tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/low-emissions-technology-3409/articlesLow emissions technology – The Conversation2021-03-11T18:03:25Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1569352021-03-11T18:03:25Z2021-03-11T18:03:25ZChief Scientist: science will drive a post-pandemic manufacturing boom<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388989/original/file-20210311-21-13913pm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C729%2C3870%2C2850&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Office of the Chief Scientist</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s early days in my tenure as Australia’s <a href="https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/about/the-chief-scientist">Chief Scientist</a> but I have already been struck by how central science is to the national policy agenda. I knew this as an observer, but since I took up the post it has become clear how many initiatives are looking to science to lead the way.</p>
<p>As we begin to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia is looking to boost its manufacturing capacity in areas such as medical manufacturing and low-emissions technologies including clean hydrogen.</p>
<p>This is good news for Australia’s science and research community. It is an enormous opportunity. It is also a considerable challenge and responsibility.</p>
<h2>After the pandemic</h2>
<p>One of the first events with which I was involved as Chief Scientist was a US-Australia Dialogue on Medical Innovation in Response to COVID-19. This was an opportunity to share experiences across the United States and Australia, and the conversation touched on some of the topics that will be a focus of my term.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/p5PbB-ShMJM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">In February, an expert panel explored the exceptional contributions Australian health care companies and experts have made in partnership with the US in response to COVID-19.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Contributing to Australia’s pandemic response is high on my agenda. This includes not only short-term activities such as the vaccine rollout, but also learning the lessons of the past 12 months.</p>
<p>Australia’s interests will be well served by a greater capability in pharmaceutical and medical manufacturing. I was interested to hear the insights from two significant companies in this sphere, ResMed and CSL. Both have played important roles in the pandemic both locally and globally: ResMed in the manufacture of ventilators, and CSL in the development of therapies and vaccines.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/3-medical-innovations-fueled-by-covid-19-that-will-outlast-the-pandemic-156464">3 medical innovations fueled by COVID-19 that will outlast the pandemic</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The federal government is focused on building Australian capability in medical manufacturing, and I strongly support this work. </p>
<p>The pandemic accelerated global vaccine development, especially in the new field of mRNA vaccines. The technology has potential for other vaccines, including for influenza, and for new treatments for diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer’s. The <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/medical-products-national-manufacturing-priority-road-map">Medical Products National Manufacturing Priority road map</a> has identified this area as a growth opportunity.</p>
<h2>Beyond medicine</h2>
<p>The government’s focus on manufacturing also includes new low-emissions technologies, such as clean hydrogen, and Australian capability in a variety of other sectors. These include resources technology and critical minerals processing, food security, recycling and clean energy, defence and space. I am also deputy chair of <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/policies-and-initiatives/industry-innovation-and-science-australia">Industry Innovation and Science Australia</a>, a board advising the government in this effort.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-science-is-clear-we-have-to-start-creating-our-low-carbon-future-today-104774">The science is clear: we have to start creating our low-carbon future today</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The government is also strongly focused on encouraging more commercialisation of research and ensuring Australia gets the benefit of the research and innovation that it incubates.</p>
<p>Much of my time in recent weeks has been spent consulting across government, industry and the science and research communities as I bed down a concrete work agenda. It is already clear that research translation — the ability to get the most value from the excellent research being done in our universities and other institutions — will be a key focus. I will have more to say on that when I speak at the National Press Club <a href="https://www.npc.org.au/speaker/2021/801-dr-cathy-foley">next week</a>.</p>
<h2>From research to commercialisation</h2>
<p>I worked at the CSIRO for many years as a researcher in superconducting materials, and was later the organisation’s Chief Scientist. My experience spans the continuum from pure research to commercialisation.</p>
<p>For me, science is where the work starts, but not the whole answer. Science is creative, hard, exciting, sometimes demoralising and immensely fulfilling and fun. </p>
<p>Science can provide the nation with options for the path forward. But we also need engineering, a good business model, user interface and design. Not to mention the social licence to accept, support and pay for the solution.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-can-do-a-better-job-of-commercialising-research-heres-how-95526">Australia can do a better job of commercialising research – here's how</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>My job is to ensure the government has access to the best evidence available as it tackles the challenges we face and drives new opportunities for Australian innovation and industry.</p>
<p>I look forward to working with science and research community, industry and business community, government and institutions to make that happen.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Cathy Foley is Australia’s Chief Scientist. She addresses the <a href="https://www.npc.org.au/speaker/2021/801-dr-cathy-foley">National Press Club</a> on Wednesday March 17.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156935/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cathy Foley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Chief Scientist Cathy Foley says high-tech manufacturing is the way forward for Australia.Cathy Foley, Australia's Chief Scientist, Office of the Chief ScientistLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1449412020-09-20T19:43:45Z2020-09-20T19:43:45ZThe Morrison government wants to suck CO₂ out of the atmosphere. Here are 7 ways to do it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358757/original/file-20200918-22-1frm1pp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5265%2C3504&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor is on Tuesday <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/17/coalition-to-divert-renewable-energy-funding-away-from-wind-and-solar">expected to</a> <a href="https://www.npc.org.au/speaker/2020/719-angus-taylor">outline</a> the Morrison government’s first Low Emissions Technology Statement, plotting Australia’s way forward on climate action. It’s <a href="https://consult.industry.gov.au/climate-change/technology-investment-roadmap/supporting_documents/technologyinvestmentroadmapdiscussionpaper.pdf">likely</a> to include “negative emissions” technologies, which remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the air.</p>
<p>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/">says</a> negative emissions technologies will be needed to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to well below 2°C. In other words, just cutting emissions is not enough – we must also take existing greenhouse gases from the air.</p>
<p>Last week, the government broadened the remit of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC). It flagged negative emissions technologies, such as soil carbon, as one avenue for investment. </p>
<p>Some negative emissions ventures are operating in Australia at a small scale, including <a href="https://www.resourcesandgeoscience.nsw.gov.au/investors/coal-innovation-nsw/research-projects/alternative-storage-of-captured-carbon-dioxide">carbon capture</a>, <a href="https://www.greeningaustralia.org.au">reforestation</a> and <a href="https://www.cefc.com.au/case-studies/biotech-start-up-aims-to-lift-soil-organic-carbon-and-boost-farm-productivity/">soil carbon management</a>. Here, we examine seven ways to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere, including their pros and cons.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Graphic showing seven negative emissions technologies." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=333&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=333&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=333&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358907/original/file-20200920-20-tzuk2g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Graphic showing seven negative emissions technologies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Anders Claassens</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>1. Managing soil carbon</h2>
<p>Up to <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14054">150 billion tonnes</a> of soil carbon has been lost globally since farming began to replace natural forests and grasslands. Improved land management could store or “sequester” up to <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14878">nine billion tonnes</a> of CO₂ each year. It could also improve <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14054">soil health</a>.</p>
<p>Soil carbon can be built through methods such as:</p>
<ul>
<li>“<a href="https://www.vicnotill.com.au/regenerative-farming/no-till-farming-systems">no-till</a>” farming, using techniques that don’t disturb soil</li>
<li>planting <a href="https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2134/agronj2016.12.0735">cover crops</a>, which protect soil between normal cropping periods </li>
<li>grazing livestock on <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/sr/SR08104">perennial pastures</a>, which last longer than annual plants</li>
<li>applying lime to encourage plant growth</li>
<li>using compost and <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10705-018-9934-6">manure</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p>It’s important to remember though, that carbon can be hard to store in soils for long periods. This is because microbes consume organic matter, which releases carbon back to the atmosphere. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Tilled fields" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358760/original/file-20200918-20-g2pbfl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358760/original/file-20200918-20-g2pbfl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358760/original/file-20200918-20-g2pbfl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358760/original/file-20200918-20-g2pbfl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358760/original/file-20200918-20-g2pbfl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358760/original/file-20200918-20-g2pbfl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358760/original/file-20200918-20-g2pbfl.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Intensive farming has led to global loss of soil carbon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. Biochar</h2>
<p>Biochar is a charcoal-like material produced from organic matter such as green waste or straw. It is added to soil to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3276">boost carbon stores</a>, by promoting <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej2016187/">microbial activity</a> and <a href="https://www.ndsu.edu/soilhealth/?page_id=404#:%7E:text=Aggregation%20%E2%80%93%20Arrangement%20of%20primary%20soil,matter%20and%20through%20particle%20associations.&text=Each%20aggregate%20is%20made%20up,organic%20matter%20between%20soil%20particles.">aggregation</a> (soil clumps) which prevents organic plant matter breaking down and releasing carbon.</p>
<p>Biochar has been used by <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s001140000193">indigenous people in the Amazon</a> to increase food production. More than 14,000 biochar studies have been published since 2005. This includes <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/sr/SR10009">work by Australian researchers</a> showing how biochar reacts with soil minerals, microbes and plants to improve soil and stimulate plant growth.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/earth-may-temporarily-pass-dangerous-1-5-warming-limit-by-2024-major-new-report-says-145450">Earth may temporarily pass dangerous 1.5℃ warming limit by 2024, major new report says</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>On average, biochar increases crop yields by about <a href="https://europepmc.org/article/med/32019022">16%</a> and halves emissions of nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas. The production of biochar releases gases that can generate renewable heat and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618313544?via%3Dihub">electricity</a>. Research suggests that globally, biochar could store <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1053?page=20">up to 4.6 billion tonnes</a> of CO₂ each year.</p>
