The post-oil energy economies of the future - by Gordon Brown
Posted by Euan Mearns on July 15, 2008 - 8:45am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: carbon capture, concentrating solar power, eib, electric vehicles, gordon brown, hybrids, nuclear power, original, phev, post-oil, severn barrage [list all tags]

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown - from zero to hero?
.... to set ourselves on a new energy path - a path from our economies that are today over-dependent on oil towards the post-oil energy economies of the future. And moving towards this sustainable energy economy helps us meet our economic, political and environmental goals.
| The stuff of Statesmanship? From a speech made by Gordon Brown on 13th July at The Union for the Mediterranean Summit. The whole speech is below the fold. My emphasis added. |
At this summit the 27 nations of the European Union and our Mediterranean neighbours pledge ourselves to take action to promote our mutual prosperity, security, liberty and democracy.
We must now leave behind the old wasteful, oil dependent ways of yesterday and embrace the new cleaner and sustainable energy future of tomorrow. The increases in oil and food prices we have seen over recent months are causing hardship to families and businesses in Britain and throughout Europe. They threaten economic instability and their production is environmentally not sustainable.
The years of cheap energy and careless pollution are behind us. We need a new strategy. Past total dependence on oil must give way to a clean energy future.
I have called for a better dialogue between oil producers and consumers and a more transparent market, and for measures to increase investment in oil production and refining. Following the meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia last month we will take these initiatives forward at the meeting in London in December, endorsed this week by the G8.
But improving the functioning of the oil market can be only one half of our strategy. The other must be to set ourselves on a new energy path - a path from our economies that are today over-dependent on oil towards the post-oil energy economies of the future. And moving towards this sustainable energy economy helps us meet our economic, political and environmental goals.
Today in Europe more than a third of our energy comes from oil, and a further 40 per cent from other fossil fuels - gas and coal. Only around 20 per cent of our energy comes from low carbon sources - renewables and nuclear. None as yet comes from fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage.
With our ambitious climate and energy package - which we must commit to completing under the French Presidency this year - Europe is on a path to increase the proportion of renewable energy in its energy mix by 2020 from under 10 per cent to 20 per cent. And if we are to meet our long-term climate change objectives - to reduce our emissions by at least 60 per cent by 2050 - Britain, alongside our European partners, will need to do even more.
And at the same time as we move to clean energy sources, we must also become much more efficient in the way we use energy. Over the last forty years the energy intensity of the British economy - the amount of energy we use per unit of national income - has been halved. But as our economy continues to grow we must reduce that still further.
So let me set out the five main points of an oil replacement strategy.
First, since 70 per cent of future oil demand is from transport, we need a step change in the fuel efficiency of vehicles. So Europe must push ahead with mandatory fuel emission standards for new cars. But to drive innovation in the car industry we need not just a target for 2012, but a target for 2020 to match those in the rest of the energy package. The UK is urging that this should be an average of 100 grammes per kilometre, a cut of 40 per cent from the 164 grammes today. This could reduce road fuel consumption in Britain by an average of 2 billion litres of road fuel a year and save the typical British motorist around £500 pounds a year in running costs.
To achieve such a target we will need to see the mass production of electric vehicles - conventional hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and fully electric vehicles. Electric vehicles are now available on our roads - but they are specialist cars and vans available only in small numbers. I want to see the mass production of hybrid and electric drive technology in ordinary family models.
And I want to see those cars manufactured in Britain. So I will be meeting with leaders from the British motor industry next week to discuss their plans for hybrid, electric and other low carbon car technologies.
Already initiatives are under way in several countries to accelerate the commercialisation of electric vehicles by supporting the required charging infrastructure and automotive technologies.
At the European Council in June we agreed to explore the scope to accelerate the introduction of commercially viable electric vehicles - and the infrastructure that their widespread use would require - in the EU.
And today, as a next step, Britain is discussing with other countries - including Denmark, Portugal, Israel and Germany - how we can create a strong policy and consumer environment to promote the development of electric vehicles. And I will propose that we convene a meeting of energy, automotive and planning experts to exchange key information on infrastructure requirements and technology standards in advance of the London energy summit later this year.
