Heavy Industries in Australia's Regions Could Cut Emissions by 80% and Create a Jobs Bonanza, Report Says

The regional powerhouses of Australia's industrial economy could slash their greenhouse gas emissions by more than 80% and become centres for multibillion-dollar investments in renewable energy, according to a report backed by some of the country's biggest companies. From a report: Bringing down emissions from producing iron, steel, aluminium, chemicals and liquefied natural gas is seen as one of the most challenging parts of Australia's efforts to reach net zero. But the report from the Australian Industry Energy Transitions Initiative (ETI), a partnership between heavy industry and experts working on decarbonisation, says the transition is possible using a range of known technologies, and would bring a jobs bonanza. By introducing a range of technologies along the supply chain, most of them proven and some already commercially available, the report says greenhouse gas emissions could be cut annually by 69.5m tonnes of CO2-equivalent -- about 14% of Australia's current total emissions.

Re:

[Tokolosh]

Indeed. Why not just cool the climate and not get distracted by this emissions and renewables fixation.

Let's face reality, emissions reduction is too little, too late, too expensive to achieve climate goals. Let's get on with geo-engineering.

Re:

[MacMann]

Indeed. Why not just cool the climate and not get distracted by this emissions and renewables fixation.

Let's face reality, emissions reduction is too little, too late, too expensive to achieve climate goals. Let's get on with geo-engineering.

We can do more than one thing at a time. We can lower CO2 emissions while we do our "geo-engineering".

Geo-engineering is a vague concept that could describe many things. Near me I saw a road that runs along a rive raised about 10 feet because flooding every decade or so was causing problems. Is this "geo-engineering"? It could be. Judging by how buildings along this road built 30 or 40 years ago were built up to where this road is now this is likely something that has been planned out for something lik

Re:

[Tokolosh]

Geo-engineering is not adapting to climate change, it is us changing the climate. Your whole screed is about reducing CO2 emissions, which I grant will do something. But you are still fixated on emissions reduction., which I maintain will not be enough, and will be too slow.

So let's change the climate by other means, which may be much cheaper and work faster. At the very least do more research, but there seems to be a massive blind spot on the topic.

If you don't know what I am on about, it demonstrates t

Re:

[MacMann]

Geo-engineering is not adapting to climate change, it is us changing the climate.

Geo-engineering means a lot of things to a lot of people. If this gets to where nations are trying to change the global climate then expect other nations to bend the climate to their benefit at the same time. There's no one ideal global temperature, atmospheric CO2 level, sea level, or whatever else is the goal of geo-engineering. Russia would likely prefer a warmer planet as that means easier access to natural gas in the Arctic Circle, more warm water seaports, longer growing seasons for crops, and so o

Re:

[Tokolosh]

Ok. But if reducing emissions with low cost, abundant and safe alternatives is a real option, then the free market will take care of it - no government or inter-government intervention will be needed. We can all relax.

Re:

[MacMann]

Ok. But if reducing emissions with low cost, abundant and safe alternatives is a real option, then the free market will take care of it - no government or inter-government intervention will be needed. We can all relax.

Indeed. Government intervention is not likely to speed anything up, only slow it down. If we just get the government out of the way then we'd see the problems of CO2 emissions and energy shortages resolved as people naturally gravitate to low cost energy sources of onshore wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear fission.

The primary obstacle to nuclear fission the entire world over is government intervention. We have politicians that refuse to allow nuclear fission power plants built on their watch. That ma

Re:

[Tokolosh]

I fully agree with everything, except I am less optimistic that sense will prevail and those in power will ease their grasp.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H. L. Mencken

Re:

[MacMann]

I fully agree with everything, except I am less optimistic that sense will prevail and those in power will ease their grasp.

The Biden administration has an energy policy that makes no sense. They are keeping old nuclear power plants open while not allowing new ones to be built. If nuclear power is not safe then we need to close all existing plants and not allow any new ones. If nuclear power is safe then there is no reason to not build new ones. If anything a new power plant would be safer than an old one so we should be building new plants so we can close the old ones.