<p>However its potential depends on the availability of organic material and land on which to grow it. Also, the type of biochar used must be suitable for the site, or crop yields may fall.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A handful of biochar." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352422/original/file-20200812-14-1c2ur8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Added to soil, biochar increases carbon stores.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. Reforestation</h2>
<p>Planting trees is the simplest way to take CO₂ from the atmosphere. Reforestation is limited only by land availability and environmental constraints to growth. </p>
<p>Reforestation could sequester up to <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14878">ten billion tonnes a year</a> of CO₂. However, carbon sequestered through reforestation is vulnerable to loss. For example, last summer’s devastating bushfires released around <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/21/summers-bushfires-released-more-carbon-dioxide-than-australia-does-in-a-year#:%7E:text=Australia's%20devastating%20bushfire%20season%20is,according%20to%20a%20government%20estimate.&text=It%20is%20estimated%2096%25%20of,absorbed%20in%20regrowth%20by%202019">830 million tonnes</a> CO₂. </p>
<h2>4. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)</h2>
<p>Plant material can be burned for energy – known as bioenergy. In a BECCS system, the resulting CO₂ is captured and stored deep underground.</p>
<p>Currently, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is only viable at large scale, and opportunities for storage are <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261916317482">limited</a>. Only a few CCS facilities operate <a href="https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/BECCS-Perspective_FINAL_PDF.pdf">internationally</a>. </p>
<p>BECCS has the potential to sequester <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14878">11 billion tonnes</a> annually. But this is limited by availability of material to burn – which in theory could come from forestry and crop waste, and purpose-grown plants. </p>
<p>The large-scale deployment of CCS will also have to <a href="https://pubs.rsc.org/ko/content/articlehtml/2018/ee/c7ee02342a">overcome</a> barriers such as high costs, challenges in dealing with leaks, and determining who takes long-term responsibility for the stored carbon. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A bioenergy facility" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358761/original/file-20200918-14-xwt3wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358761/original/file-20200918-14-xwt3wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358761/original/file-20200918-14-xwt3wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358761/original/file-20200918-14-xwt3wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358761/original/file-20200918-14-xwt3wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358761/original/file-20200918-14-xwt3wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358761/original/file-20200918-14-xwt3wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bioenergy has big potential but is limited by the amount of material available to burn.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>5. Enhanced weathering of rocks</h2>
<p>Silicate rocks naturally capture and store CO₂ from the atmosphere when they weather due to rain and other natural processes. This capturing can be accelerated through “<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-018-0108-y">enhanced weathering</a>” – crushing rock and spreading it on land.</p>
<p>The preferred rock type for this method is basalt – nutrient-rich and abundant in Australia and elsewhere. A recent <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14878">study</a> estimated enhanced weathering could store up to four billion tonnes of CO₂ globally each year.</p>
<p>However low rainfall in many parts of Australia limits the rate of carbon capture via basalt weathering. </p>
<h2>6. Direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS)</h2>
<p>Direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) uses chemicals that bond to ambient air to remove CO₂. After capture, the CO₂ can be injected underground or used in products such as building materials and plastics.</p>
<p>DACCS is in early stages of commercialisation, with <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/direct-air-capture">few plants</a> operating globally. In theory, its potential is unlimited. However major barriers include high costs, and the large amount of energy needed to operate large fans required in the process.</p>
<h2>7. Ocean fertilisation and alkalinisation</h2>
<p>The ocean absorbs around <a href="https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/images/carbonbudget/Infographic_Emissions2019.jpg">nine billion tonnes</a> of CO₂ from the air each year.</p>
<p>The uptake can be enhanced by fertilisation – adding iron to stimulate growth of marine algae, similar to reforestation on land. The ocean can also take up more CO₂ if we add alkaline materials, such as silicate minerals or lime.</p>
<p>However ocean fertilisation is seen as a <a href="https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-45-en.pdf">risk to marine life</a>, and will be challenging to regulate in international waters.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Liddell coal-fired power station" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358908/original/file-20200920-18-vr6owc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358908/original/file-20200920-18-vr6owc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358908/original/file-20200920-18-vr6owc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358908/original/file-20200920-18-vr6owc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358908/original/file-20200920-18-vr6owc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358908/original/file-20200920-18-vr6owc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358908/original/file-20200920-18-vr6owc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Negative emissions technologies will be needed to address climate change, but deep emissions reductions are the highest priority.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Himbrechts/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Looking ahead to a zero-carbon world</h2>
<p>The foreshadowed government investment in negative emissions technologies is a positive step, and will help to overcome some of the challenges we’ve described. Each of the technologies we outlined has the potential to help mitigate climate change, and some offer additional benefits.</p>
<p>But all have limitations, and alone they will not solve the climate crisis. Deep emissions reduction across the economy will also be required.</p>
<p><em>Correction: a previous version of this article said biochar could store up to 4.6 million tonnes of CO₂ each year. The correct figure is 4.6 billion tonnes.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-dose-of-reality-morrison-governments-new-1-9-billion-techno-fix-for-climate-change-is-a-small-step-146341">'A dose of reality': Morrison government's new $1.9 billion techno-fix for climate change is a small step</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144941/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Annette Cowie is Principal Research Scientist in the NSW Department of Primary Industries, Climate Branch. She receives funding from the International Energy Agency Bioenergy Technology Collaboration Program. Annette is an adviser to the Australia New Zealand Biochar Industry Group.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Han Weng is a member of Soil Science Australia. He is a researcher at the University of Queensland. His current project on soil carbon is funded by the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lukas Van Zwieten is a Senior Principal Research Scientist in the Soil and Water Research Unit with the NSW Department of Primary Industries. He is also Director of Wollongbar Primary Industries Institute and a Program Leader with the Soil CRC. He is an Adjunct Professor at Southern Cross University and the Australian Rivers Institute at Griffith University. He receives external funding from the Soil CRC, Sugar Research Australia, GRDC and CRDC. He is on the Science Committee for the International Biochar Initiative. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Joseph is a member of the Australian New Zealand Biochar Industries Group. The Universities where I work have received grants from both state and federal governments and from companies for the development and testing of biochars.
I also assist companies and farmers develop fit for purpose biochars and equipment to make this biochars</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Wolfram Buss is a researcher at the Australian National University. Parts of his work is funded by SoilCQuest, a non-for profit organisation. He also holds visiting fellowships at the University of Edinburgh (UK) and the University of Hohenheim (Germany).</span></em></p>Energy Minister Angus Taylor is this week expected to release the government’s first Low Emissions Technology Statement. It’s likely to include ways to remove CO₂ from the air – but do they work?Annette Cowie, Adjunct Professor, University of New EnglandHan Weng, Research academic, The University of QueenslandLukas Van Zwieten, Adjunct Professor, Southern Cross UniversityStephen Joseph, Visiting Professor, School of Material Science and Engineering, UNSW SydneyWolfram Buss, Postdoctoral fellow, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/784022017-06-02T01:18:32Z2017-06-02T01:18:32ZAustralia can’t lose in the global race for cheaper, cleaner energy<p>Despite our sometimes heated national debate about our energy future, Australia is well positioned to benefit from innovative low emission technologies. No matter which avenue we take to cleaner energy, our energy-rich resources means there are opportunities for Australian businesses – and cheaper energy for Australian consumers. </p>
<p>That’s the conclusion reached by CSIRO in our <a href="https://www.csiro.au/letr">Low Emissions Technology Roadmap</a>, which outlines potential pathways for the energy sector to contribute to Australia’s emissions reduction target.</p>
<p>Our target under the Paris climate agreement calls for a 26-28% reduction of emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels. Our analysis also considers how the energy sector could meet the more ambitious aspiration of avoiding 1.5-2°C global warming.</p>
<h2>Looking past the political wrangling</h2>
<p>Perhaps one of the reasons the energy debate in Australia is so vehement is that, with the exception of oil, we are rich in energy resources. While we cannot wait indefinitely, the lack of resource constraints means we can monitor and test what options emerge as the most cost effective. <a href="https://theconversation.com/energy-green-paper-scores-pass-on-electricity-fail-on-climate-32105">Technology neutrality</a> is often called upon as a key policy design principle. </p>
<p>Another reason for caution is that technological change is inherently unpredictable. For example, at the start of this century, few would have expected <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-photovoltaic-solar-energy-12924">solar photovoltaics</a> to be one of the lowest cost sources of electricity. Current expectations of sourcing cost-effective bulk electricity storage would have seemed even less likely at the time.</p>
<p>However, there are two key choices that will determine how we reduce greenhouse gases, and the shape of our energy future.</p>
<p>First, we must decide how much weight we give to improving energy productivity, versus decarbonising our energy supply. This is essentially a policy decision: should we use our existing energy more intelligently and efficiently in our buildings, industries and transport, or aggressively pursue new technology?</p>
<p>Whatever strategy we pick, we also need to choose what technology we emphasise: dispatchable power, from flexible and responsive energy generation, or variable renewable energy (from sources like solar, wind and wave), supported with storage. </p>
