There’s been a bit of press about some species which seem to go well in otherwise non agricultural marginal areas which can be harvested for jet fuel, not compromise food crops and help with carbon sequestration. I wonder if this is the superior approach.

Also according to Grist:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/3/125745/7746

…………food crops as feedstock for ethanol were already seen as the uneconomic first generation of industrial ethanol well before 2008. The USA agri experts were also stalling on cellulosic ethanol by early 2008 as dubious economics.

However there still seems to be an argument for specialised species of non food crops in non agricultural sites for in effect diesel. As long as they aren’t the next super weed (?). Here is one species:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha_oil

and babassu palm …maybe….

http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2007/05/father-of-bio-jetfuel-launches-biofuel.html

We know that both Toyota and GM are going to be releasing all-electric vehicles over the next few years. Our government should frame infrastructure policy with the intention of fixing up Australia’s power grid and building new power plants to support this (and if they have to, support electric car manufacturing rather than soon to be obsolete petrol-efficient cars).

And before the naysayers chime in with talk of merely “shifting the pollution”, I will say YES, electric cars do shift pollution to power plants away from urban centers, and that’s a great thing. Most of us live in cities, and having no vehicle pollution would drop cases of asthma and lung cancer dramatically, not to mention noise pollution and the general unpleasantness of walking/cycling down a smoggy street.

Logistically, it also makes sense to tackle the move to a clean energy economy via this path. Australia currently has 30 active coal power plants and 13 million registered vehicles. Even if we need to build 10 more coal plants to support a transition to electric vehicles, it will be far easier to manage emissions and install efficiency measures at those 40 locations.

Lastly, from a national security perspective Australia would gain energy independence from anti-western regimes, and hang onto the billions of dollars we currently send them every year.

And is Hydrogen Sulphide a greenhouse gas?