The Biden administration is pulling permits for petroleu

Re:

[q_e_t]

Indeed. Government intervention is not likely to speed anything up, only slow it down. If we just get the government out of the way then we'd see the problems of CO2 emissions and energy shortages resolved

You'd seen little nuclear being built, though.

Re:

[MacMann]

You'd seen little nuclear being built, though.

That will change. If it doesn't then we face energy shortages.

Re:

[q_e_t]

Who will be paying the insurance premiums? The cost of nuclear excluding those premiums is viable for consumers, but with consumers effectively footing the bill it is not. The transfer of those premiums into the insurance industry would also be problematic itself. This is why without effective government subsidy as insurer of last resort, nuclear is unlikely to be built as it would be much more expensive than other options that would be economically viable in comparison. The issue with renewables would be i

Re:

[MacMann]

Who will be paying the insurance premiums?

Wow. You just won't get it, will you?

There is not enough land, labor, materials, and freshwater to supply the energy needed for a modern economy without nuclear fission. There's people in Australia, UK, France, and so on that get it but they face morons like yourself that are in high enough of a political office to get in the way. These people will soon no longer be in the way because as energy shortages hit these people will lose public support. So long as there is enough cheap natural gas to keep ever

Re:

[q_e_t]

Who will be paying the insurance premiums?

Wow. You just won't get it, will you?

No, I exactly get it. Nuclear power requires subsidy. Given the need for power, that is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is important to be honest about that reality.

You are concerned about who is going to pay for the insurance? That's going to be the least of your worries if politicians don't get their heads out of their asses on energy.

You don't see to get it. The cost of the insurance will make nuclear power not economic to deliver under the current economic reality if it is to be procured on the commercial market. Thus nuclear power requires an effective subsidy. If it is a requirement to maintain energy supplies (your view is not universal, but let's put that to one sid

Re:

[MacMann]

To say the nuclear power insurance costs too much to make it no longer economic is like saying car insurance would cost too much. What kind of car are we talking about? There is not one kind of car, and there is not one kind of nuclear power plant.

You don't have a real argument, do you? I give numbers on EROEI, land use, material use, water use, labor requirements, and all you have is, "but the insurance costs!"

I'm convinced more than ever that we are going to see more nuclear power plants built in the U

Re:

[q_e_t]

To say the nuclear power insurance costs too much to make it no longer economic is like saying car insurance would cost too much.

No, it's not at all the same. It's incredibly different qualitatively. If you think it is the same then you don't get it. It being risk management and insurance. So I declare that I've won the argument, as that is apparently something I can just do if I feel like it.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

Climate change isn't the only reason to reduce emissions. Pollution is a problem too.

Geo engineering is not easy, and we know how to reduce emissions. We just need the political will. If we can't get countries to reduce emissions they aren't going to go in for geo engineering either.

Re:

[quenda]

Geo engineering is not easy, and we know how to reduce emissions.

Geoengineering is dead easy, compared to reducing emissions. And cheap, just a few billion dollars probably to pump sulphates in the stratosphere.
The problem is the unpredictable side-effects on weather systems.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

Oh right, you want to start fucking with the atmosphere, a system we have trouble predicting even on a 24 hour scale sometimes. Climate modelling has come a long way, but still throws up unexpected results.

Then you have the international problem. Unless you get the entire world to agree on this, and climate change shows how impossible that is, you might find some countries object to you altering their climate unilaterally.

Re:

[quenda]

Oh right, you want to start fucking with the atmosphere,

Try reading the post again, before making an idiot of yourself.

Re:

[q_e_t]

To be fair to AmiMoJo, I've seen people suggest pumping sulphates into the atmosphere, consequences be damned. In reality, unless you are doing it by burning coal for energy, it would probably be too expensive to do.

Re:

[quenda]

To be fair to AmiMoJo, I've seen people suggest pumping sulphates into the atmosphere, consequences be damned.