<p>From these choices four pathways are derived: <em>Energy productivity plus</em>, <em>Variable renewable energy</em>, <em>Dispatchable power</em> and <em>Unconstrained</em>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171561/original/file-20170531-23653-1wzdcrw.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171561/original/file-20170531-23653-1wzdcrw.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171561/original/file-20170531-23653-1wzdcrw.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171561/original/file-20170531-23653-1wzdcrw.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171561/original/file-20170531-23653-1wzdcrw.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171561/original/file-20170531-23653-1wzdcrw.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171561/original/file-20170531-23653-1wzdcrw.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171561/original/file-20170531-23653-1wzdcrw.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There are four broad pathways to cheaper, cleaner energy. (Click to view larger image.)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">CSIRO</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our electricity market modelling found the different pathways lead to comparable household electricity bills. High energy productivity scenarios tend to delay generation investment and reduce energy use, leading to slightly lower bills in 2030 (including the cost of high efficiency equipment).</p>
<h2>Weighing risk</h2>
<p>The main attribute that separates the pathways is the mix of risks they face. We’ve grouped risks into three categories: technology, commercial and market risk, social licence risk and stakeholder coordination risk.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171562/original/file-20170531-23713-nh0at0.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171562/original/file-20170531-23713-nh0at0.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171562/original/file-20170531-23713-nh0at0.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171562/original/file-20170531-23713-nh0at0.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171562/original/file-20170531-23713-nh0at0.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171562/original/file-20170531-23713-nh0at0.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171562/original/file-20170531-23713-nh0at0.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171562/original/file-20170531-23713-nh0at0.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Risks identified with each pathway to cheaper renewable energy. (Click to view larger image.)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">CSIRO</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>Energy productivity plus</em> combines mature existing low emissions technology with gas, so there’s no significant market risk. However there is a social license risk, as many will protest a stronger reliance on expanding gas supplies. </p>
<p>Gas-fired generation is high in this scenario. If improved energy productivity reduces emissions elsewhere, the electricity sector will have less pressure to phase out highly polluting generators. </p>
<p>This scenario would also require a high degree of cooperation between government, companies and customers. We would need to coordinate, to make sure incentives and programs work together to bring down household and business energy use. </p>
<p><em>Variable renewable energy</em> invites more technical and commercial risk, as our electricity grid will need to be transformed to accept a high level of energy from fluctuating sources like wind. There’s also considerable community concern around the reliability of variable renewables. </p>
<p>While the evolution towards a secure system with very high variable renewable generation has been modelled in detail for the Roadmap, its final costs will remain uncertain until demonstrated at scale. Whether stakeholders will have the appetite to demonstrate such a system (with some risk to supply security and electricity prices) represents a coordination risk for this pathway.</p>
<p><em>Dispatchable power</em> is perhaps the most risky option. Solar thermal, geothermal, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-clean-coal-row-shouldnt-distract-us-from-using-carbon-capture-for-other-industries-74170">carbon capture and storage</a> and nuclear power are all relatively new to Australia (although other countries have explored them further). Developing them here will mean taking some technological and commercial gambles. </p>
<p>Carbon capture and storage and nuclear power are also deeply unpopular, and there’s a risk of dividing community consensus even further. </p>
<p>While solar thermal – and potentially nuclear power – could be deployed as small modules, in general the technologies in this category require high up-front capital investment. These projects may need strong government guarantees to achieve financing.</p>
<p><em>Unconstrained</em> would mean both improving energy productivity and investing in a wide range of generation options: solar, efficient fossil fuels and carbon capture and storage. </p>
<p>Unfortunately there is no objective way of weighing the risks of one pathway against another. However, we can narrow risks over time through research, development and demonstration. </p>
<p>Between now and 2030 we are likely to rely on a narrow set of mature technologies to reduce greenhouse gases: solar photovoltaics, wind, natural gas and storage. </p>
<p>As the world, and Australia’s, greenhouse gas reduction targets ramp up after 2030, we’ll be well positioned to adapt, with the capacity to incorporate a broader range of options.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78402/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Graham has received funding throughout his career from electricity generators, electricity networks, federal and state government departments, non-government non-profit organisations and energy consulting and engineering companies.</span></em></p>A new report from CSIRO outlines four pathways for Australia to hit our Paris climate targets, and get cheaper energy at the same time.Paul Graham, Chief economist, CSIRO energy, CSIROLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/292032014-07-17T02:07:52Z2014-07-17T02:07:52ZWho gains most from axing the carbon tax – and at what cost?<p>When the carbon tax was introduced, there was a lot of discussion about <a href="http://www.une.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/23997/econwp11-3.pdf">winners and losers</a>. The Labor government <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia">limited the number of businesses</a> that had to pay the tax, while it also gave carbon tax relief to large carbon emitters and large energy users. There were <a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-tax-axed-how-it-affects-you-australia-and-our-emissions-28895">tax cuts for households</a> to shield them from the effects of the carbon tax. </p>
<p>The aim was to make the relative price of carbon intensive industries higher, not to arbitrarily benefit or hurt particular groups. In economic terms, the carbon tax aimed to create “substitution effects” away from carbon intensive industries while compensating people for the “income effects” of the tax. </p>
<p>This was sound economics. But all that <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/carbon-tax-strain-taking-toll-on-mps-20140715-3bzdk.html">has been forgotten</a> in the drawn-out negotiations over the carbon tax repeal, which <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-17/live-blog-coalition-in-bid-to-push-through-carbon-tax-repeal/5603830">finally passed the Senate on Thursday morning</a>. </p>
<p>The current debate has focused mostly on ensuring that <a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-tax-axed-how-it-affects-you-australia-and-our-emissions-28895">the savings</a> from the carbon tax are passed through to households. While <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/sunday-roast-was-lamb-to-the-slaughter-of-the-carbon-tax-20140716-ztkd0.html">the size of those savings is disputed</a>, the idea that the future compensation to households should also be removed was quickly <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-09/government-fails-to-bring-on-early-carbon-tax-vote/5583696">scotched by the Senate</a>. </p>
<p>Households look set to have their cake and eat it too. They will get savings due to the removal of the carbon tax, while being compensated for a carbon tax that no longer exists! Of course, this will just expand the government’s budget black hole and lead to tax hikes and/or spending cuts down the track – which means that households win in the short-term will come at a higher cost later.</p>
<h2>Brown coal’s revival</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/who-wins-who-loses-if-the-carbon-tax-goes-20140709-zt1mm.html">Who else wins</a> in the short-term from the removal of the carbon tax? </p>
<p>Clearly the big greenhouse gas emitting <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/electricity-generators-get-ready-to-pocket-carbon-windfall-20140714-zt6z5.html#ixzz37UiWyN1J">electricity generators</a> win. In particular, the brown coal generators in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley will again become the cheapest (and still the dirtiest) electricity generators in the country. This simply reflects the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-brown-coal-export-hub-tell-them-theyre-dreaming-6567">nature of brown coal</a> and the fact that it has few uses other than power production close to where it is mined.</p>
<p>Brown coal has a high moisture content. This makes it expensive to transport before it is dried. After all, you are transporting a lot of water. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, after it is dried brown coal becomes volatile, which also makes it uneconomic to transport. So brown coal is dried near the mine and then burned to produce cheap electricity. But both the drying process and the burning create significant greenhouse gas emissions. </p>
<p>Under an effective carbon tax, brown coal generators would be the first to close. The fact that high-pollution <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station">Hazelwood power plant</a> continued to operate even with the carbon tax leads to real questions about the original policy’s effectiveness. </p>
<p>With the removal of the carbon tax, Victoria’s brown coal generators and the Latrobe Valley in general face less immediate upheaval.</p>
<p>Large greenhouse gas emitters can also win through the government’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-20/coalition-climate-change-direct-action-policy-explained/5067188">direct action policy</a>. This policy will seek projects to reduce emissions and will accept those projects which reduce emissions at the lowest bid cost. If you’re a major greenhouse emitter, then given the choice between getting taxpayer-funding to stop your pollution, or being taxed for that pollution, it’s fairly obvious which one you’d prefer. Of course, this just means more budget pain as the government turns a revenue source for the government into a new pool of government spending.</p>
<h2>The biggest losers</h2>
<p>Who loses from the carbon tax malaise in Australia? If Australia does not have a clear strategy to deal with climate change, then I would argue that we will all lose. But the problem is wider than just Australia’s self-interest.</p>
<p>Global warming – as the name suggests – is a global issue. Australia is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita">large emitter of greenhouse gases on a per person basis</a>. But, because we are a small economy, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution_to_global_warming_by_Australia">our total emmissions</a> are relatively small on global terms. We could pay to offset and eliminate our greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow. But, other than making us feel morally superior, it would have little direct effect on global climate change. </p>
<p>Our policies could have an indirect global effect. By showing the world what we could do, Australia could give other countries an example to follow in acting more decisively on greenhouse emissions. This was the best argument for the carbon tax and, longer-term, for an Australian emissions trading system. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the Senate debacle of the last two weeks and the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-08/abbott-endangering-future-on-climate-lord-deben/5582902">imminent scrapping of the carbon tax hasn’t helped Australia’s international reputation</a> as a nation doing our fair share to tackle climate change.</p>
<h2>What next for Australia and the world?</h2>
<p>So assuming the carbon tax is scrapped, what should we do next? </p>
<p>In my opinion, Australia should be actively engaged in the global debate about how to develop and pay for technology to deal with global warming. </p>
<p>This will <a href="http://economics.com.au/?p=3787">not involve growth-reducing strategies</a> that limit pollution in China, India or Africa. These regions will continue to grow their economies as rapidly as possible to move millions of people out of desperate poverty. But if that involves the development of high-polluting industries, then we will all have to face and pay for the global impacts of more severe climate change. </p>
<p>That leaves the developed world in the situation where it should be encouraging research into how to generate energy cleanly and how to mitigate the ongoing damage that global warming will create over the rest of this century. There are pathways to growth with low carbon emissions, but as <a href="https://theconversation.com/keeping-our-eyes-on-the-ball-is-the-only-way-to-hit-our-climate-target-29078">Anna Skarbek and Frank Jotzo</a> note:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>some key technologies that are critical for deep decarbonisation in all countries’ pathways are not yet technically mature or economically competitive.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Economic incentives for innovation may be direct, including through <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/direct-action-plan">direct action</a>-style payments. They may also be indirect, through taxes and other mechanisms that penalise high emitters and reward those who develop low-polluting substitutes.</p>
