery must be designed so that it is very easily recycled to get back the minerals in it. An alternate solution would be to adopt the battery of Project Better Place as they have already designed the battery exchange stations.

As soon as technically feasible, solar panels will be incorporated into the body of the car. Technology is being developed so that panels which are not co-linear can all contribute whatever amount of power they are producing to the total without the lower output panels interfering with the higher output panels. Prius has come out with a panel that fits on the roof, between the front and back window which is reputed to give an extra 10 to 15km per day in the sun. A fully clad car might give 30km extra. There is also technology developing which allow windows to produce power from the sun.

A Skunk works philosophy will be adapted in designing the car. The Skunk works is the aircraft design unit that brought us the U2, the Blackbird and the Stealth fighter bomber. Their philosophy is to take as much as they can off the shelf and only innovate where necessary to achieve the desired characteristics in the plane they are developing. In the case of the simple electric car the manufacturer will use the best paint package already developed for long lasting rust proofing, a tire rim size that is most common in the market, a standard socket for head lights, an existing bumper if a suitable one is available, well proven rack and pinion (not powered) steering gear and so forth. Through all the design, durability, range, cost, and ease of repair will be the major considerations. Actually it can all be boiled down to cost except here we are talking about cost in the long term; cost over the life of the car.

I wonder which car company will be the one to break ranks and give us the car we want. If it is an American company, the world is their market. If it is a Kiwi company, America and the world is our market.

Tanning leather with walnut husks

I have to say, right from the start, I know nothing about tanning hides. My boys bring skins home from time to time from rabbits, Tahr, deer and wild pigs. We have also had some skins from pigs we raise and even a few from an aborted ostrich venture. We have tried some of the methods such as baking soda and kerosine but that seems to me to be more perserving the hide rather than actually tanning it into leather. We have a Tahr skin on the floor done by the baking soda method but I suspect that if it ever got wet and the baking soda washed out of it, it would rot.

We have a large walnut tree which gives us 4 to 6 20litre buckets of walnuts each year and some 15 small trees that have been planted in various places. One year, we left a bucket of unshucked walnuts outside and it rained that night. When I poured the walnuts out on a flat surface to dry, the water was the colour of very strong tea. Tannin, I thought. Perhaps we can tan hides with that.

This year when we harvested the walnuts we kept the husks which had collected on the net and the husks which we had to peel from some of the shells. This husk is fleshy and green when the walnut is growing but by the time the walnut falls, the husk is black and papery.

At present we are in the middle of tanning a catle beast hide (cow for those of you north of the equator) and I will describe what we have done and what we do in the future as time goes on. No idea how it is going to work out so I'll add information as we go along.

We got the hide from a friend the day it was skinned from the cow. It had lots of fat and some meat on it and hair on the outside. One of my boys and I hung it over the rail of our trailer and started to flense it. I can't say we did a very good job. We got off pretty well all the meat but quite a bit of fat was left and I managed to make a couple of holes through the hide. I need much more practice.

I know Sodium Hydroxide (lye) is supposed to dissolve fat and loosen hair so we put 500g of lye into a bath tub out in a field, with enough water to cover the hide and we pushed the hide around in this solution. We left it there for 4 days, stirring it around a couple of times a day. The initially very flexible hide turned very stiff. After 4 days we turned the hide out on to a piece of ply wood, hair side up and started to scrape off the hair. We used a variety of tools, all dull, including a weeding tool that looks like an eskimo ulu on the end of a rake handle.

Once we had the hair off the hide, we put about 15kg of salt and two feed sacks of walnut husks into the bathtub with enough water to cover the hide. There were also a few handfuls of small walnuts that we hadn't bother to shuck. In went the hide and we stirred it around for a few days. My son decided that this was not a very convenient vessle for the purpose so he removed the top from an oak wine barrel and transferred the whole lot to the barrel. It was indeed much more convenient. Very easy to plunge and stir the whole lot with a stick.

After a few days, the hide started to turn brown with a lovely......well....walnut colour. Within two weeks the penetration was about a fifth of the way in (seen by cutting a sliver of hide off the edge. We decided to try something

On a fairly dry day, we pulled the hide out of the barrel and draped it over the barrel. The idea was to let it dry so that when the hide was put back, it would suck in more of the tannin. We will continue this way for a while, until the hide is brown through. It actually feels a little leather like already (wishful thinking?).

Latest development. My son made up a flensing rig. It is a 200mm diameter turned log of about 2m long with a couple of lets set into one end. The log thus sits with one end on the ground and the other end at about belly button level. He then sharpened a 40cm long mower blade along the edge. The hide is draped over the log, you lean against the upper end of the log and scrape away from yourself with the blade. Seems to work a treat. We are reflensing the cow hide and allowing it to dry somewhat as we do it. Where the leather is thin, it is dark brown all the way through. The rest is dark about a fifth of the way through. Will immerse it again in a couple of days and the dry leather should suck up more of the tanning liquor.

The Mt Cass Wind Farm

Permission has just been denied for the construction of the Mt Cass Wind farm in N. Canterbury, New Zealand. After reading the report from the Wind Farm hearings, I have the strong impression of a wide consensus amongst a large number of highly qualified experts that the impact of the wind farm will be minimal. Moreover, with the proposed fencing, trapping of pests and a great reduction in grazing, it was considered highly likely that there would actually be an improvement in most areas of contention. Be that as it may, there are wider issues.