Easier to be fair if Ajinomoto backs off with the sarcastic, wild and obscene accusations. That does not make for civil discussion.
What I fear is that with too little action happening, we are heading toward a point where big countries will be desperate enough to try anything. Anything except drastically reducing emissions.
I understand that people are reluctant to talk about geo-engineering now, from fear it will be used as an excuse not to aggressively cut emissions.

In reality, unless you are doing it by burning coal for energy, it would probably be too expensive to do.

The up-front cost will be

We have the tech to reduce emmissions

[rsilvergun]

and with it climate change. We don't have the tech to do geo-engineering. You might as well be asking "why don't we terraform the moon?". It's because we can't. You've been reading too much sci-fi and not enough science fiction.

Re:

[Tokolosh]

How do you know this? You are willing to dismiss alternatives out of hand when the stakes are so high?

Re:

[vivian]

Even if it was feasible for us to geoengineer our way out of climate change, such as by seeding the upper atmosphere with sulphur to reflect more of the sun's energy, or saltwater aerosols or giant space mirrors - all techniques I have seen mentioned, it would be extremely expensive to do so, and also extremely risky to do. We can't even control man made complex systems like the economy well enough to prevent regular boom and bust cycles with big bubbles followed by big crashes, despite the best efforts o

Re:

[gweihir]

The human race cannot do geo-engineering. No experience, scale way beyond anything the human race ever tried, no sign of the unity needed for such a project and no tech that would actually be mature and efficient enough to be of any use. Reducing greenhouse gasses is the only realistic path we have to get the time to eventually do real fixes.

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

Because we all breathe the same air?

Australia needs nuclear fission (Re:Why bother?)

[MacMann]

In world where Germany is firing up coal plants and closing CO2 free nuclear plants, CO2 emission simply does not matter any more.

I wish I could find a better source on this but I recall Germany is considering reopening recently shuttered nuclear power plants.
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-... [dw.com]

Dr. David MacKay does a very good overview of the problem in under 20 minutes here:
https://www.ted.com/talks/davi... [ted.com]

It is clear that Europe is going to need nuclear power. Australia is going to need nuclear power too but they have considerable reserves of coal and natural gas still so they have plenty of time to work out the math. Some of that m

Re:

[Pinky's Brain]

Alternatively, they could very well become the largest hydrogen exporter in the world. PV will not be a limiting factor for Australia, it will become essentially free for them when the sun shines (massive cost reductions still remain for commercial installations, the future will be flexible, no glass, no steel support, just roll out 100s of feet of flex panel which goes straight to MVDC and stake it to the ground). Geological storage potential? They are drowning in it.

So what remains is the cost of electrol

Re:

[MacMann]

Alternatively, they could very well become the largest hydrogen exporter in the world.

Australia the largest hydrogen exporter in the world? Sure, I guess, but that is a very low bar to clear. Just how much hydrogen is in international trade now? Can't be much.

PV will not be a limiting factor for Australia,

PV has many limiting factors. It takes high purity silicon to produce, which is not exactly easy to get. This is silicon that isn't as "dirty" as metallurgical grade, and doesn't need to be as pure as semiconductor grade, but it will take a lot if solar PV is going to be more than a rounding error on energy production for any natio

Re:

[Pinky's Brain]

For mass of materials at least, going for thin film flexible PV with blown foam support structure, over glass+metal modules on steel frames will change the needle by nearly two orders of magnitude over current PV.

The current way of using PV is based on a lot of inertia and subsidy structures, it is not what really makes sense if you have near infinite cheap land available at a good latitude (as Australia does). Current PV modules are more for putting on roofs in Europe with massive subsidies, than for filli

Re:

[vivian]

There's been a lot of interesting development with thin film solar - and smarter brains and much bigger wallets than mine have gone in on it large. Andrew Forrest, of the Fortescue Metals Group has bought a controlling interest in a Dutch solar film company that can produce the stuff at 7c per watt using a roll to roll process that uses a fraction of the materials compared to traditional solar, is extremely light weight and can be applied to very curved surfaces like corrugated sheeting, uses very commonly

Re:

[MacMann]

but fission isn't getting any cheaper to use for power generation

That's because all development stopped. Where do you think solar power would be today if the government banned all development of solar power? Development means building things. Start building things and they get cheaper as the one time engineering costs get spread out over more units, as the people building things gain more experience, and people figure out ways to improve the technology.