Second, we need all countries to commit to taking rapid action to improve energy efficiency in households and businesses. The G8 nations this week committed to implementing the IEA's 25 recommendations on energy efficiency. If implemented globally these could cut oil consumption by 15 per cent and energy-related carbon emissions by 20 per cent, equivalent to the emissions of the US and Japan combined. Europe must therefore commit to implementing its own energy efficiency action plan.
The UK is the first European country to phase out energy inefficient light bulbs - which we will do by 2011. We want the rest of the continent to follow. We need agreement on lower levels of VAT for energy saving goods, as proposed by Britain. And we need to move faster to develop energy efficient standards for appliances, such as phasing out inefficient standby on electronic goods.
In Britain we will also introduce new measures to encourage the installation of household insulation and energy efficiency appliances, which can together save a typical British family up to 20 per cent - £170 pounds a year - off their energy bills.
Third, I am convinced that we need a renaissance of nuclear power. Britain is now moving quickly to replace its ageing fleet of nuclear power stations. And all around the world I see renewed interest in this technology, as countries contemplate the alternative - continued oil dependence and unchecked climate change.
So Britain will work to make possible the best arrangements for security, safety and disposal. Last week the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority announced a preferred bidder for the clean up contract at Sellafield. We are also collaborating with France in this field, and stand ready to do so with others.
Fourth, we need a massive expansion of renewables. Britain is fully committed to the EU target that 20 per cent of all energy must come from renewable sources by 2020. Last month Britain set out its strategy to meet our own 15 per cent renewable target - a $100 billion investment programme over the next twelve years.
As a result of this strategy Britain will become the global centre for offshore wind. We will see major investment in energy from waste and biomass and in new forms of microgeneration. We are pushing ahead with the development of marine and tidal technologies, including an examination of a tidal scheme on the River Severn, which could supply 5 per cent of all the UK's electricity.
And now I believe it is time for a major investment in the development of solar power. The IEA suggests that additional investment of up to 215 million square meters of solar panels will be needed every year to 2050. And particularly in the Mediterranean region, concentrated solar power offers the prospect of an abundant low carbon energy source. Indeed, just as Britain's North Sea could be the Gulf of the future for offshore wind, so those sunnier countries represented here could become a vital source of future global energy by harnessing the power of the sun.
So I am delighted that that the EU is committing at this summit to work with its neighbours - including Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and the League of Arab States - to explore the development of a new 'Mediterranean Solar Plan' for the development and deployment of this vital technology from the Sahara northwards.
Last, and because we recognise that fossil fuels will continue to be an important part of our energy supplies for years to come, we must make good our commitment in the EU and globally to the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage. I am pleased that last month the European Council asked the Commission under the French Presidency to develop an incentive mechanism, which would enable the EU to meet its target of up to 12 demonstration plants by 2015.
The UK and France committed earlier this year to work together on an action plan to work towards not just demonstration but the EU's aspiration to move towards deployment of CCS by 2020. Britain is already working with Norway, Canada and the Netherlands on how to do this. And we are discussing this weekend how we can collaborate with Spain in this field, bringing together British and Spanish companies and experts to examine and exploit opportunities.
The development and deployment of all these low carbon technologies will require a partnership between government and the private sector. Governments can and will provide the right framework of regulation and incentives. The private sector will have to provide the investment. But we can support this too.
So I call on the European Investment Bank to use its 3 billion euro sustainable energy fund to support a clear strategy for the reduction in global dependence on oil and traditional fossil fuels and for the development and deployment of new low carbon energy technologies. And we need to see a similar refocusing of EIB spend within the EU.
We live in a new era. Today our globalised, energy-hungry and warming world requires a shift from oil dependence to sustainable energy.
Only with political leadership from all of us will we be able to move towards a new sustainable economy. This is now Britain's goal. It must be Europe's destiny. In this unique partnership of European and Mediterranean nations, let us commit ourselves to realising it.
I will give Gordon Brown 7 out of 10 for this effort. It's the closest I've seen to a coherent plan for the future of energy in the UK. It repeats certain strategies that have been unveiled piece meal in recent months but places these is a sensible context of post-oil, energy security, political security, economy and climate. In particular I like the juxtaposition of:
- Expansion of nuclear
- Expansion of renewables, possibly including Severn barrage
- Discussion of solar energy with Mediterranean states
- Tax breaks for energy efficiency measures
- Electric vehicles are placed on the agenda
My main criticism of the content here is inclusion of carbon capture and storage that will likely be obsolete given the massive CO2 reductions delivered by the non-combustion of non-existent fossil fuels implicit in this strategy.