There is a body of opinion, supported by research, computer models and paleontology that we are close to causing a major, sudden climate shift. That is to say, a sudden change when we reach the threshold which initiates a number of run away positive feed backs (clathrate break down for instance). This opinion is held by the majority of the most prominent scientists in the world today, not the least of which is Jim Hansen, the chief climatologist at the Goddard Space Agency of NASA

And no, I don't think that our wind farm by itself will reverse climate change. However, I believe one should act as you would like others to act. I don't throw paper on the street, not because I think that my little piece of paper would make any difference but because if everyone did it we would be knee deep in garbage. I believe positive actions should be based on the same principle. If we give any credence to the climate change theory, then we very much hope that others will install wind farms to reduce our carbon foot print. We should play our part and not expect others to save us while we do nothing.

The threat of climate change has elements of what a rock climber would call exposure. The climb may be easy or hard but there is a huge drop below so the consequences of a fall are serious. If indeed a climate shift occurs, the consequences are serious indeed. Any flora or fauna that we think we are protecting on the Mt. Cass ridge will likely perish. That will be the least of our problems. The present agriculture of the Waipara Valley which is on the edge of wine grape tolerance, will collapse along with great swaths of the agriculture of the world. Yes we will learn what alternative crops to grow both locally and world wide but in the mean time millions will starve.

You may find it difficult to believe in the possibility of sudden climate change. You are not alone. A small but significant proportion of the scientists of the world are also climate change sceptics and they could be correct. Science is not a consensus process. What is right is right, and times without number in the past the minority has been correct so there is a possibility that the sceptics are correct and we won't experience a sudden dramatic, disasterous change in climate in the near future. However, there are other reasons for wind farms which are far more immediate, necessary for New Zealand and self evident

Our New Zealand Balance of Payments is catastrophic. We spend much more money than we earn as a country. The importation of energy in the form of liquid fossil fuel is a significant contributor to this sorry stare of affairs. President Obama has understood the implications of this problem for the USA and is acting accordingly. His aim is to make the USA independent of overseas energy. As a small country we are far more vulnerable than America. We have however a huge advantage over the Yanks. We already generate something like 50% of our energy from hydro and another 10% from geothermal. And.... we have very good wind resources If we develop them

Just as an aside with regard to our economy. Money itself has no value. It is an enabler. It is like the oil in a car. It does no good sitting in the sump. It only has value when it circulates. Money passes from hand to hand in one direction as services and good pass from hand to hand in the other direction. Money symbolizes the worth of the good or service given. When we send money overseas to purchase energy, it is like having a leaky sump gasket. Eventually enough oil leaks out and the engine seizes up. Similarly with money. Money, however, which is used to buy power from a local provider is used by them to purchase Kiwi goods and services and these providers in turn buy goods and services from other Kiwi Businesses. The money circulates and enables our economy. We need to buy our energy from a local producer rather than from an overseas oil giant. We need to get our economy into a positive balance of payments. To continue the analogy, we need to get New Zealand into a situation such that more oil is coming into the engine than is leaking out. For a home, business or country, the alternative is poverty.

There has been much controversy recently over why the price of our electrical power is increasing at such a rate. Logically, with our already paid for hydro installations with our geo-thermal power, our cost of electricity should be pretty stable. With our huge huge wind resources, our power costs should stabilize and even come down in real terms. We just have to develop them. Energy is a significant component of all manufacturing and agriculture and we are very dependent for our economic well-being on exports. Having a stable or decreasing energy cost component in our manufacturing and agricultural goods gives us a distinct advantage on world markets. If we are to survive in an ever more hostile, unstable world economy, we need every possible advantage.

Anyone watching the news over the past few years will be well aware that many many of our businesses have fled overseas to more favorable economic climates and to where labour is less expensive. The economic climate can be improved by our government if she has the will to do so. There is not much we can do about labour cost but consider this. In businesses in which few people are needed to produce goods and in which energy (to power machinery) is paramount, cheap labour becomes less of a factor in the bottom line. For all industries in this position, cheap energy will be the deciding factor in whether the business stays here or locates overseas.

And finally, practical electric cars are about to reach the market. At last count there were 9 serious car manufacturers about to put electrics or hybrids on the market. Note that such serious players as California and Israel are reticulating their areas with vehicle charging outlets and battery exchange stations in anticipation of this development. The development of the electric car helps us in two ways. First it reduces our energy imports, directly improving our balance of payments. Secondly, by playing our part in reducing the demand for liquid fossil fuels, it ensures that the price of fossil fuels will never rise again as it did last year. Simple supply and demand. Our trucks will never be able to convert to electricity and keeping the demand for oil low ensures that the liquid fuel that they run on is affordable and their businesses are viable.

One other consideration is applicable to the people of the Hurunui area. We own, in some sense, our electrical company, Main Power. Don't ask me to explain the details. I do not understand them. However, if they make a profit, you may have noticed a nice return on your electrical bill. At present Main power is a power distribution company but with a wind farm, they become a electricity generation company. Instead of putting out money to buy power which they sell us, they will be producing power for us and selling the surplus. There are no guarantees but I would suspect that our rebate might increase once we are generating power within the Hurunui.

In summary
A large number of our most able Kiwi experts have voiced the opinion that the ecological impact of the wind farm will be minimal and with measures which the Power company has committed to (offsets), could well be positive

If climate change does unfold as predicted by a wide range of the worlds most serious scientists, the implication for the world in general and New Zealand in particular will make the combined disasters of the first world war and subsequent flue epidemic pale in comparison. It may not happen. Some scientists are still sceptical about the predictions and they could be right. The consequences if they are wrong will be apocolyptic. Having our own in-house electric generation will go some way to mitigate the effects of climate change.

The economic effects on our disastrous Balance of Payments of replacing imported energy by home generated energy are too obvious to need further explanation

As electric cars come on line we must be generating the power to charge them from internally generated renewable sources. Charging our electric cars using imported fossil fuel largely defeats the benefits from this development.

There is a reasonable chance that we, in the Hurunui, will be paying less for our power if Main Power becomes a generator of electricity.