<p>This may all sound overly optimistic. But in my opinion it is simply realistic. The developed world cannot ignore either the needs or the reality of millions of people living in poverty. Poor nations will adopt economic policies to grow richer. If the governments of those countries do not promote development then they are likely to be overthrown, either at the ballot box or through force. So climate solutions that restrict poor country growth, in my opinion, are simply unrealistic.</p>
<p>For the developed world, the alternatives are clear. We can do nothing – or limit our ambitions only to cutting emissions within our own borders – and watch as global emissions continue to soar from China and India. Or we can promote innovation to both adapt to climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>Economics can help create the right incentives for this innovation. But the climate “deniers” are not just those who deny the science; they also include those who deny the economics and focus too much on cutting Australia’s pollution, as if that alone is a solution. It is not.</p>
<p>It’s not enough to think global and act local, as the old environmentalists’ slogan goes. We need to think global – and act global too.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/29203/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen King does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When the carbon tax was introduced, there was a lot of discussion about winners and losers. The Labor government limited the number of businesses that had to pay the tax, while it also gave carbon tax…Stephen King, Professor, Department of Economics, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/276522014-06-09T04:42:54Z2014-06-09T04:42:54ZTesla’s techno-cars are the right answer to the wrong question<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/50511/original/jjypcvq6-1402056978.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">More cars, even more better cars, is not the answer.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/titicat/3049591547/">Doo Ho Kim</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>With the promise that Tesla’s Model S will “<a href="http://www.teslamotors.com/en_GB/models/features#/environment">liberate its owners from the petroleum-burning paradigm</a>”, this electric car is an example of just how far technological innovation could take us towards achieving carbon emissions reduction targets and reducing consumption of fossil fuels. </p>
<p>The technology is certainly impressive but it is concerning to see innovation of this kind being held up as the holy grail of a more sustainable future – especially if it comes at the expense of pursuing other ways to solve the problem.</p>
<p>One reason why the Model S has caused such excitement is its matching of conventional cars in performance, design and desirability. Many of the previous shortfalls of electric vehicles, such as acceleration, driving range and battery life have been addressed. The UK government’s target of “almost” every van and car being <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-greenhouse-gases-and-other-emissions-from-transport/supporting-pages/ultra-low-emission-vehicles">emission free by 2050</a> is starting to look more reasonable and the hype is alluring: technology has resolved the problem and life can carry on as normal. </p>
<p>It’s worth reminding ourselves that although the Model S produces zero emissions, electric cars use electricity and this has to be generated somehow. As a recent <a href="http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP201203.pdf">OECD report</a> points out, electric cars displace their emissions to the energy generation sector, rather than remove them entirely. In this sense, zero emission vehicles would only arrive with an entirely de-carbonised electricity supply – which is hard to imagine.</p>
<p>Even the Treasury’s <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/bud08_king_1080.pdf">2008 King review of low carbon cars</a>, whose key recommendations underpin UK electric vehicle policy, recognised the extent of progress that was required if low-carbon electricity generation was to meet the 80% carbon emissions reduction target. </p>
<p>In environmental terms, electric vehicles are an answer to the wrong question. For the past decade or so, national policy has framed the problem of private car use and the environment in increasingly narrow terms.</p>
<p>In the early 1990s, sustainable transport policy was concerned with a broad set of issues. These included road congestion, the loss of countryside and the disturbance of rural and semi-rural areas due to road building or the reallocation of land for parking.</p>
<p>Now the problem is debated only in terms of emissions targets. National policy in relation to all forms of transport is heavily focused on vehicle technology to the detriment of other possibilities. These policies actually reinforce current patterns of consumption, tying us to a future in which the use of private cars continues to dominate and increase. This is reflected in the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/action-for-roads-a-network-for-the-21st-century">substantial road building programme</a> which comes part and parcel with low-emissions vehicle policy. </p>
<p>Rather than relying on ambitious technological development to provide sustainable transport in the future we might instead invest more in developing ways to challenge the car as the dominant means of getting around, and reducing the car dependence that permeates so many aspects of our everyday lives. </p>
<p>This is not uncharted territory, and there are several places we might turn for inspiration. One example from the mid-1990s is the government’s own <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1758358.pdf">planning guidance notes</a> that were explicitly aimed at halting steadily increasing car use. The notes to local authority planners proposed various measures: requiring new developments to be accessible via a range of modes of transport, locating traffic-generating activities such as places of employment so they are highly accessible by public transport, and by making driving more difficult, for example from parking restrictions, limited parking bays and pedestrianisation of roads.</p>
<p>But as guidance and not legislation, local authorities were left in an invidious position. If they applied the guidance then they risked developers passing over them in favour of neighbouring areas. The alternative was to give the green light to projects that further embed car-use. And this kind of planning only creates the conditions for less car use; it doesn’t guarantee it – but at least the policy ambition was there.</p>
<p>There is some potential for optimism when it comes to contemporary policy though. Some recent Department for Transport documents set out ambitious goals which break from the status quo. These include the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/door-to-door-strategy">Door-to-door strategy</a>, which aims to encourage alternatives to private cars for trips of any length (not just those under five miles), and <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/improving-local-transport/supporting-pages/working-with-businesses-and-people-to-reduce-the-need-to-travel">reducing the need to travel</a> through telecommuting and flexible working. </p>
<p>Though less immediately measurable than a car that produces zero emissions, I’d suggest these ambitions for social change hold just as much promise as technology – and more. Our trust in techno-fix solutions, though misguided, illustrates that we have vision. Let’s use this to address some more relevant questions. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27652/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicola Spurling and the DEMAND Centre receives funding from the RCUK Energy Programme and EDF as part of the R&D ECLEER Programme.</span></em></p>With the promise that Tesla’s Model S will “liberate its owners from the petroleum-burning paradigm”, this electric car is an example of just how far technological innovation could take us towards achieving…Nicola Spurling, Senior Research Associate, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/262432014-05-04T20:37:20Z2014-05-04T20:37:20ZSorry, Joe Hockey – Canberra is Australia’s home of wind farms<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/47686/original/hd2j7br7-1399175499.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=52%2C122%2C687%2C350&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lake George, complete with "offensive" wind turbines. Expect more views like this around Canberra soon.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Darcyj/Wikimedia Commons</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We now know that Treasurer Joe Hockey is not a fan of wind farms, on aesthetic grounds at least. On Friday he told Macquarie Radio’s Alan Jones he finds the view <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-02/joe-hockey-wind-turbines-utterly-offensive/5425804">“utterly offensive”</a> and “a blight on the landscape”. </p>
<p>The vista that has so irked Mr Hockey can be seen while driving along the Federal Highway on the western side of Lake George. Across the water, dotted along the lake’s eastern shore, are turbines belonging to the <a href="http://www.infigenenergy.com/capital-precinct/capital-wind-farm.html">Capital Wind Farm</a>, the largest of six wind farms now operating to the north and northeast of Canberra.</p>
<p>The bad news for the Treasurer is that the Australian Capital Territory is one of the few places where wind farms are a growth industry, and are set to remain so regardless of what happens to the federal <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/cleaner-environment/clean-air/renewable-energy-target-scheme">Renewable Energy Target</a>.</p>
<h2>Windy city</h2>
<p>The area north of Canberra has some of the best wind resources anywhere in Australia. Since it was commissioned in 2011, the <a href="http://www.acciona.com.au/business-divisions/energy/operational-projects/gunning-wind-farm">Gunning Wind Farm</a>, about 70 km north of the capital, has consistently achieved a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor">capacity factor</a> (the ratio of power generated, relative to the facility’s theoretical maximum) of 40%, making it one of the best-performing wind farms in the country and, indeed, the world. </p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, there are several more wind farms planned for the area around Canberra – some quite advanced in the planning process. The total capacity of these projects is more than <a href="http://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/272562/AECOM_wind_report_website.pdf">1,000 megawatts</a>. For comparison, the total capacity of operating wind farms currently supplying the National Electricity Market is just over <a href="http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Registration">2,300 MW</a>.</p>
<h2>Power and certainty</h2>
<p>However, like many wind farm projects at a similar stage of development around Australia, most of the projects in the Canberra region, including some which have received planning approval, are yet to sign a power purchase agreement with an electricity retailer or other party. This means that they do not have the financial certainty needed to start construction. </p>
<p>The main purchasers of wind-generated electricity are electricity retailers which, until now, have been legally required to buy a specified (and increasing) quantity of renewable electricity each year up to 2020 under the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/cleaner-environment/clean-air/renewable-energy-target-scheme">Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme</a>. Most retailers already have contracts in place for all the renewable electricity they need now and for at least the next year. In normal circumstances, retailers would be signing up new supplies of renewable electricity to cover their growing obligations from 2016 onwards.</p>
<p>Circumstances, however, are not normal. The RET scheme is undergoing its <a href="https://theconversation.com/killing-renewables-softly-with-endless-reviews-23409">second review in two years</a>, and several ministers – including Mr Hockey – have expressed what can only be described as extreme scepticism about the scheme’s merits. Many backbenchers and influential advisers are openly hostile to it.</p>
<h2>ACT embracing wind power</h2>
<p>Perhaps Mr Hockey thinks that winding back the RET scheme will ensure that no more wind farms appear to blight the view from his car. But unfortunately for him, the one area where new wind farms may continue to be built, even if the RET is scrapped, is around Canberra. </p>