There are certain key omissions as well. In particular we require an emergency strategy for reducing oil consumption now and abandonment of expanding our fossil fuel based transportation in favor of high speed electric collective transport.
For me, this speech is a significant step in the right direction. One step at a time I guess. And plan delivery is of course imperative.
Hat tip to Zizania at Postmanpatel for the link to GB's speech.



Thanks for picking up this speech. Unfortunately it seems to have been completely missed by the mainstream media.
That is a very good point. Where is the media on this story?!
This is a major speech from the Prime Minister. Sure, it's light on details but as a framework it's pretty new. I would have expected this to get some television news coverage but I've seen nothing this evening.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL1338159220080714
"Early editions of Monday's British newspapers reported that Brown wanted at least eight new nuclear power stations to come on stream in Britain during the next 15 years.
Brown, who also attended the summit, said a "renaissance" of nuclear power was one of the key elements of the British government's oil replacement strategy."
Perhaps the editors think Brown on the front page won't sell papers!
Is it news anyway?
As is said they are mostly proposals that have been released piecemeal already.
Well It is very hard to report on a story that implies that the cost of liquid fuel will go uop, if your sponsors and advertising contracts are made up of the big Car manufacturers and oil giants. Here in Australia the term "Peak OIL" is now becoming ever present in our Organised media. (ABC,au, Like BBC) one thing I know for sure, (being an insider) is that MSNBC (General Electric) have been signing a lot of contracts for distribution over the last six months. Any media outlet that has one of these contracts, will never use the term "Peak OIL" or "GMO monsanto" See if MSNBC has crept into the Business section of your chosen News source, If so dump it.
It seems that the ruling elite who I think intend to remove the labour party from office at the next election don't deem this suitable news for the general public.
Ridiculed though this may be by people who don't believe in conspiracy, it's hard to explain this kind of media omission without infering some kind of hidden power agenda. If we had a sovereign government, should they not be able to promote speeches like this?
Alternatively, the 'government' doesn't actually mean to follow through with this, and so don't want the domestic electorate thinking too much about it, or they know nuclear power is too thorny an issue to touch at home, and want to keep it out of the media as much as possible.
Just thoughts.
I think overall, the lack of MSM interest in this speech is quite simply that they have lost the ability to recognise significant news when they see or hear it.
If its not sensational and if it doesn't have immediate appeal to the masses then it's not recognised as news.
In the UK winters to come, when its quite likely there will be widespread hardship, the media will be all over the stories of grannies dying form the cold. But a major policy speech that may just help fix this problem a decade from now is not worthy of comment.
The lack of in depth and objective analysis by both media and academia on matters of vital national interest is one of the greatest failings of our society today.
Yes, anything that requires even a little attention and holistic thought from people runs in the opposite direction to the purpose of (esp. televison) news, which is to pander to, and promote our animal instincts that lead us along hedonic treadmills to oblivion.
The broadcasting oligopoly is the most powerful influence over peoples lives I'd say, and those who set the agenda surely have more power than our elected government.
If only the types of things we discuss here were given an important place in our education system. But then people wouldn't make such passive, all consuming, debt slaves - I suppose.
At least we can reasonably expect a change of some sort when consumers are no longer fit for purpose, rendered that way by poverty.
I reckon Euan Mearns's comment above about the role adopted by the Media is one of the most pertinent and accurate observations I have ever read. I intend to write it down and re-read regularly so that I can reassure myself of the relatively simple changes that could help put the world right!
Thanks so much for publicising this speech by Gordon Brown.
I am sure I was not the only UK Oil Drum reader who was literally starting to despair at the empty soundbytes and general cluelessness being reported from the UK government around critical issues of energy and economic policy.
Thanks.
Peter, Tamworth.
Euan, you are being kind in attributing the bias to sensationalism. I receive 4 local newspapers each week, delivered to my door, free of charge. The major dailies cost $.50/issue, a price that has not changed in 20 years.
