By Timothy Welch*
The war in Iran and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz have sent oil prices past US$100 a barrel – and Kiwis flocking to fill up. Petrol just hit NZ$3 a litre and some stations have reported running dry.
In response to about 20% of the world’s oil supply being shut off in just a few days, the International Energy Agency announced its largest-ever coordinated reserve release of 400 million barrels. But analysts warn oil could reach US$150 a barrel if the strait stays closed.
For a country that imports every drop of its petrol, diesel and jet fuel, this is not only a problem, it’s a hard reminder New Zealand has failed to mitigate such strategic vulnerability.
Since Marsden Point stopped refining oil in 2022, New Zealand has imported all its refined fuel, mostly from South Korea and Singapore. Those refineries rely on crude oil shipped through the waters now blocked by Iranian drones.
The latest official fuel stocks update suggests roughly 52 days of total cover, with less than 33 days of petrol in the country. This buffer was only designed to smooth over short disruptions, not substitute for a prolonged supply crisis.
Motorists are already starting to hoard supplies, with petrol stations in Auckland already selling out of fuel cans. Some drivers may well be regretting not having bought an electric vehicle earlier.
Failure to electrify
New Zealand generates more than 85% of its electricity from renewable sources – rising to a record 96.4% in the last quarter of 2025. It has one of the cleanest and most oil-independent electricity systems in the world.
Yet transport, which consumes nearly 40% of all energy in the country, remains almost entirely chained to imported oil. Electricity provides just 0.5% of domestic transport energy. It didn’t have to be that way.
For all its imperfections, the Clean Car Discount scheme started in 2021 was shifting the needle. Over its life, the scheme put 192,000 rebates into the hands of New Zealanders buying cleaner vehicles.
The scheme cost $634 million, leaned on government grants to stay afloat, and had real affordability gaps. But it was doing one thing very well: bringing in more cars with less petrol dependence.
EV fleet growth exceeded 50% per year while the scheme operated. When the current government killed it at the end of 2023, that growth collapsed to under 10%. The government is now reportedly considering scrapping the Clean Car Standard, the remaining incentive for importing lower fossil fuel-consuming vehicles.
Unaffordable road projects
The reversal of alternatives to petrol goes further. The government withdrew funding for Auckland’s under-25 and children’s fares on public transport. The Transport Choices program, which funded walking, cycling and bus improvements across the country, was frozen and then effectively killed.
Planned light rail for Auckland was cancelled. And the walking and cycling component of a second Auckland Harbour crossing was stripped out, leaving only plans for more car lanes.
Nationally, walking and cycling improvements received roughly $391 million in the current National Land Transport Plan, about 1.7% of the fund, while state highway improvements got $6.18 billion.
Seventeen mega-highway projects – the Roads of National Significance – carry an estimated cost of between $44 billion and $56 billion, a figure that keeps climbing. Treasury has warned the National Land Transport Fund can cover just under half of the overall projected $120 billion investment pipeline.
Seven of the first eight of those highway projects did not have completed business cases when funding decisions were being made. In mid-February, the Infrastructure Commission called the program unaffordable. Ten days later, the US and Israel attacked Iran.
Never too late
Every decade brings an oil shock. Each time, New Zealand could have used the crisis to create policies and plans to wean itself off over-reliance on petrol. Instead, it has waited for prices to settle and gone back to building roads and buying petrol cars.
The country now owns 815 light vehicles for every 1,000 people, one of the highest rates in the world. Road transport emissions have grown 82% since 1990.
New Zealand still has a choice, however. It already powers lights, hospitals and factories with renewable electricity. It could have powered a diverse transport system the same way, and it still can.
Every bus electrified, every cycleway built, every train funded is a direct reduction in exposure to the next crisis. The question now is whether New Zealanders begin to treat their car dependence not as a lifestyle choice but as a strategic liability.
*Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
50 Comments
Thanks for reminding me why I never vote for National. That makes this election's vote difficult.
That is one hell of a list of "achievements" for nact.
Personally, I was never going to vote for the pro pollution party, or hangers on anyway, but it's always good to lay out why they are so hopelessly inadequate. It's not the 1950s anymore.
On the other hand, our "clean energy advantage" will soon disappear as our 40% of transport energy demand switches to electric and we pursue the yeasty ideology of exponential economic growthism.
Protest vote for TOP?
Social media tagline could be #slightlylesscrazythantheothers
Yes, but those with leveraged "accidental" capital gain interests are never going to vote in the Land tax.
To be fair there are more than one of TOP's policies that I don't agree with.