<p>Earlier this year, the ACT government called for tenders to supply <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-12/act-to-source-wind-power-from-nsw/5314338">200 MW of wind generation</a>, as a major step towards its <a href="http://www.environment.act.gov.au/energy/90_percent_renewable">target of sourcing 90% of the territory’s electricity use from renewable sources</a>. </p>
<p>The electricity generated by the contracted wind farms would not be supplied explicitly to the ACT. It will be fed into the National Electricity Market (NEM), where it will displace other sources that would otherwise be required to meet the territory’s power demand. But the ACT wind contracts will not be registered under the RET scheme because the territory’s government is aiming to make extra reductions in overall emissions, even if the nationwide RET scheme survives in something like its present form. </p>
<p>The tender documents state that the selected wind farm(s) may be located anywhere within the NEM, but also that tenderers will have to deliver economic benefits to the ACT. The territory government clearly expects that successful bidders will have projects close to Canberra.</p>
<h2>Powering into the future</h2>
<p>The ACT government has said that it will eventually commission about 382 MW of wind and 91 MW of solar generation, which, together with some smaller renewable sources, should be sufficient to achieve the 90% target. This target is a core element of the territory’s legislated plan to cut greenhouse emissions, including from power stations supplying the ACT with electricity, <a href="http://www.environment.act.gov.au/cc/ap2">by 40% relative to 2000 levels by 2020</a>. </p>
<p>This makes the ACT unique among Australia’s state, territory and federal governments. It is the only one with a legislated emissions-reduction target and a credible plan to make it happen. </p>
<p>Unlike the rest of Australia, the ACT has negligible emissions from industry, agriculture, forestry and land use changes – the majority of its emissions come from from electricity generation and transport. The government has concluded that it will be hard to make major reductions in emissions from transport fuels by 2020, but much easier to cut electricity-generation emissions. So making deep cuts in electricity emissions would be the cheapest way to hit the overall emissions target.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/47687/original/f34fwznc-1399175909.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/47687/original/f34fwznc-1399175909.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/47687/original/f34fwznc-1399175909.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/47687/original/f34fwznc-1399175909.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/47687/original/f34fwznc-1399175909.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/47687/original/f34fwznc-1399175909.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/47687/original/f34fwznc-1399175909.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Royalla Solar Farm - just a short drive from Canberra.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royalla_Solar_Farm_2.JPG">Grahamec/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While the current tender is the first for wind generation, the ACT government has already contracted 40 MW of large-scale solar power. The first contracted project, the 20 MW <a href="http://actsolarfarm.com/">Royalla Solar Farm</a>, is almost finished and will soon be up and running. It’s about 20 km south of Canberra along the Monaro Highway, and is easy to spot from a car. </p>
<p>Let’s hope, if Mr Hockey drives that way, that he prefers looking at solar panels rather than wind turbines.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/26243/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hugh Saddler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We now know that Treasurer Joe Hockey is not a fan of wind farms, on aesthetic grounds at least. On Friday he told Macquarie Radio’s Alan Jones he finds the view “utterly offensive” and “a blight on the…Hugh Saddler, Research Associate, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/253792014-04-13T09:03:22Z2014-04-13T09:03:22ZIPCC: emissions cuts are about ethics as well as economics<p>The new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows that global greenhouse gas emissions have grown faster than ever over the last decade. Taking action to achieve the world’s goal of limiting global warming to 2°C will mean making dramatic cuts in emissions. This raises not just technical and economic challenges, but also profound questions of ethics and values – such as the responsibility we bear towards future generations, and our attitude to the risk of very severe climate change damages. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ipcc-wg3.de">Working Group 3 report</a> – released today as the third and final volume in the current IPCC Fifth Assessment Report – assesses the options for mitigating climate change. It draws on almost 10,000 research papers to map out our knowledge about past, present and future greenhouse emissions, and sets out the ways in which we might attempt to reduce them.</p>
<h2>Emissions have grown faster than ever</h2>
<p>The report shows that since 2000, world greenhouse gas emissions have grown much more rapidly than in previous decades. This is mainly because of rapid growth in middle-income countries like China. However, per capita emissions remain very unequal globally: people in high-income countries are responsible for nine times more greenhouse emissions, on average, than those in the poorest countries.</p>
<p>Therefore, under a “business as usual” scenario – in which no new policies or technological breakthroughs emerge to help reduce emissions – we can expect a lot of “catch-up growth” in emissions as developing economies grow. This means that we need to switch to low-carbon energy sources as soon as possible, because the majority of emissions are derived from energy use. Simply improving energy efficiency is unlikely to be enough, as the data show this tactic has historically been insufficient to offset growth in income per capita, let alone population growth. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the report finds that stabilising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels by significantly reducing emissions will have relatively modest financial costs. Global gross domestic product (GDP) would be 2-6% lower in 2050 than it would otherwise have been. Meanwhile, under business as usual, global income per capita is expected to double by 2050. Taking strong action on climate change would, therefore, only delay that doubling by one to three years.</p>
<h2>Overshoot: the negative emissions scenario</h2>
<p>But many of the report’s modelling scenarios that find that the cost of emissions cuts is low, do so by “overshooting” the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere first exceeds the level that would limit the temperature to 2°C but then emissions must become negative in the second half of the century. </p>
<p>That means taking large amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, perhaps by using <a href="https://theconversation.com/bioenergy-a-burning-question-for-tasmanias-forests-15623">biomass energy</a> along with <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-carbon-capture-and-storage-16052">carbon capture and storage</a> (referred to as BECCS) to replace the use of coal, oil and gas. </p>
<p>But there is considerable uncertainty about whether this could be made to work in practice, both technically and economically. If such options are not available, the cost of emissions reductions will be near the higher end of the 2-6% range.</p>
<p>And there is a big risk that future decision makers will not take the ambitious action that would be required when the time comes – even if today’s governments might assume they will. </p>
<h2>Values, ethics and risk</h2>
<p>For the first time, the report also explicitly looks at the ethics of climate change, and its connection to the values that we hold as individuals and societies.</p>
<p>In deciding whether and by how much to cut greenhouse gas emissions, today’s governments are in part shaping the well-being of future generations. Does the welfare of people in the future count for less, purely because they live in the future? Should it count for less because people in the future are expected to be richer than we are?</p>
<p>The report’s modelling shows that developing nations need to act soon and decisively, if climate change is going to be held in check. But who should pay for the costs, and how should we compare the costs and benefits of climate change action across rich and poor societies?</p>
<h2>Knowing the price of everything?</h2>
<p>Judgements about value also come into the complex debate about future economic costs and damages from climate change.</p>
<p>All too often, analyses focus purely on <a href="http://theconversation.com/ipcc-report-shows-stern-inflated-climate-change-costs-25160">the anticipated economic damage</a>, using lower estimates as a rationale for less action on climate change. This is a simplistic view, as it misses three crucial points.</p>
<p>First, as humans we care about things that are not valued in economic markets. Most Australians care far more about the Great Barrier Reef than its (nevertheless impressive) tourism revenues would suggest. Most of us also care about species going extinct, on an emotional level quite separate from the environmental and health benefits of species diversity. Ignoring these concerns means ignoring many of the values that societies hold.</p>
<p>Second, climate effects will vary greatly across different regions and social groups, and this is usually not reflected in simple economic cost estimates. It is often the poor who are most at risk from climate change, and will find it harder to adapt or recover. If a citizen of an Australian beach suburb loses a A$2 million house, should this be counted as 200 times worse than a Vietnamese peasant losing their A$10,000 home?</p>
<p>Finally, and crucially, climate change is about <a href="https://theconversation.com/uncertainty-isnt-cause-for-climate-complacency-quite-the-opposite-25481">risks</a>. There is a risk – perhaps small, but we do not know how small – of catastrophic impacts. Should we ignore the risk of very bad outcomes for future generations, or should we give extra weight to them?</p>
<p>The IPCC’s report does not provide the answers, because the IPCC is not policy prescriptive. It aims to give decision-makers the latest reliable information, and a compass to navigate their way through decisions that should be based on deeper considerations than short-term economics or electoral tactics.</p>
<p><strong>Frank Jotzo and David Stern are both authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group III on Mitigation. David is a lead author of Chapter 5 on emissions trends and Frank is a lead author of Chapter 3 on ethics and economics and of the report’s technical summary. Both work at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University.</strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25379/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frank Jotzo receives research funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian government. He is involved in consultancy that has no direct bearing on the issues discussed in this article. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Stern receives funding from The Australian Research Council and the Department of the Environment.</span></em></p>The new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows that global greenhouse gas emissions have grown faster than ever over the last decade. Taking action to achieve the world’s goal…Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National UniversityDavid Stern, Professor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/167992013-08-08T04:19:05Z2013-08-08T04:19:05ZHow to have zero emissions housing – and tiny power bills – in ten years<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28881/original/73ygvtff-1375923513.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Switch off the heater, you won't need it.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">IceSabre/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A <a href="http://bze.org.au/buildings">new study</a> says that all Australia’s existing housing could be retrofitted to be zero emissions within ten years. Households could halve their energy use and go gas free. Australian households currently spend approximately A$15 billion every year on electricity and gas bills: this could be largely eliminated. Making this change would not only meet our emissions reduction targets but place Australia as a leader in a future carbon-constrained world. </p>
<p>The plan, launched <a href="http://bze.org.au/events/its-time-launch-zca-buildings-plan">today</a> by Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) as part of the Zero Carbon Australia project, is a follow up to the <a href="http://bze.org.au/zero-carbon-australia/stationary-energy-plan">Stationary Energy Plan</a>, which showed how Australia’s electricity could be supplied by 100% renewable energy sources within 10 years.</p>
<p>Most Australian homes are based on designs from a time when energy was cheap and plentiful, and we weren’t aware of the impact CO<sub>2</sub> was having on our climate. Consequently, Australian homes are poorly built for our conditions, wasteful and often uncomfortable. But we can fix them with technology we’ve already got. </p>