The cost of producing a newspaper is now almost entirely paid through advertising. To see where the editorial allegiance lies, just count the advert column inches. They are allocated to cars, (mostly suburban) real estate, (mostly imported) groceries, travel, and entertainment, in that order.
I expect never to read about peak oil, distress of car manufacturers, distress of builders, or need to relocalize in my local papers. The reporting is pure payola, designed to reinforce the impact of the ads.
In video, BBC, CBC, ABC are truly public, though political animals. NPR is paid for by rich though varied patrons. The rest are just as oil-dependent as the papers. I think media requires constant attention to motive, and must be interpreted accordingly.
Euan,
Here is another speech that set the course for the alternative energy options we have today. It is kind of sweet thinking of a family of four getting a tax cut on $10,000/yr. Notice that Carter emphasizes greater nuclear safety rather than seeing nuclear power as a future energy source. Perhaps he could see TMI coming. Brown's enthusiasm, in contrast, seems to lack prudence.
http://www.americanpresidents.org/ram/amp120399_e.ram
Chris
It is interesting that some of the press reports mention eight 1.2 GW reactors. This is about the rated power claimed for the Westinghouse AP1000, and less than the other two designs still in the running. Westinghouse claim a build time of 36 months, although this seems very ambitious as it is still only a design.
I wonder where this leaves EDF and their plans for British Energy and the EPR?
Forgive me for perhaps stating the obvious, but I suspect that peak oil will not mean an end to oil consumption. Assuming that we have arrived at the peak, then we still have 50% or so of the oil left to burn. Comparing the highly favorable EORI (energy return on investments) for crude to the EORI of the alternatives, I believe that the oil will indeed be burned.
Fortunately, developing the alternatives sooner rather than later could well mean that the price-point at which the two are equal may be more affordable. Moreover, this could also extend the period of decline.
Given that burning the first 50% has caused a significant perturbation to the global ecosystem, then there may very well remain a need to mitigate the consequences of burning the last 50%.
There's not THAT much carbon left in the second half of the oil. Most of the carbon has been from coal and most of the potential carbon to come is from coal. We can burn all the conventional oil and gas and keep CO2 concentrations well below 450ppm. Coal is where we should focus.
Yeah, when you think about it the global volume of oil is actually not that big after all. If we assume 2,000 billion Bbls as the absolut global reserve and imagine it is equally spread on the serface of the Earth, then it will only be a 0.6 mm thick layer, just like a very thin layer of paint.
I'm not so persuaded of this notion that people will still go on burning/using coal. You can't just dig it up with a spade in your garden. You have to (1) go to the remote location, (2) use some heavy machine to break it up and get it out (or seriously heavy manual labour); you then have to haul it back to its place of use. All this requires time, energy, steel etc. We might not have these available in sufficient quantity and cheapness to be able to do that coal-digging. I'm more fearful of all the trees getting burned to extinction by people trying to keep warm and well-fed.
Was that 450 figure picked out of the atmosphere by a politician? Is it any less arbitrary than the 350 picked by Jim Hansen?
http://www.350.org/
James Hansen (NASA) has incorporated "oil peaking" into his policy analysis. From his recent Congressional testimony:
"Requirements to halt carbon dioxide growth follow from the size of fossil carbon reservoirs.
Coal towers over oil and gas. Phase out of coal use except where the carbon is captured and
stored below ground is the primary requirement for solving global warming.
Oil is used in vehicles where it is impractical to capture the carbon. But oil is running
out. To preserve our planet we must also ensure that the next mobile energy source is not
obtained by squeezing oil from coal, tar shale or other fossil fuels."
http://columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf
Anybody who is freezing cold will pay no attention whatsoever to Jim Hansen.
There's way too much coal available at much lower cost than nuclear to be able to talk about "non-combustion of non-existing fossil fuels". Given the push for Coal to liquids in certain parts of the world CCS for all fixed CO2 sources (including natural gas and biomass) in compensation may be necessary anyway.
Every time I read a comment like this I fear that TOD is not achieving its goals.
I would expect a comment like this on other kinds of fora, but not here, and much less from a commentator that has been around for 2 years. Still, after all this time reading TOD, Pieter thinks that we just need to “wish upon a star” and Coal will come to save us.