I can show you nuclear power plants that are in operation right now. There's hundreds of them in operation all over

Re:

[vivian]

You claim it's a rounding error on total energy production. A rounding error implies that it's less than 1% - when in actual fact, solar alone generated 3% of the world's power, compared to nuclear, which produces 10% - so its already producing about a third of the power of nuclear, globally.
If anything, Russia's invasion of Ukraine showed how vulnerable depending on nuclear power makes you - one missile would completely destroy Ukraine's power and make a huge radioactive disaster a the same time.
I

Re:

[MacMann]

You claim it's a rounding error on total energy production. A rounding error implies that it's less than 1% - when in actual fact, solar alone generated 3% of the world's power, compared to nuclear, which produces 10% - so its already producing about a third of the power of nuclear, globally.

Here's a source I found on global energy production: https://www.iea.org/reports/ke... [iea.org]

In the pie chart using 2019 data you see nuclear at 5.0% and solar included in "other" at 2.2%. Seeing that wind is also included in that "other' category it is quite possible that the world gets less than 1% of its annual energy supply from solar. Note that I'm considering all energy, not just electricity. If you want to make this about electricity then it's something like 10% of our electricity comes from nuclear fiss

Re:

[q_e_t]

That does nothing about the problems of solar power having a capacity factor in the 20% to 30% range, it peaking at noon when there is the lunch time lull and being largely absent during the morning and evening demand peaks, and so many other issues.

https://www.energynetworks.com.au/news/energy-insider/2020-energy-insider/commercial-down-v-residential-up-covid-19s-electricity-impact/. Figure 5. There is no lunchtime lull. There's a slight but steady decline from around 6am until mid-afternoon, but you'd have a hard time guessing when someone in Oz had their tucker from the actual figures.

There is an early evening increase, but that could be handled by orientation of PV panels to maximise output, some peaking sources (pumped storage hydro), batteries. T

Re:

[MacMann]

There is an early evening increase, but that could be handled by orientation of PV panels to maximise output, some peaking sources (pumped storage hydro), batteries. The big issue is the midnight peak, but then there are ways that this can be smoothed. I think Australia, with reserves of uranium, could do well with some nuclear.

If any utility has a reliable supply of energy from nuclear fission then why would they bother in the least with solar PV? Sure, they can point their panels to the horizon for that last glimmer of light before dusk but that only works if there isn't any clouds that day. Then what? They have to dip into their energy reserves? Any kind of fuel is a reserve of energy. The cost of uranium fuel is tiny compared to the energy output. The biggest expenses are in capital and labor. If they are paying for tha

Re:

[q_e_t]

You want to pick nits about my lunch time lull? That's fine.

Indeed, because it was another of your inaccurate statements.

I can pull up charts too that show a dip in demand around lunch

There is a lunchtime dip in domestic demand, but not overall, as I showed.

Overall demand gradually trends down about 6am to 3pm, then up. But I would also note that this was for March, there would be quite a bit of sun available to around 6pm (sunset 7:30pm) with appropriately positioned PV cells, which would handle a chunk of the demand. You'd need to look at all the options to see how much nuclear might then be needed, but it's really not the s

Re:

[MacMann]

but it is not conceding 'the entire point' at all

Yep, it is. As soon as anyone says "maybe some nuclear" then it's all done. Once one nuclear power plant is allowed then you just gave up the ground on dozens of them. Where's the argument for solar power on the grid once you gave up the point on nuclear fission?

Re:

[q_e_t]

Ah, argument by assertion. Nah, nah, nah. Well, maybe I should assert that if you are using such pathetic debating techniques I've won the argument.

Re: Australia needs nuclear fission (Re:Why bother

[Pinky's Brain]

If it is cheaper enough that wasting electricity in hydrolyzers at low duty cycle to burn in gas turbines for when the sun doesn't shine is still cheaper than using nuclear instead, it's a win.