<h2>Energy freedom</h2>
<p>The key points for households are:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Energy use could be halved. This would be partly through <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-heat-your-house-efficiently-14036">simple improvements in design</a>, such as better insulation, better windows and doors that keep heat where we want it, shading, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/cooling-the-urban-heat-island-with-more-reflective-roofs-5038">reflective roof paint</a> to keep houses cool. Uncontrolled draughts would be replaced with controlled ventilation. The rest would be done with more efficient appliances: electric heat pumps for heating and hot water (these are considerably more efficient than gas), induction cooking and LED lighting. </p></li>
<li><p>Households could go gas-free, switching gas appliances for higher-efficiency electric appliances. Why switch off gas? While it’s lower emissions than coal-fired electricity, it’s much higher emissions than electricity from renewable sources. </p></li>
<li><p>Households could become renewable electricity power stations, through use of <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-photovoltaic-solar-energy-12924">rooftop solar panels</a>. Beyond Zero Emissions’ previous report on <a href="http://media.bze.org.au/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf">stationary energy</a> shows all households should be able to be powered from renewables. This has been backed up by <a href="https://theconversation.com/zero-emissions-power-is-possible-and-we-know-what-it-will-cost-13866">more recent reports</a> from other sources.</p></li>
<li><p>Houses could be cosier in winter, cooler in summer, and healthier year-round.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Businesses could also reduce energy use by extensive retrofitting and by installing solar cells on rooftops. This in combination with the elimination of gas is shown to reduce energy use by half with the installation costing no more than business as usual. </p>
<p>All of these would have a significant impact on our energy related emissions. And the retrofitting work for households alone would create around 50,000 jobs in the trades sector.</p>
<h2>How do we get there?</h2>
<p>The plan is ambitious, but the barriers to achieving it aren’t technological: we have everything we need to make it happen. </p>
<p>There are financial barriers for individual households and businesses. To achieve the plan, households particularly will need incentives or ways to offset initial costs against future savings. For example, interest-free loans could be given to carry out the work, or retrofits could form part of a household energy agreement with their retailer. </p>
<p>And of course, there are sizable economic and political hurdles; for example, to eliminating the use of gas. Gas is a significant industry in Australia, and re-purposing infrastructure, technology, resources - and most importantly jobs - needs to be approached carefully or the good intentions will be met by anger.</p>
<p>Other industries will be affected, including electricity and most importantly, energy exports. Policies of energy reduction in Australia will need to extend to our coal and gas export sector or we will be seen as hypocrites. Without a global approach, our emissions reductions efforts will be ineffectual. </p>
<p>But with international action on energy and carbon growing, and limited non-renewable resources, transition in fossil fuel sectors is inevitable. Australia can <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-a-price-on-carbon-is-good-news-for-australian-trade-1764">benefit from leading the pack</a>, rather than following or being forced into a corner by international or natural restrictions. </p>
<p>Australia has committed to reducing its emissions. While aiming for a zero carbon country in any time frame is way beyond what is in any current policy, reports like this show we can radically improve on current clean energy and climate policies. We have the technology.</p>
<p>The good news is transitioning to this sort of world has become easier and cheaper as technology improves. Moving to 100% renewable energy is now A$37 billion cheaper compared to the figures reached in Beyond Zero Emissions’s previous report on stationary energy.</p>
<p>It is now time to deal with the non-technical social and political aspects that require strong leadership. You may look at this report and think “but that will never happen”. The challenge is this: assume it can be done and then find a way to do it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/16799/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>BZE consulted Dominique Hes in 2011 for production of this report .</span></em></p>A new study says that all Australia’s existing housing could be retrofitted to be zero emissions within ten years. Households could halve their energy use and go gas free. Australian households currently…Dominique Hes, Senior Lecturer in Sustainable Architecture, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/124352013-04-08T04:30:18Z2013-04-08T04:30:18ZChemical looping: a carbon capture technology for the future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/20890/original/592w776f-1362372666.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Chemical Looping may eventually replace other carbon capture technologies</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Chemical looping, a low carbon technology for the fossil fuel industry, is increasingly been viewed as a competitive technology in carbon capture and storage, with the successful completion of <a href="http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/looping203.htm">pilot plant trials in the USA</a>.</p>
<p>As the world increasingly transitions to a low-carbon economy, it is becoming important for fossil fuel-based industries to develop ways to reduce their carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) emissions. To do this many fossil fuel-based industries, and in particular coal-based power stations, are promoting <a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-capture-and-storage-is-becoming-a-green-strategy-11199">carbon capture and storage (CCS)</a>. This is where the CO<sub>2</sub> generated from coal combustion is separated from the power station’s flue gas and sequestered for long-term storage. The advantage of CCS is that it enables existing infrastructure and industries to meet carbon emission reductions while continuing to operate into the medium-term future.</p>
<p>In CCS, one of the key technology barriers is developing separation technologies that can produce a pure CO<sub>2</sub> product for sequestration. Currently, most approaches focus on <a href="https://theconversation.com/building-a-future-for-carbon-capture-technology-6782">separating CO<sub>2</sub> from the flue gas</a> being emitted from a power station’s chimney. </p>
<p>This is an energy intensive approach, as they are trying to separate CO<sub>2</sub> from a range of other gases, such as nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour. Hence, up to 25% of the power station’s output can be required to separate and purify the CO<sub>2</sub> gas. This is known as the CCS parasitic load on the power station, and the major focus of current CCS research is to reduce the parasitic load as much as possible.</p>
<h2>A new technology</h2>
<p>Chemical looping involves an innovative approach to deliver only oxygen to the coal combustion process, excluding other gases, such as nitrogen found in air. This enables an almost pure CO<sub>2</sub> gas to be produced, which can then be relatively easily stored without any further major processing. </p>
<p>The delivery of oxygen to the combustion zone is achieved through a metal or metal oxide reaction. Small particles of metal, such as manganese or iron, are exposed to air and react with the oxygen present to form a metal oxide; this is known as oxidation. This is exactly the same process as iron rusting, however it is done at a higher temperature and inside specially designed reactors to speed up the process. </p>
<p>The metal oxide (or rusted metal) is then transported to the coal combustion furnace where no nitrogen is present. In chemistry the resulting reaction between the fossil fuel and metal oxide is known as a <a href="http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemicalreactions/a/oxidation-reduction-reactions.htm">reduction reaction</a>, where the carbon in the fuel reacts with the oxygen in the metal oxide to produce CO<sub>2</sub> and convert the metal oxide back to the pure metal. Given that there are no other gases present, a pure CO<sub>2</sub> flue gas is produced which is ready for sequestration storage. </p>
<p>Importantly, the metal particles are then recycled back to undergo oxidation in air to produce the metal oxide and the process begins again. This recycling of the metal or metal-oxide is the looping part of the technology.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/20859/original/wkwjz3bd-1362362691.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/20859/original/wkwjz3bd-1362362691.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/20859/original/wkwjz3bd-1362362691.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/20859/original/wkwjz3bd-1362362691.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/20859/original/wkwjz3bd-1362362691.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/20859/original/wkwjz3bd-1362362691.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/20859/original/wkwjz3bd-1362362691.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The chemical looping process.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies </span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This provides a major advantage in generating a technology with a low energy demand and a low parasitic load on the power station. Chemical looping has a significant advantage compared to traditional carbon capture technologies, in particular amine solvent absorption, the current technology of choice in the chemical engineering industry.</p>
<h2>Problems to address</h2>
<p>The successful <a href="http://cbe.osu.edu/news/2013/01/doe-supported-project-advances-clean-coal-carbon-capture-technology">pilot plant trials</a> undertaken in Ohio State University clearly demonstrate the potential for the technology. However, one of the major drawbacks of the technology is the metal particles themselves. </p>
<p>The metal particles are like sand and they are essentially blown between the combustion furnace and oxidation reactor by the CO<sub>2</sub> gas produced. All of the particles together are very abrasive and the plant equipment essentially experiences constant sand blasting internally as the metal or metal-oxides complete their loop. </p>
<p>This is a significant engineering problem, as the chemical looping plant must be made from expensive metals that can withstand the constant abrasion of the metal particles. At this stage, this makes any chemical looping plant much more expensive to construct than other carbon capture technologies, especially when compared to well-established amine solvent technology. </p>
<p>Chemical looping is unlikely to be one of the first generation CCS technologies that are expected to be implemented over the next decade. Instead, researchers will take that time to address the engineering problems and run larger trials. It is likely that chemical looping will a be second and third generation CCS technology, available in the coming decades.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12435/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colin Scholes is affiliated with the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC).</span></em></p>Chemical looping, a low carbon technology for the fossil fuel industry, is increasingly been viewed as a competitive technology in carbon capture and storage, with the successful completion of pilot plant…Colin Scholes, Research Engineer , The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/72772012-08-05T20:19:33Z2012-08-05T20:19:33ZApocalypse Not: doomsday thinkers of Oz should get out more<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13851/original/w2w8m6x8-1344115266.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">While Australia fears either an environment or economic doomsday, other countries get on with making a cleaner future.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Detail of Hieronymus Bosch's The Last Judgment, from Flickr/profzucker</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>I sometimes wonder what planet this country of ours is on. The environmental debate we are having seems to be in a parallel universe to the rest of the world. Having spent the last four years running one of Europe’s biggest environmental research laboratories, the <a href="http://www.lec.lancs.ac.uk">Lancaster Environment Centre</a>, I find Australia strangely out of kilter.</p>
