A detailed study of Australia’s path to net zero by 2050 by a combination of Princeton University, The University of Queensland, The University of Melbourne, and consultants Nous Group has been concluded (although at the time of writing it appears not to have been openly published yet). The Net Zero Australia study found that the eastern electricity grid (which serves most of the Australian population) would need to triple its power generation capacity by 2030 to be on track for the 2050 target. Much of the need for this tripling presumably comes from the lower capacity factors of renewable energies compared to the fossil fuels – particularly coal – that Australia has traditionally burned, but there will also be increasing electricity demand to cover the electrification of transport and industry. To support the additional renewables, transmission, storage and heat pumps will also need to be rapidly rolled out, and the authors have concluded that to reach net zero by 2050, trillions of Australian dollars will need to be spent. The study included “projections for potential energy sources, mapping of possible land use change, and analysis of abatement from farming and other land uses”. It modelled a range of scenarios, such as net zero with renewables only, different mixes of low-emissions fossil fuels supporting renewables, and the use of nuclear energy (which Australia has never had any of in its grids). The most achievable scenario is one that includes gas peaking plants supporting a high proportion of renewables in the grid, a similar finding to those in other countries. Professor Michael Brear of the University of Melbourne’s Melbourne Energy Institute said of the findings that “renewables and electrification, supported by a major expansion of transmission lines and storage, are keys to net zero. But we will need an all technology, hands on deck approach. That includes a large increase in permanent carbon storage, deep underground and in vegetation, and a doubling of gas-fired power capacity to support renewables and energy storage. Our modelling finds that there would be no role for nuclear energy unless costs fall sharply to around 30% lower than current international best practice, and renewable energy growth is constrained.” While gas fired capacity would need to be doubled, actual use of gas as a fuel would be lower.

Apart from the Australia’s domestic emissions, the project team also looked Australia’s energy exports, with University of Queensland Associate Professor Simon Smart commenting that “hydrogen made from solar, wind and desalinated water can replace our fossil fuel exports. We can also export large volumes of clean hydrogen with large scale implementation of carbon capture and storage. Exporting green metals, particularly iron and steel made in Australia using clean hydrogen, has much lower abatement and infrastructure costs than for exporting clean hydrogen…Our modelling also suggests that new gas fields may be needed to fulfill export demand for clean hydrogen, particularly if the growth in renewable construction rates hits limits.”

With much criticism of carbon capture and storage in recent months, such comments from academia are an important counter.