Most people have joyful memories of playing outside as children – and now wildlife charities are urging people to ‘rewild their inner child’
Climbing trees, squelching in mud, paddling in ponds or making dens in the woods – people’s memories of playing outside as children are often vivid and, a new poll has found, overwhelmingly positive, even those who remember falling in cowpats.
Almost 90% of UK adults had rosy memories of the excitement and the feeling of freedom that outdoor play had brought them, the survey found. However, almost half of adults now spend less than three hours a week in natural settings such as gardens, parks, fields or woods, according to the survey. For one in 10 it is less than one hour.
Diesel is critical to Australia. Any supply disruption has immediate and widespread consequences, given Australia imports almost 80% of its liquid fuels. As the energy shocks of the Iran war ripple out, Australia’s leaders have scrambled to shore up supplies of fuel – especially diesel and aviation fuel.
Disruptions to fuel supplies have happened before, such as in 2008 and 2022. This disruption won’t be the last.
What should policymakers do? One option is to ramp up local production of biofuels made not from crude oil but from natural oils such as canola, animal fats – or algae.
As algae researchers, we believe these humble organisms are worth exploring. Making biodiesel and sustainable aviation fuel from these fast growing organisms can be done with much less land than other crops. Technological advances mean the fuel could scale up.
Many biofuels come with trade-offs
Biofuels have gained traction worldwide as efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and meet climate targets accelerate.
The Australian biofuel sector is relatively small. Farmers exported about 6 million tonnes of canola in 2023–24 to be turned into biofuels overseas.
The Australian government last year announced A$1.1 billion in incentives to boost low-carbon fuels such as biofuels.
Biofuels from corn, soybean, canola and palm oil have boosted fuel security in some nations. Brazil produces 22% of its own transport fuel from biofuels, while biofuels account for 6% of the fuel used in the United States.
The problem is, biofuels often come at an environmental cost. A third of all US corn is used to make ethanol for fuel.
What’s so good about algae?
The type we’re interested in are microalgae, single-celled organisms, not macroalgae such as kelp and other types of seaweed.
These small organisms can grow exceptionally rapidly and hold high concentrations of oils. Many microalgae species can double their weight every day. Nannochloropsis and Chlorella are the two main types used to make oil.
Traditionally, algae was grown in large, shallow outdoor pools called “raceways”. They’re now increasingly grown in high-efficiency algae bioreactors.
Algae can be processed using proven technologies such as hydrothermal liquefaction to produce biodiesel able to be used in existing trucks and machinery. It can also produce sustainable aviation fuel.
Compared to crop-based biofuels, algae has several advantages. It doesn’t compete with food production and it can be grown on non-arable land or in industrial facilities. Some species can grow in saltwater or even treat wastewater while using it for growth. If algal facilities are located near heavy industry, carbon emissions can be captured and used for algal growth in a form of carbon storage.
Algal fuels needs much less land than conventional biofuels. A hectare of algae can yield more than 58,000 litres of oil per year. By contrast, a hectare of corn produces just 172 litres.
What are the barriers?
Interest in algal fuel dates back many decades. Oil shocks in the 1970s and 1990s drove significant research into algae-based fuels. But when oil prices fell, algal biofuels were no longer cost-competitive.
Since the 1990s, technologies have matured and policy settings become more favourable. Efforts to reduce fossil fuel use have put an implicit or explicit price on carbon. Mandates to increase output of sustainable aviation fuel are emerging in the European Union.
Fossil fuel price shocks in 2022 and 2026 have nudged authorities to seriously explore alternatives. Sovereign fuel security has become a strategic priority. Both the United Arab Emirates and the US are exploring algal fuels as a long-term strategic asset.
Algae for Australia?
Australia would be well placed to explore the potential of algal fuels. It has plenty of non-arable land, abundant sunlight and some of the world’s best algae research capabilities. Plus, it depends very heavily on imported diesel and aviation fuel.
Our research group and many others have been systematically working to overcome previous limitations of algal biofuels. We now know how to produce high-quality algal fuels and scale up production at costs low enough to challenge fuels derived from crude oil.
The first step would be to invest in pilot projects to prove the technology can work at scale under real-world conditions. Overseas, similar pilots have been set up next to industry to test the use of carbon capture, or alongside research partners.
If this is successful, the next step would be to build facilities in regional locations where fossil diesel is in demand and expensive to transport – and where algae can offer a dual benefit by treating wastewater or capturing carbon.
Over time, the versatile technology could be expanded, as algae can produce not only biodiesel but also other useful products such as edible protein for animal feed and biochar, highly porous charcoal able to soak up pollutants such as heavy metals.
Researchers have been working to boost yields and scale up oil production from algae.mayaluana, CC BY-NC-ND
Algae deserves our attention
Many previous efforts to scale up biofuels have run into problems over environmental impact or cost.
It’s important to be sceptical of claims of the next big thing. But it’s also important not to overlook the potential of humble technologies such as making fuel from algae.
As leaders look for ways to bolster fuel security, algae deserves a closer look.
Peter Ralph is affiliated with Microalgae Australia, a not?for?profit national peak body for algal research and development.
Alexandra Thomson is affiliated with Microalgae Australia, a not?for?profit national peak body for algal research and development.
Martin Lloyd is Principal Consultant at Five Whys Consulting, an innovation and strategy consulting company.
Electric vehicles (EVs) are no longer a niche technology. Australians are buying them in growing numbers as petrol prices bite and the federal government continues its tax exemption until 2029.
Fast and ultrafast chargers, which recharge a typical EV in 10–15 minutes, have proven to be commercially attractive, with the number of these chargers growing by 22% in 2025. This is because drivers will pay a premium to recharge quickly while travelling.
But they aren’t appropriate for everyday use. They’re too expensive, and place stress on EV batteries and the grid. They also risk aggravating metro-regional divisions, with regional communities hosting infrastructure that serves the needs of city travellers and not locals.
So, what’s the answer? Our new research crunched the data from 27,000 kerbside charging sessions and made it public in an effort to find out.
A kerbside revolution
For EVs to truly go mainstream, Australia needs more public “kerbside” chargers. These can be microwave-sized boxes mounted to power poles or slightly larger boxes fixed to the kerb. These offer affordable, reliable and convenient recharging in 2–8 hours (depending on the charger and EV).
They are needed for apartment residents and renters without access to private off-street charging, as well as EV drivers who need to charge between trips.
While the need for more kerbside chargers is widely agreed, there is fierce debate about who should deploy them. Electricity distribution companies are lobbying to do so – they would add the cost to all consumer electricity bills. Private operators oppose this because they want to protect their market share.
The federal government is proposing this way forward: $40 million in taxpayer funding, electricity distributor funding through consumer bills, and private investment.
This proposal would allow private investors to cherrypick sites that are expected to be profitable, such as where EV uptake is already high and many residents live in apartments. Other kerbside charging sites would be developed by electricity distribution companies.
In the scramble for position, one question risks being overlooked: what serves the public interest best?
What we need to do
Our new research addresses this question with three guiding principles, and open access data and analysis.
It finds kerbside charging must be delivered in a way that is fast, fair and adaptable in the future.
Australia’s 20 million domestic cars – and almost all heavier vehicles – will eventually be electric, so we need to prepare for this. And we need to avoid the kind of hiccups Australia experienced when the grid wasn’t ready for millions of rooftop solar systems.
Our most significant finding is that some kerbside charging sites are quite profitable, but there are not enough of them. And they are not profitable enough to make kerbside networks commercially profitable overall.
This level of profitability is consistent with kerbside charging being public infrastructure – providing an essential service at affordable rates.
What about current proposals?
We analysed the federal proposal, which would to let private investors choose the most attractive sites while the rest were developed through electricity distribution companies. We found there was a risk this would increase long-term costs for electricity customers.
This is because profitable sites would not cross-subsidise unprofitable – but still important – sites. And this might outweigh the benefits of having private investment cover some of the costs otherwise carried by taxpayers and electricity customers.
On the other hand, a proposal that distribution companies should recover the cost of charging hardware from electricity customers and not charge EV drivers for access is, we believe, too generous. It places an unfair burden on all electricity customers.
A better way
There are other approaches that might be more fair.
For example, distributors could use a combination of taxpayer subsidies and charging EV drivers a modest fee for use. This would only be feasible if their charger networks included profitable sites.
In general, it is fairer to get funding from the broad and progressive tax system than from all customers’ electricity bills – especially because electricity distribution companies are split between city and country areas.
One way to deliver fast and fair deployments is involve local councils. Their role has been largely overlooked in federal and distributor proposals. But their insights are invaluable for selecting sites that will be well used. And their planning expertise is fundamental to creating high-quality charging sites.
How to balance the costs and benefits of the much-needed kerbside charging expansion across EV drivers, taxpayers and electricity customers is a challenge for governments and regulators. They must focus on delivering public benefit that makes the EV transition fast, fair and adaptable.
Bjorn Sturmberg received funding from Energy Consumers Australia. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Energy Consumers Australia.
Charter to be adopted along river’s entire catchment from Cambrian mountains to Chepstow and Bristol Channel
The entire catchment of the River Wye has been formally recognised as a living ecosystem with intrinsic rights in a charter, a UK first that campaigners hope will help save the highly polluted river.
The charter was celebrated at a community event at the Hay-on-Wye literary festival on Sunday. It includes the right to flow, to biodiversity, to be free from pollution, to be supported by a healthy catchment, to regenerate, and the right to be represented, described as a “significant step” towards protecting and restoring one of the UK’s most beloved rivers.