<p>All I hear here is apocalyptic gloom and doom: either <a href="http://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy/climate-change-and-energy">the planet is done for if we don’t act</a>, or <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/tony-abbott-says-carbon-tax-like-python-squeeze-rather-than-cobra-strike/story-e6frf7l6-1226383009896">the economy is done for if we do</a>! We have a highly polarised debate and even more polarised reporting; with too much hand-wringing and head-banging but too little rational discussion or consultation about what actually to do. Doing nothing isn’t an option.</p>
<h2>If the sky is falling, people elsewhere are busy catching it</h2>
<p>Let me be clear: the <a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/">atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is rising</a> and <a href="http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/">the Earth is warming</a>. The risks and uncertainties are huge but while we argue about and deny the obvious, others are just getting on with the job and addressing the issue as best they can.</p>
<p>Out of the Lancaster Environment Centre, we ran an enterprise and business partnerships program that engaged with over 450 local small to medium sized enterprises; not to convince them that there was a problem (we had no need), but to work with them to capture emerging opportunities in the low-carbon economy.</p>
<p>For example, a small printing company in Liverpool cut its energy consumption (and therefore its carbon emissions) by 50% through a combination of new processes and waste recycling, the installation of solar panels (yes, even in Liverpool!), and more efficient lighting and heating. As a result it was more profitable! How about that for a win–win?</p>
<p>So while we argue amongst ourselves Down Under – the end of the world as we know it versus “<a href="http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/">that tax</a>” – others are innovating: making profits and creating jobs in a new global economy. While we argue we are missing the boat. Where will this leave us in decades to come?</p>
<p>I suggest someone in the Tony Abbott’s office buys him Roger Scruton’s new book <a href="http://www.themonthly.com.au/roger-scruton-s-green-philosophy-how-think-seriously-about-planet-philosophic-emissions-peter-singer">Green philosophy: how to think seriously about the planet</a>. Scruton is one of UK’s most respected right-wing philosophers and commentators, but he takes the environment and climate change seriously and suggests viable ways forward: action locally, by Edmund Burke’s “<a href="http://www.bartleby.com/24/3/4.html">little platoons</a>”; regulations and market structures that “return the costs of all transactions to those who incur them”; improvements to the laws of tort and even <a href="http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/40_Smart%20Taxes.pdf">Pigouvian taxes</a> where appropriate. Good heavens!</p>
<p>So philosophically, politically, and practically, the rest of the world is getting on with the future (UK, China, Mexico, South Korea, for example) and investment patterns are changing rapidly. The UK has an <a href="http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/ccas/uk_ets/uk_ets.aspx">emissions trading scheme</a> that has already stimulated much innovation and created new jobs. <a href="http://theconversation.com/king-coal-dethroned-6977">Coal is no longer king</a> and electric vehicles are rapidly emerging as a viable alternative to petrol or diesel. My small, fuel-efficient turbo-diesel car will probably be the last conventionally fuelled car I will need to buy.</p>
<p>Here we have environmental activists <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZT6YpCsapg">predicting the end of the world</a> whilst retreating to <a href="http://www.small-farm-permaculture-and-sustainable-living.com/basic_or_simple_living.html">rural small holdings</a> while the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/bca-slams-carbon-tax-and-urges-genuine-reform/story-e6frg9px-1226165295093">top end of town</a> and the Opposition deny the obvious and rage about the carbon tax. Whatever happened to the inclusive middle that provides hope and a constructive way forward for all? While Nero fiddles…</p>
<p>Yes, we face huge challenges, but we have done so before in history. The <a href="http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/plague.htm">Black Death</a> killed about a third of Europe’s population. Is climate change any more threatening to us with our knowledge than the Black Death was to a world that had no idea what caused it?</p>
<h2>Bugger luck, Australia needs to be a clever country</h2>
<p>Australia is a very rich country (go and live elsewhere for a while to realise that), but as Peter Hartcher argues in <a href="http://www.blackincbooks.com/books/sweet-spot">The Sweet Spot</a>, we didn’t get here by chance; we got here because we worked at reform for decades. We were clever. What we now require is rapid eco-innovation: facilitating the development and adoption of new, environmentally friendly, products, processes and technologies which we can use at home and sell to the world. We need to be clever again.</p>
<p>Another example: our research laboratory had strong Chinese linkages through a Royal Society “China Bridge” program. Through these programs, the UK facilitates collaboration with China in R&D for the emerging global economy. Our China Bridge project took UK researchers and companies to visit Chinese research institutions and companies and organised reciprocal visits. China is investing huge sums in environmental management technologies and already leads the world in many areas. Soon we’ll be buying new technologies from China. Smart and clever solutions create jobs and wealth. The mining boom won’t last forever.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13852/original/ndr2mjkb-1344117935.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13852/original/ndr2mjkb-1344117935.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13852/original/ndr2mjkb-1344117935.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13852/original/ndr2mjkb-1344117935.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13852/original/ndr2mjkb-1344117935.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13852/original/ndr2mjkb-1344117935.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13852/original/ndr2mjkb-1344117935.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wind turbine assembly in Urumuqi, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/EPA/Qilai Shen</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I meet too many people either paralysed by the scale of environmental threats or denying their reality. Business as usual is not possible: but then it never was! Change is the only constant. Prediction always was hard. When times are uncertain, just begin!</p>
<p>The future will be different and more sustainable; innovation will happen, new ideas, processes and technologies will be developed and adopted. Yes, we have to recycle and reuse more; yes, we have to reduce demand and decarbonise the economy; but, no, going back to living in caves won’t do. We can do better.</p>
<p>Individuals can do many things to make a difference, even with present technologies. “Little platoons” can do a lot more. Forward-looking governments can do even more to stimulate innovation and prepare for the future. New ideas create new options.</p>
<h2>Innovate together, and now</h2>
<p>One place to begin is to get some joined-up thinking in the innovation system. On the end of the building, my UK environmental research lab had a dedicated space for start up companies and others to come and co-locate with us on campus. That gave them access to knowledge, networks, innovation, research and new ideas. They could chat with people at the forefront of knowledge and with each other about new market opportunities. We ran a big knowledge exchange program, including “speed dating” meetings for people to meet and share ideas. They, in turn, funded university research projects and hosted students for work experience. They got ideas and contacts; we got funds and job-ready students.</p>
<p>When did we forget faith, hope and charity? Faith in our ability to thrive and rise to challenges; hope for a new and better world, and charity to get beyond polarised debate. Our children and grandchildren need to be prepared and equipped for new challenges. Can we please talk about prudent responses and constructive actions, and learn from the rest of the world? Times of threat are also times of opportunity. Innovation is a fact of life; eco-innovation is an urgent priority. This is not Apocalypse Now! There is much to be done – and quickly.</p>
<p><em>Comments welcome below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/7277/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>From 2008-11 Graham Harris was Director of the Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK, which received innovation funding from the EU Regional Development Fund and from the UK North West Regional Development Agency</span></em></p>I sometimes wonder what planet this country of ours is on. The environmental debate we are having seems to be in a parallel universe to the rest of the world. Having spent the last four years running one…Graham Harris, Prof Fellow, SMART Infrastructure Facility, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/86052012-08-02T04:25:50Z2012-08-02T04:25:50ZLow-carbon electricity must be fit-for-service (and nuclear power is)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13752/original/3qf844cs-1343879875.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">No such thing as a free lunch: nuclear power can do what many renewable energy systems have not yet done on a large scale - deliver.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Gretchen Mahan</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>To paraphrase George Orwell: “All electricity is created equal, but some of its generating technologies are more equal than others”. This is a crucial point – emphasised but typically overlooked – in the new report <a href="http://www.bree.gov.au/documents/publications/Australian_Energy_Technology_Assessment.pdf">Australian Energy Technology Assessment</a> (AETA) on current and future costs of electricity options for Australia, released yesterday by the <a href="http://www.bree.gov.au/">Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics</a>.</p>
<p>Assessing the “levelised” costs of existing energy technologies is already surprisingly difficult, given the array of assumptions that need to be made - on capital and owner’s costs, financing terms and associated risk, facility lifespans, fuel supply, government policy interventions, and so on. It gets even more challenging when projecting future cost changes, because learning curves and settled-down costs, uptake rates, potential fuel and material supply bottlenecks, training, price incentives, social license, and other “known unknowns” need to be factored into the economic modelling.</p>
<p>So the AETA authors had a difficult task on their hand. Perhaps the most contentious yet important task is defining the relative market value and role for technologies within a national electricity system. From the perspective of replacing fossil-fuel combustion with alternatives, a crucial issue is how effective it is, at a large scale, in providing a fit-for-service replacement for existing coal plants.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054421000602X">recent paper I co-authored with two colleagues in the journal Energy</a>, we assessed technologies against a range of criteria intended to determine their suitability as a baseload alternative. These were:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Proven: has the technology been used at commercial scale?</p></li>
<li><p>Scalable: can the technology be built in sufficient quantity to replace significant proportions of existing fossil-fuel generators?</p></li>
<li><p>Dispatchable: can the output be allocated by the system operator to meet the anticipated load?</p></li>
<li><p>Fuel supply: is the energy source reliable and plentiful, even when, as with some kinds of renewable energy, it varies according to weather and time of day?</p></li>
<li><p>Load access: can the generator be installed close to a load centre?</p></li>
<li><p>Storage: does the technology require electricity storage in order to deliver a high capacity factor?</p></li>
<li><p>Emission intensity: is the emission intensity high (>300 kg CO2e/MWh), moderate or low (<100)?</p></li>
<li><p>Capacity factor: is the capacity factor (the actual electricity produced relative to the maximum possible output at a constant peak operation) high (>70%), moderate or low (<40%)?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>For a technology to be considered fit-for-service as a baseload generator (i.e., a direct replacement for coal or combined-cycle gas power plants) it needs to be scalable, dispatchable without need for large external storage and have a reliable fuel supply, have low or moderate emissions-intensity and deliver a high capacity factor. The only current technologies that score well enough to meet these criteria are nuclear power and solar thermal with thermal storage and/or hybrid gas. Coal and gas with carbon capture and engineered geothermal could also qualify but are only at the pilot plant stage of development.</p>
