Energy policy post-2030

Reproduced from the University of Western Australia’s publication, “Let Every Stage Advance: Policy Ideas for Australia's Fiftieth Parliament”

In December 2015 the countries of the world met in Paris, France and agreed to fix emissions reduction targets in a coordinated global effort to ward off catastrophic climate change. The Paris agreement was hailed as a major breakthrough, with signatory countries signing off on what they each felt they could legitimately do. This was a rare act of global agreement done in a spirit of cooperation.

Signatories still have over 10 years to go to reach their self-defined targets and some countries, such as Australia, will meet their targets early while others may or may not meet theirs. Those that meet them early may elect to reset their targets or may just continue the policy settings adopted such that reductions will continue to accrue.

Obviously the expectation is that signatory countries will meet their targets, though there is no guarantee they all will. If all, or most, meet their targets as agreed, we should keep warming to below two degrees. However, the efforts cannot and should not stop there. Yet there is currently no international framework to address what happens post-2030. There is a need to consider new policy settings that address continued emissions reduction and carbon abatement beyond 2030.

The challenge for policymakers is that the technologies that will be required to drive further reductions, in the most part, do not exist yet or at best are nascent. Therefore, the key policy that needs to be set is one that drives and rewards innovation. There are many sources of greenhouse gases, such as energy, transport, steel and agriculture. To reach the levels of emissions that some are preaching for is all but impossible unless technologies are developed that allow us to do the impossible.

The key difficulty in continuing to cut emissions post-2030 is that by then all of the 'easy' gains will have been taken. Energy generation, one of the largest contributors to emissions, will have reached low or no emissions on current trajectories. There may still be some legacy coal-fired generation that should only come off line at the end of its productive life, but for the most part a glut of low-cost renewable power will have made coal generation economically unviable. However, this is will only happen if other means of providing firm power are found.

That is policy challenge number one: getting an energy mix that is at once reliable, cheap and with no or low emissions.

Pumped hydro is the ideal use of excess, cheap intermittent power to provide replacement 'firmness' but there are probably not sufficient geographically suitable sites to build enough hydro to service all jurisdictions. Batteries may provide some of the solution, but the cost and efficiency must improve and end-of-life issues must be addressed.

Concentrated solar thermal (CST) generation with molten salt storage has long been discussed as a potential replacement for baseload power. While there are a number of projects happening in other markets, this technology has not had a successful start in Australia yet.

In the timeframe we are talking about, reductions in transport emissions may seem a walk in the park with the growing acceptance of electric vehicles (EVs). However, the technology suitable to power EVs is not suitable to power trucks, railway, ships and aircraft which all contribute significantly to emissions.

Hydrogen is often spoken about as a solution here, and may well be, but current projections are that the year will be at least 2030 before we are likely to see any commercially viable, hydrogen-fuelled transport. The key logistical challenge will be fuel distribution, which could possibly mean that while the technology to use for hydrogen is available by 2030, the infrastructure to enable it could take a further 10 years.

Furthermore, the ability to export bulk hydrogen fuel will likely be a simpler use of the fuel. Similarly, bulk production may also enable energy production, especially for distributed micro power generators operating in tandem with wind or solar, much in the same way we should be using natural gas presently. It is foreseeable that the prioritisation of innovation in potentially more profitable uses of hydrogen, such as these, may further delay its use in transport.

Metal production, especially iron- and steel-making, contributes to about 10 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. There are huge energy requirements for heat as well as the need for coke as a reducing agent. Obviously, the energy contribution to emissions may be able to be reduced using technologies discussed above, but it will still require coking coal to be mined although this contributes little to CO2, emissions.

Agriculture, particularly meat production, contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, as do humans and all other animals. The great challenge that is often posed is: how do you stop cows from belching?

While as a concept this is not feasible, there are technologies being developed that may use feed additives from seaweed, which won't stop belching ruminants but have the potential to reduce greenhouse emissions in said burps.

In summary, policymakers need to continue the good work done so far in reaching our 2030 targets. They will also they need to foster innovation that will create the technologies to tackle the over-the-radar period of emissions.