What can I say Pieter? Keep dreaming, if you don't want to deal with reality, it will eventually deal with you.
I don't believe that he was saying that Coal will come and save us. I read Pieter's post as saying that Coal will get used anyway, so we may as well store the carbon emissions from it.
I'm not writing that coal will save us, I'm writing that coal will destroy us if we're not careful. CTL is an obvious choice for countries (not the UK) with declining or zero oil production and large coal reserves like the US, Australia and South Africa. The technology for CTL is available on industrial scale . Coal has a flow rate problem but in these countries the expansion of coal production for CTL is much easier than nuclear (which does not drive cars and aircraft). The liquids from CTL have a better power density than coal itself so a CTL plant near a mine will help solving a major bottleneck in coal expansion, efficiency loss through transport of this relatively low volume density fuel. Given the problems with current coal reserve estimates this strategy will lead to a crash or at least serious growth problems after some 30 years but that will give some breathing space for 'business as usual'. Remember the Hirsch reports' 20 years. As end of pipe (CCS) solutions to the emissions when used in cars or aircraft are not possible the effects on climate are similar to the use of oil at best and worse if the CTL plants are not CCS capable.
The CO2 produced by combustion of FF does not stay in our atmosphere. There is a massive 2 way exchange of CO2 between atmosphere and oceans on an annual basis - with a small net accumulation in the atmosphere - the cause of much concern in certain quarters.
When FF peak, likely before 2020, the rate of CO2 emissions will fall - and there will be nothing we can do to stop this. And this will also place us in an emergency situation of flat out energy decline.
Now, we need to decide in such an energy starved world if we want to use a significant part of the precious energy we have to bury CO2 - when our CO2 emissions are already falling.
Or do we invest instead in more energy efficient ways of using the remaining FF and making them last longer.
A small but vitally important net accumulation of a couple of ppm per year. Data available from http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/home
You're right, Euan, to remind us that we won't stop this and that we won't waste any of the precious energy burying CO2 unless to enhance oil recovery (even if we could). And that doesn't mean Hansen is wrong to insist that we must.
Peaking of all fossil fuels before 2020 is doubtful. Peaking of oil and gas before 2020 is something we can agree on I think.
Net accumulation of CO2 is a major problem, especially when CO2 levels start damaging the feedback mechanisms you have just mentioned. Hansen's tipping points are about this problem. A massive increase in CO2 levels for a relatively short period can do this through ocean acidification and melting of permafrost along with other factors. Destroying major carbon sinks by destroying old growth forests and and their soils does not help.
There is enough coal and lignite available to damage these feedback mechanisms permanently. Hence the necessity to use CCS on coal/lignite plants (and as much as possible on other fixed emitters). When used in oil/gas production it's CCU (Carbon Capture and Use) BTW. "Certain quarters" like Greenpeace Netherlands disagree and talk about CO2 "dumping" which should be banned .
Anyone have any details on or referrals to;
From the speech (my emphasize);
This seems to me like an invitation to start drawing a new roadmap for future energy consumption.
G8 Leaders Declaration http://www.g8summit.go.jp/eng/doc/doc080714__en.html
Para 26
26. We recognize the importance of setting mid-term, aspirational goals for energy efficiency. In national goals and objectives, as well as in country specific action plans, we will maximize implementation of the IEA’s 25 recommendations on energy efficiency.
IEA Work for the G8 - 2008 Messages http://www.g8summit.go.jp/doc/pdf/0708_06_en.pdf
Full report - Towards a Sustainable Energy Future
http://www.iea.org/G8/2008/G8_Towards_Sustainable_Future.pdf
All G8 Toyako Summit documents
http://www.g8summit.go.jp/eng/doc/index.html
Developing carbon capture and storage could wind up being a good way to get more oil out of the North Sea so I suspect his motivation isn't entirely related to the issue of global warming. The key thing to watch now is whether this broadly sensible set of policies becomes part of a wider cross-party consensus at Westminster. Unfortunately politicians are prone to populism when there are general elections to be won and nuclear power and fuel taxes will be highly tempting avenues for that.
Still wants to have the cake and eat it.