<p>At present, the use of utility-scale electricity storage is prohibitively expensive in most networks. As <a href="http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/13340/Owen_Inquiry_-_Main.pdf">Tony Owen has pointed out</a>, there are significant economic issues in deploying major storage and new generating technologies, stemming from the high capital costs and complexity of operating in liberalized energy markets.</p>
<p>Enthusiastic supporters of various renewable energy technologies have long made claims that all or most of the world’s electricity needs could be met with renewable energy. Yet what the AETA study and a large body of authoritative international work by the International Energy Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Working Group III) and others have shown is that the costs involved are high, and hence a reliance on future major advances on that front in order to be competitive with other, low-emission, alternatives is too speculative and risky to constitute a focal part of any future energy plan.</p>
<p>So, the projections in the AETA report for 2020, assuming a rising carbon price, seem quite attractive for onshore wind ($90/MWh), with longer time-frames bringing down the costs of solar photovoltaic dual-axis tracking systems and various solar thermal systems with heat storage (from an average price of $366/MWh in 2012 to a forecast cost of around $180/MWh in 2030). Yet, it will be the “masked costs” of massive energy storage (e.g. gigawatt- or terawatt-hours of pumped hydro or flow batteries) or else extensive reliance on the carbon-intensive alternative of open-cycle gas-fired backup – critical for ensuring that electricity supply always meets the grid demand – that will be what matters most to Australia’s future decarbonisation plans.</p>
<p>Such costs are not properly reflected in the AETA numbers on levelised costs of electricity (LCOE), as they explain in the caveats section on page 24-25 of the report. This is because <a href="http://bravenewclimate.com/tcase15">avoiding apples and oranges comparisons is really hard</a>, due in a large part to the lack of real-world experience of national electricity grids with high-penetration non-hydro renewables (they don’t exist, so we lack a reference model). Below I quote a key AETA statement that everyone needs to understand:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Projected LCOE does not necessarily provide a reliable indicator of the relative market value of generation technologies because of differences in the role of technologies in a wholesale electricity market. The value of variable (or intermittent) power plants (such as wind, and solar) will depend upon the extent to which such plants generate electricity during peak periods and the impact these plants have on the reliability of the electricity system. Unlike dispatchable power plants (such as coal, natural gas, biomass, and hydroelectric) – which are reliant on some form of stored energy (e.g. fuels, water storage) – wind and photovoltaic power plants do not, typically, include energy storage.</p>
<p>To cater for sudden, unpredictable, changes in the output of variable power plants, it is necessary to operate responsive, dispatchable power plants (e.g. hydro, open-cycle gas turbines) in a back-up role to maintain the overall reliability of the electricity system. As a result, LCOE by technology is not the only factor considered when deciding what type of electricity generation plant to construct.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a key reason not to ignore nuclear fission. Uniquely (at present), it is a proven fit-for-service low-carbon “plug-in” alternative for coal that is commercially available, deployed widely in some countries (e.g., France, U.S., South Korea), <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511009189">is highly scalable</a>, and its engineering and operational experience have advanced greatly over the last 50 years. It indisputably has its own problems, but so do all of our other electricity options. To recast Milton Friedman’s popular aphorism, “there is no such thing as a(n electrical) free lunch”. Indeed, I would argue that the principal limitations on nuclear fission are not technical, economic or fuel-related (as the AETA report points out), but are instead linked to complex issues of societal acceptance, fiscal and political inertia, and inadequate critical evaluation of the real-world constraints facing low-carbon alternatives.</p>
<p>We need to take a rational and holistic perspective on low-carbon energy options. As we know from day-to-day consumer affairs that although low prices are an important consideration, a product does not constitute “value for money” unless it can also deliver its intended service adequately. Different electricity technologies will play various niche roles in future markets, and renewables will be obviously important for Australia. But for the heavy-lifting job of supplying abundant low-carbon electricity to the always-on baseload market – to displace coal from our grid – we simply can’t ignore nuclear energy.</p>
<p><em>Comments welcome below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/8605/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barry W. Brook receives funding from the Australian Research Council Future Fellowships, Discovery and Linkage schemes. He is affiliated (not financially) with the following relevant not-for-profit NGOs: The Science Council for Global Initiatives, The Breakthrough Institute and The Global Energy Prize.</span></em></p>To paraphrase George Orwell: “All electricity is created equal, but some of its generating technologies are more equal than others”. This is a crucial point – emphasised but typically overlooked – in the…Barry W. Brook, Professor of Climate Science, ARC Future Fellow, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/82772012-07-17T04:34:10Z2012-07-17T04:34:10ZLow-emission’s missing link: reverse auctions for clean power<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13033/original/kd53vszw-1342481008.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sold to the lowest bidder! The carbon price will not transform Australia's power supply without further steps to help low-emission technologies into the market.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/sashafatcat</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When it comes to reducing emissions, most serious analysts agree: the market works best, but the market is not enough.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.iea.org/">International Energy Agency</a>, the OECD, leading British climate economist Nicholas Stern, and Australian government adviser Ross Garnaut are among many analysts who conclude that market mechanisms need to be complemented by policies that will enable low-emissions technologies to begin producing power at large scale and low cost.</p>
<p><strong>Step beyond carbon pricing</strong></p>
<p>In other words, there is a further essential step that government must take in order to ensure Australia meets its emissions targets over the next 40 years. A new Grattan Institute report, <a href="http://grattan.edu.au/publications/reports/post/building-the-bridge-a-practical-plan-for-a-low-cost-low-emissions-energy-future/">Building the bridge: a practical plan for a low-cost, low-emissions energy future</a>, sets out what that step might be.</p>
<p>The problem that a carbon price alone cannot address is the great difficulty of getting low-emissions technologies into the marketplace at large enough scale to produce substantial amounts of power. That is because early investors face high costs, low returns, and the risk of competitors free-riding on their initiative.</p>
<p>They also require a reliable, long-term carbon price to underpin their investments. Yet the carbon price is inherently uncertain because it depends on the decisions of governments. If they do not keep making decisions that constrain emissions, the carbon price will not rise sufficiently to make low-emissions technologies competitive with traditional sources of power such as coal and gas.</p>
<p><strong>Allocate contracts through low-bid auctions</strong> </p>
<p>To overcome this problem, the Grattan Institute’s report proposes that government contracts with project developers to deliver low-emission electricity at a price that makes the technology viable. Contracts would be awarded through reverse auctions (meaning the lowest bid wins) held every six months.</p>
<p>Technologies such as large-scale <a href="https://theconversation.com/with-a-bit-of-concentration-solar-thermal-could-power-your-town-2005">solar thermal energy</a> that are out of the R&D stage and ready to proceed to market would bid for power contracts in specific categories. A successful bidder would receive two payments: one that covers it for the risk of investing in an unproven technology, the other for the risk that the carbon price will not be high enough to match the long term climate change targets that would make the technology commercially viable.</p>
<p>A strength of our auctions proposal is that it would support a range of low-emissions technology options. This is important when no one or two technologies have yet emerged that can meet Australia’s emissions reduction needs. Also, the market would choose these technologies, rather than government picking winners, which it is ill-suited to do.</p>
<p>The proposal has other major benefits for both parties. Investors can proceed with firm contracts, while government is able to use competitive market pressures to drive down cost.</p>
<p>To ensure that only credible projects are awarded contracts, proponents would be required to secure finance before bidding and to post a refundable bond. The guarantee of repeated auctions over a 10-year period would provide opportunities for technologies that lose in one round to come back again in later rounds.</p>
<p>Over multiple rounds, technologies that show they are reducing in cost will gain further support. Technologies that do not will have support withdrawn.</p>
<p><strong>Get projects up and running</strong></p>
<p>The critical goal is to get projects up and running. All experience shows that as technologies are deployed, their costs fall. As that happens, and as the carbon price rises in order to meet the long-term emissions reduction target, government support would fall away. This is a key design factor: the intent of the auctions scheme is to produce commercially viable technologies, not to provide long-term subsidies as too many recent policies have effectively done.</p>
<p>The difference between the Grattan scheme and existing policies such as capital grant schemes, feed-in tariffs and the Renewable Energy Target is that the former is designed expressly to get low-emissions technologies into the marketplace at lowest cost. It works closely with a carbon price, whereas existing policies are generally superfluous, and even tend to increase the cost of meeting our emissions reduction targets, once a robust carbon price is in place.</p>
<p>Auction schemes are not without risk. Companies can bid unrealistic prices and then fail to deliver the projects. Our proposal contains several safeguards against this. They include the refundable bond, a requirement for commercial credibility and payment only on delivery.</p>
<p><strong>Works with Coalition policy, too</strong></p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13043/original/yygspn83-1342485436.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13043/original/yygspn83-1342485436.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13043/original/yygspn83-1342485436.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13043/original/yygspn83-1342485436.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13043/original/yygspn83-1342485436.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13043/original/yygspn83-1342485436.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13043/original/yygspn83-1342485436.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Policy menu: should Tony Abbott become PM, the Grattan proposal would fit with the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Miranda Forster</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A change of government would lead to changes in the policy environment. The Federal Opposition’s <a href="http://www.liberal.org.au/%7E/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/The%20Coalitions%20Direct%20Action%20Plan%20Policy%20Web.ashx">Direct Action Plan</a> would award tenders for emissions reduction through an Emissions Reduction Fund. While a market mechanism with a carbon price is unquestionably the best way to address Australia’s climate challenge, Grattan’s auction proposal could work with the Direct Action Plan to enable it to achieve its objective.</p>
<p>The proposal seeks to build a bridge between the current carbon market and the market for low-emissions technologies Australia needs. It has a cost, but it frees up constrained investment and innovation now in order to avoid much greater cost in the long run.</p>
<p><em>Comments welcome below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/8277/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Wood does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When it comes to reducing emissions, most serious analysts agree: the market works best, but the market is not enough. The International Energy Agency, the OECD, leading British climate economist Nicholas…Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.