However other parties have even more policies I disagree with.
I don't expect TOP will form a government anytime soon, nor even be in a position at the next election to dictate the policies of a coalition government (although NZ first and ACT both got their minority views pushed through). I'd like to see them get more exposure to the wider population though, and one way to do this is get a seat or two in Parliament.
Plus, National and Labour have said all sorts of things in past elections and never progressed them once in power.
All those dudes who trolled social media about how public transport, cycling, walking and EVs were a communist plot, better get off the couch and walk down to the gym to get in shape.
Or just use the increased costs to suppress what ever tax your company used to contribute. Not as much as PIs used got away with, but it all helps.
Hard to live without fossil fuel down on the farm… horses can help a bit for mustering but not feeding out large bales etc
Large bales weren't a thing before the 1980s. We survived. Perhaps everything just needs to get smaller again. There's a novel thought?
I've also been thinking about over large and heavy farm machines and urea use since it's lately been on the news. Heavy machines compact the soil and reduce soil aeration and fertility = lower crop yields. I tried a low dose of urea on a couple of feijoa trees about 20 years ago- never again as it made them so sick and took > year to recover their health. I tried to figure out the reason why and concluded that the urea was binding the trace elements in the soil so the trees were starving? A clever scheme of fertility destruction by fertilizer companies to sell more trace elements each year? Now I use calcium nitrate to supply the nitrogen as part of full balanced nutrient pumped fertigation except when the soil is too wet to take it and then use small dose granular fertilizer instead.
On RNZ grain farmers complain about diesel price increases for machines needing 1000 to 2000 litres diesel /day. Lighter smaller self driving machines are likely a far better way of harvesting grain, with with reduced soil compaction and GHG emissions and lower fuel costs, or better still rechargeable full electric harvesters.
It's true large machinery causes severe soil compaction, but I'm not sure it's worse than small machinery. The large gear spreads the load over a larger footprint, needs fewer passes and can do multiple processes at once. Really more damage is done needing to operate on less than ideal ground conditions like running a combine over wet ground. Probably better to look at the need for ag machinery at all? Much production is for animal feed which could be mitigated by reducing stocking levels and shifting factory operations outdoors.
On the Nitrogen? Probably one of the main downsides of adding synthetic N is it depletes soil carbon. Soil organisms use the N, like being on steroids, to break down soil organic matter and when coupled with cultivation, basically destroys soil structure. Synthetic N will cause a flush of soft sappy growth a few weeks after application, depending on temperature and moisture. It's residual effects on growth should be well and truely gone within 4 months of application. My own feijoa trees get no synthetic N fert and are prolific. They do get compost and a bit of potash as the fruit develops.
Its all about ground pressure and moisture content of the soil when using a heavy machine.
Generally tracked machines have lower ground pressure than wheeled machines.
There's a simple 'worm' test to decide if soil moisture contend is too high. It goes like this:
Pick up some soil and roll it between the palms of your hands. If it forms a holding together worm shape, soil is too wet. If it doesn't form the worm or forms a crumbly worm, soil moisture level is okay.
My understanding is that it's the clay (very fine soil particles) content in the soil that particularly influences vulnerability to compaction. Volcanic derived, and sandy soils have lowest vulnerability
From practitioner feedback, the difference between a worm forming and crumbly worm may only be a couple of hours, yet that wait before engaging makes a big positive difference to soil structure, ease of cultivation (= energy input, = hp/kw fuel) and crop performance.
Tractors can be battery powered too
Not sure the sort torque required to pull a large ag impliment could ever be supplied by battery. A small tractor with something light like a PTO sprayer, topper, or forks for lifting? Biodiesel is probably a better option?
AI gave this to the question: how does tongue output compare between a 100kw diesel motor and a 100kw electric motor?
A 100kW electric motor generally produces significantly higher torque, starting from 0 RPM, compared to a 100kW diesel engine, which must increase its speed (RPM) to reach peak torque. While they share the same maximum power (100kW), the electric motor offers instantaneous torque and a much broader torque curve, while the diesel engine has a narrow, higher-RPM torque.
Doesn't answer your battery capability question though
AI also told me that for a 100kw electric tractor running at 80%-90% power output (heavy load) for 8 hours, and 800kwh battery would be required. For medium load (40%-60% power output) a 500kwh battery.
It also told me an 800kwh battery pack would weigh approximately 5000kg, while a 500kwh battery pack (maybe 2 battery packs, swap out at lunchtime) would weigh approximately 3000kg
Topher has done the numbers on the electric tractor fantasy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAtuGuVv2I
It's also a few hundred grand for a battery that size.