"First, since 70 per cent of future oil demand is from transport, we need a step change in the fuel efficiency of vehicles. So Europe must push ahead with mandatory fuel emission standards for new cars. But to drive innovation in the car industry we need not just a target for 2012, but a target for 2020 to match those in the rest of the energy package. " Blah, blah, blah ...
Lessee: making the cars, making the dealer/shop/factory buildings, the roads, the places to go with the cars the replacement parts the power infrastructure; all the things the cars need and love. don't forget the maniac drivers and the thousands of deaths and injuries.
With pols, it's always more, always, 'we can consume our way out of this problem.' The obsolete mindset.
When is a politician gonna stand up and say 'Less!'?
The first step toward energy indepandence is to get rid of the cars. All of them. Then, the energy problems can be solved in a leisurely manner.
Never. The current strategy is to let the market say "less" in the form of high prices while the politicians rally the hoi polloi with "more!".
Not a bad strategy really. People can indeed be talked into believing less is more. No doubt about that.
Psst I guess you missed the line:
That's spending 'Less' for illiterates.
Not quite - it's increasing the efficiency of the same or a greater quantity of stuff. He's nopt asking for us to use less, but to use more in a more efficient way. Business As Usual.
Wrong, taking rapid action means spending more. Energy efficiency costs; equipment costs, time spent on installation costs. If the overall outcome is less, that's fine, but is not the case in general. Legacy 'inefficiencies' remain along side the added 'efficiencies'.
Wrong, taking rapid action means spending more. Energy efficiency costs; equipment costs, time spent on installation costs. If the overall outcome is less, that's fine, but is not the case in general. Legacy 'inefficiencies' remain along side the added 'efficiencies'.
Mr.
Let's imagine that you could invest X in energy efficiency so that in a year, X has been paid off and in further years you won't spend as much energy as you are now. How's that "spending more"? Could you elaborate?
Are you telling me that investing in efficiency is wrong? Is this the level reached here at TOD? You're not one of those Jevon's witnesses, are you?
This is classic Jevon's idiocy. What you fail to understand is that Jevon's paradox only applies when the price of energy is static. If the price is escalating exponentially, efficiency is the best way to accomodate it and Jevon's paradox is non-existent. I'll give you a straight example.
Year 0. You spend 10 energy units for 10 actions and spend 10 money units.
With prices escalating to double, and if you are 100% more efficient, the result is:
Year 10. You spend 5 energy units for 10 actions and spend 10 money units.
You don't have extra money to spend and you make your own things by using half of the original energy. Net result: less energy used overall.
This is what is happening. So out with Jevon already.
You remember what Miz Piggy said about "Less is more"? "Some people say that 'Less is more.' But that's silly! Less is less!"
:o)
You had to have been there. It was the intonation and the phrasing.
As I see it placing an emphasis on greatly improving efficiency is the BEST we can hope for from the politicians. Compared to anything I expect to see in my country (USA), this is really an enlightened (if unfleshed out) policy. It kind of maps with my strategy of pushing for BAU-lite. Get the public enthused about saving energy, as they see their bills drop. Then as we get further from peak FF, the next step is a transition towards BAU-extralite. Depending upon how well we are able to scale up renewables, and nuclear, we will see how much further we need to go things unfold. I also believe we need to explore CCS, there are several possible capture technologies, some of them if they work out could potentially have much lower energy costs than the critics contend. This is a technology we need to invest in as a kind of climate insurance (insurance against the effects of human greed).
If I had been asked to recommend the contents for an enlightened energy speech for a major politician, thats pretty much what I would have recommended. I would have put a little more emphasis on the disastrous effects of PO and energy imports (especially if import prices rise several fold), but aside from that this is a pretty good start.
You guys seem to have a lot more faith in politicians than I do. This is the guy who just last week said he would give military aid to Nigeria to help fight the rebels. Did we not learn any lessons from our current oil war?
Where was he talking, was anyone listening? – The Union for the Mediterranean . What is that? Just Sarkozy doing a Blair and trying to make a name for himself - using EU money of course.
Some real bastions of democracy amongst this lot: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordon, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Palestinian territories, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey
This is urgent so let’s wait six months.
Easy solution, destroy the rest of British industry and make us completely reliant on finance and tourism!
Wow, a whole 1.8 gallons / week
British motor