Let's say between 3-10 times cheaper per kwh. I think thin film dedicated for commercial use can get there (ie very large rolls, MVDC roll voltages, built in foam expandable cushion for getting angle, not something you can put on a house or near consumers).

Re:

[MacMann]

That's wishful thinking on some future solar PV technology versus nuclear power that exists today.

We can do more than one thing at a time. We can build nuclear power plants while fantasizing about solar plus storage solving all of our problems. What I expect to happen is once people see nuclear power working then it's just more and more nuclear power plants while solar power remains just 5 years away. Always 5 years away.

Re:

[Pinky's Brain]

5 years away, kinda like some nuclear plants in Europe.

Building a large scale industry capable of working on dozens of nuclear plants at the same time in the west is not some short term project, it doesn't exist today. They can manage a handful, barely. France and UK are already going big on Nuclear, let Australia go big on hydrogen.

Re: Why bother?

[sectokia]

I agree completely. Over the last 10 years coal usage is up, gas usage is up, oil usage is up. We are putting out more co2 than ever. Yet everyone seems to be in denial about this. This report is just about a bunch of industries wanting $100b of government handouts under the guise of decarbonisation. Digging into the details and most of it is pie in the sky carbon storage ideas.

Re:

[thegarbz]

Digging into the details and most of it is pie in the sky carbon storage ideas.

Everything is pie in the sky until it works. You may be sceptical but the oil and gas industry as well as tech licensors are spending many billions developing technology in the hope that they will be the first holding a viable product in their hand. If there's a chance for someone else to share that R&D cost of course they'll take it. That's about as certain as me applying tax deductions on my tax return next week, there's potential money on the table there.

The only real question is: Is this the modern

Re:

[thegarbz]

In world where Germany is firing up coal plants and closing CO2 free nuclear plants, CO2 emission simply does not matter any more.

Germany firing up coal plants is temporary and their effort doesn't even move the dial compared to the ongoing emissions of countries like USA, Canada, and ... you guessed it, Australia, the down under who are good at rugby, eating prawns on the barbie, and being among the largest per capita polluters in the west.

Stop blaming everyone else SuperKendall you worthless thundercunt.

Reality is needle is moved

[SuperKendall]

their effort doesn't even move the dial compared to the ongoing emissions of countries like USA, Canada, and ... you guessed it, Australia,

If you think closing six nuclear power plants and replacing that output with coal and gas doesn't move the needle at all, well I don't know how to explain anything to you since you don't understand math.

I'll let you have the last response so you can just keep digging uninterrupted.

Re:Why bother?

[bug_hunter]

https://www.destatis.de/EN/The... [destatis.de]

In 2019 Australia's CO2 per capita was 17 metric tonnes
In 2019 Germany's CO2 per capita was 8 metric tonnes
(Not a perfect metric as Australia has a lot of mining operations, but doesn't mean those can't be done more efficiently).

Yes it's sad that Germany has gone a route where coal plants start back up, but the mentality of "Oh this place has had a setback, so let's give up and everybody pollute at full force" is not going to end well.

Re:

[quenda]

In 2019 Australia's CO2 per capita was 17 metric tonnes

This suggests room for easy improvement, but you might as well compare per GDP or per sq.km.
What really matters is the total emissions, not per-capita. Australia is only 1% of world emissions, so doubling or halving that will not matter, unless it is matched by others.
China, US and EU need to come to an agreement, and everyone else will be forced to follow.

Re:

[q_e_t]

Eh? Are you saying that if Australia reduces from 17t/capita to 8.5t capita, Germany should match it. Does that mean reducing to 4t/capita? Why? Or do you mean -8.5t to -0.5t/capita? In reality where you attack problems is first the low hanging fruit.

China, US and EU need to come to an agreement, and everyone else will be forced to follow.

That process has been ongoing for many years and in general improves over time. Most of the EU has a 2050 net zero target.. The USA has set 2050. China is working on 2060. They are all pretty much aligned.