The tech scales badly the heavier the use case is.
Yes, well that wasn't the initial question 🤣🤣
Currently
Ignoring the weight, that doesn't seem practical to me? I know electric motors are vastly superior in energy conversion, but that huge drain on battery stored energy is going to generate a lot of heat and basically destroy the battery I would have thought?
On the weight thing, the inclusion of a battery pack on a 100kw tractor is basically going to double the weight of the unit. Perhaps this can be mitigated by going fully tracked?
Biodiesel is made from a crop that results in plants not being grown for food. The classic Opportunity Cost that biodiesel proponents conveniently forget about.
Do biodiesel proponents "Forget about" the fact a crop needs to be grown to produce, or is it so obvious it doesn't need stating? Biodiesel is by no means a perfect solution. I'm not even sure it can produce a positive EROEI? A better solution might be getting everyone out of the supermarket and growing their own veg using a fork and hoe?
Do biodiesel proponents "Forget about" the fact a crop needs to be grown to produce, or is it so obvious it doesn't need stating?
I think it needs to be pointed out. Critical thinking in general is a dying art and unless the negative is pointed out, much of the general populace don't even consider there are any negatives.
'A better solution might be getting everyone out of the supermarket and growing their own veg using a fork and hoe? '
It may..excepting an increasing proportion live in environments with zero growing space.
Carrying capacity
It may also be worth considering capability....why would anyone grow say peas?....they are currently cheap and available but if someone dosnt retain the ability if they disappear from the retailers ( country?) for whatever reason can they be grown, and even if so when? Food in 8 months time is of little use if you are hungry today.
Resilience (redundancy)
Tractors can be battery powered too
You can power almost anything with a battery if you want.
But tractors/farm equipment do heavy stuff, often for 8+hrs a day, often in remote locations. So not compatible with currently available battery tech.
Electric tractors don't have to be battery powered - Ammonia to power fuel cell prototype (link below) that doesn't have the significant weight penalty of batteries.
https://amogy.co/worlds-first-carbon-free-ammonia-powered-tractor-case-…
Moving away from motorised personal transport would have greater uptake if we had effective public transport to replace it, as our cities have been shaped by generations of planning around cars, while social participation and even basic functions like getting groceries rely up upon personal mobility.
Living in Dunedin, the push for cycling and walking here is ageist in an ageing city, and doesn't acknowledge the reality of terrain, weather and the need to carry loads. The public transport system doesn't really go where people need it to as much of it still radial from the CBD that may well have outlived its usefulness, rather than connecting across nodes of activity.
Not a fun prospect having to haul the bike up high street into the hills on the daily, coupled with sleet, ice and occasional snow in the darker months down there. maybe a simpler proposition from the likes of Musselburgh or Andy bay, but then again biking the main road around th ecoats there would come with it's own inherent risks.
It looks like the residents agree: the urban cycleways are close to deserted, and the properly separated Portobello to Port Chalmers cycleway seems to be mainly for recreational use, not functional travel.
Noone has taught the transport planners that 'built it and they will come' isn't a viable strategy.
Public transport is key, and becoming slowly more adopted by the masses as they realise its benefit, however if there are no traffic issues, fuels is relatively affordable and there are generations of constituents who don't like change, it is a harder sell. I haven;t lived in Dunedin for years, but last I visited I never saw much of a traffic issue. Nelson used to be very small town, old families etc, and there's still an element of that for career progression sadly, but the influx of new people and new subdivisions since 2020 is proving useful in adding diversity, and increasing uptake of the e-bus fleet the council purchased. Patronage is on the rise, routes and number of buses getting adjusted based on demand and feedback, it is great to see this as a viable option now. Seems insane that we never had an airport bus until 1.5 years ago.
Dunedin still has no public transport to the airport, so a lot of people drive out there, park on the nearby rural roads and walk in to the terminal as the airport parking is expensive for what it is, while the appallingly slow shuttles are $30, and taxis run around $100.
I think it's becasue the airport company is part of the Dunedin City Council, while the bus services are controlled by the Otago Regional Council: never the twain shall meet - and hopefully something to be resolved when the ORC ceases to be. I don't think there will be many mourners.
I was in Oslo during a spring snow shower and was surprised by the number of people commuting on bikes. Apparently they have mini tractor snow plows to clear the bike paths.
Auckland is forced into car dependency by the urban planners of Auckland. Auckland leaves vacant gaps between housing areas. Aucklanders live in a mess of increasingly disconnected planned massive exurban sprawl. Car usage helps people cope with the disconnection.
Then we get articles like this where some Auckland urban planner type blames people living in their mess for using cars. They always go on about - light rail (for the inner suburbs), cycle lanes (for the inner suburbs), pedestrianisation (for the inner suburbs), increased bus use (for the inner suburbs). All while the Auckland plan prevents growth (for the inner suburbs).
There is a solution known to the entire world - except Auckland - build housing closer together.
'New Zealand generates more than 85% of its electricity from renewable sources – rising to a record 96.4% in the last quarter of 2025."
Yet a 12% rise in electricity cost last year. Can we afford more intermittent virtue signalling - that doesn't provide process heat for industries like Watties?
If we are too sqeamish from traditional hydrocarbons start building some gen IV nuclear so we can produce our electricity, hydrocarbons, process heat and NH3 domestically. Ardern successfully rooted our domestic oil and gas sector so high time to replace it with nuclear, get back drilling or develop CTL from our vast coal reserves.
Perhaps not doing bulk deals to international datacenters, who paid nothing to build capa ity in NZ, could help.
Profile is a spinner.
Not alone in that, but that's what he amounts to.
CTL has such an awful EROEI that modernity doesn't maintain itself on it, let alone grow. Entropy beats such less-than-oil energy sources every time.
But of bigger moment, is that fact that 'renewables' - really rebuildables - have never created themselves. Again, the EROEI isn't good enough.
"In summary, for plant capacity of 10,000 to 60,000 barrels per day of FT fuel output, the production costs range from 47 to 68 NZ cents per litre (12.9 to 17.2NZ$/GJ)."
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/assets/8fb7b2c240/liquid-fuels-from-lignite.pdf
"The results show that nuclear, hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems (in this order) are one order of magnitude more effective than photovoltaics and wind power.
...Photovoltaics, biomass and wind (buffered) are below the economical threshold."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492
As fuel becomes more expensive the relative viability of orbital datacenters increases. By capturing solar power they do not require terrestrial power. And they can also sell excess power to Earth. Win, win, win.
Geothermal could fill the gap. Better than coal...
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360952137/geothermal-loans-unlock-poten…
Yes, some interesting projects out there at the moment.
Through its two wholly owned subsidiaries, American Data Power and American Critical Resources, CTR is pursuing a phased buildout designed to deliver up to 650 MW of renewable baseload electricity to power next-generation AI and hyperscale computing infrastructure, alongside an estimated 100,000 metric tons per year of lithium carbonate production at full scale. The project is also targeting the production of other minerals critical to US industrial capacity, including potash, zinc, manganese, rubidium, and cesium.
https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/ctr-enters-public-listing-to-advance-hel…
Finally had the means to go electric last year and bought a PHEV. I love not filling up. Am at 6000km driven and so far 3 tanks of gas, for long trips. I wish I had gone full EV but can't change it now.
If you're on the fence, just do it. So, so nice not to have to go to petrol stations anymore, it's cheaper to run, accelerates quicker, and you can take advantage of cheap overnight plans to charge when rates are low. EVs today are not your 2011 Nissan Leafs that lost range quickly, any more than you would buy an iPhone 1. The battery technology has, and continues to, improve rapidly and the new ones are great.
Agree. We had solar installed a couple of years ago and last Sept acquired a 2nd hand Kia 60kWh EV with a range of around 420km.
In the 6 months since, we've travelled 6000kms and it hasn't cost me a cent in fuel other than RUC
I've thought about EV for my next vehicle as we'll be in need of a second one soonish, but hybrid seems logical given the additional range vs EV and availability of petrol stations still being king for now. We have a 25yr old petrol station wagon that does well for room, grunt, towing capacity etc, but having a child brings about other complexities that one vehicle makes a tad more difficult. In the interim, still biking to work and have a 50cc to hoon around on for quick supermarket trips and such. Can't complain when a $10 tank in the scooter goes up to $12.
It's been our plan to invest in an EV for a long time. Been waiting for the ability to use the car battery as storage instead of a separate battery bank. Have a solar array that's quietly been pumping out the watts for over a decade now. Really want to save the excess generation and spend those watts ourselves, instead of feeding them to the power company at ripoff rates. These little $30000 BYDs look a promising option for a cheap ride into town.
They seem good for a town car, but I would hesitate at using them as a battery bank as you say, as naturally they are built to a standard of a set number of charge cycles that the manufacturer has tested just as smart phones are, and I too wouldn't plan on using these up arbitrarily sooner than later. Then again we are 5km from town where we live so it isn't a stretch either way.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.