Jobs aren't the goal

[mi]

become centres for multibillion-dollar investments in renewable energy

The only "investors" will be governments — spending the monies of their (captive) taxpayers.

jobs bonanza

Jobs aren't the goal. Goods (and services) are the goal — producing something, people want. Employees are means of achieving that goal...

report backed by some of the country's biggest companies

Yes, the bigger the company, the better it can manipulate government officials into "investing" other people's monies into doing some

Re:

[Cowardly Lurker]

The way we think about CO2 emissions is wrong. Right now, we talk about CO2 emissions as if it releases some portion of a greenhouse gas while leaving the rest of the atmosphere unscathed. So, for instance, when someone breathes air, but only inhales CO2 emissions, we say that they have been subjected to a tragic asphyxiation. But this is a myth.

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

Sovereign citizen detected.

Get people out of poverty first

[backslashdot]

Get everyone in the world out of extreme poverty, then reverse the pollution damage. It is not irreversible. A lot of these green initiatives come at the expense of global economic wellbeing.

Re:

[thegarbz]

Get everyone in the world out of extreme poverty, then reverse the pollution damage.

You know what happens when people get out of poverty? Did you guess their energy use goes up?

It is not irreversible.

Holy shit. That's a new one. I mean I've heard global warming is a myth, it's not man made, okay it is but it's small, I've heard we can't do anything about it, it's all China's fault, etc. But I've never heard "it's not irreversible". That's a new one even for some of the dumber Slashdotters.

A lot of these green initiatives come at the expense of global economic wellbeing.

Except they don't because they generate jobs and promote the economy while not hurting economic wellbeing one bit.

I wonder if

Re:

[backslashdot]

So you want to keep people poor is that it? I have a better idea, why don't you give up energy use and swap places with someone who is poor? Are you too good to be poor but someone else isn't?

Re:

[q_e_t]

So you want to keep people poor is that it?

False dichotomy.

I have a better idea, why don't you give up energy use and swap places with someone who is poor?

Germany, with half the CO2/capita has about the same GDP/capita as Australia. Thus it seems possible to have relatively high energy use and GDP/capita without such high CO2/capita usage as Australia. We're not talking about Botswana here, we are talking about Australia. Building suitable energy systems for countries in Africa, as an example, that are low carbon is a slightly different conversation. Given the reducing cost per MWh of low-carbon sources, then there is no particular reason why

Re:

[backslashdot]

Of course it is reversible. If you can push the climate one way .. you can shove it back the other way by methods like carbon sequestration. Reference: https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov]

"If all human emissions of heat-trapping gases were to stop today, Earth’s temperature would continue to rise for a few decades as ocean currents bring excess heat stored in the deep ocean back to the surface. Once this excess heat radiated out to space, Earth’s temperature would stabilize. Experts think the add

Re:

[q_e_t]

Of course it is reversible. If you can push the climate one way .. you can shove it back the other way by methods like carbon sequestration.

Carbon sequestration is difficult. If it was easy and cheap we'd already be doing it.

And just because you can, say, glue a Ming vase back together doesn't mean you should play a game of catch with it. It's not going to be quite the same afterwards. There might be bits (in the case of the earth think species) missing afterwards and it might not be quite as robust. It's expensive and it may take a while to be fixed.

False dichotomy is false

[rsilvergun]

We've been able to end extreme poverty for about 3-5 decades now. None of these initiatives interfere with or change that. We don't want to. Partially because that money belongs to the 1%, partially for various imperialism and empire building reasons and partially because some folks just want there to be poor people in the world.

Poverty is a social problem.

Prices

[zkiwi34]

Will no doubt increase, maybe even double if they do this.

Probably not

[rsilvergun]

because mitigating climate change will save billions. Now, profits might decrease. Jeff Bezos might need to put regular unleaded in his super yacht. But prices aren't going to go up any more than they would from the climate change damage, probably a lot less since this would make a ton of new, productive jobs.

Maybe my math is off...

[galabar]

More workers to produce the same amount of goods? That is some kind of "bonanza," I guess...

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion