 Welcome everybody to the ANU Energy Change Institute webinar today where we'll be examining the Government's Technology Investment Roadmap. We have a group of panellists with us today. I will briefly go through their names and backgrounds at the moment and then I will be handing over to them each to present their perspective on the roadmap. Before we get into the formal part of the presentation, let me now just start by acknowledging and celebrating the first Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and we pay our respects to their elders past, present and emerging. So as you're all aware, we are in the process of examining the discussion paper on the Technology Investment Roadmap which was released a couple of weeks ago and as part of this process, the Energy Change Institute at the ANU has held this public forum where we have the opportunity to examine in some detail the ramifications of the Technology Roadmap with a group of expert panellists and of course this morning many of you will have participated in a webinar by the Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel in which he outlined the detailed thinking behind the roadmap and also some of the elements of the discussion paper that we will be talking about today. So we have in the panel discussion group this morning, Sophia Hamblin-Wang. Sophia is the Director of CO2 Value Australia which is an industry body promoting the development deployment of sustainable industrial solutions that capture carbon dioxide and transform it into useful products. Then we have Dr Patrick Hartley. Patrick is the leader of CSIRO's hydrogen industry mission where he is responsible for developing the strategy, structure, operating model and partnerships that will underpin a major new national research initiative based around hydrogen and hydrogen industries. Then we have Professor Frank Yotso. Frank is the Director of the Centre for Climate and Energy Policy at the ANU in the Crawford School of Public Policy. He's also a member of the Energy Change Institute here at ANU and he's an economist whose research focuses on policy for climate and energy. Then we have Dr Liz Ratnam who is also a member of the Energy Change Institute at ANU. She's a future engineering research leader in the Research School of Electrical Energy and Materials Engineering and she has an interest in the control of distribution networks and a focus on resilience in a carbon neutral power grid. Then we have Anna Skarbeck. Anna is the CEO of Climate Works Australia which is located within the Monash Sustainable Development Institute and that organisation works to bridge the gap between research and climate action and accelerate the transition to zero emissions in Australia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Then finally we have Sanjiva De Silva. Sanjiva is the Acting General Manager of the Technology Roadmap Task Force which is based in the International Climate Change and Energy Innovation Division within the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources and Sanjiva will be here to explain the processes and the mechanisms of the roadmap and to answer questions around the creation of the discussion paper and the process for the input of discussion into that document. So that's our group of panellists and what I'll be doing is to ask each of them to present their perspective on the roadmap for around five minutes. This will then be followed by the opportunity for you and the audience to ask the panel questions and we will then have a general panel discussion around the questions that you raise. But first of all let's hear from the panellists themselves, their perspective on the technology investment roadmap and I'd like to ask Sophia to start that discussion. Over to you Sophia. Thank you for having me Ken and it's great to be here with so many people that I've seen on webinars very recently. So thank you again for having me. I'm here representing CO2 Value Australia which is an industry policy and advocacy group for carbon capture and utilization technologies. Now if you just want to go to the next slide. The first thing I wanted to say just the next slide. The first thing I wanted to just tell everybody is that titles matter and I wanted to get some of the nomenclature right from the start because carbon capture and utilization technologies are different from carbon capture and storage and also can be different to carbon capture utilization and storage so it's very very inconsistent right now and it's something that we're trying to get to the to get some consistency with so carbon capture and storage is the underground injection of CO2 into cavities carbon capture and utilization is transforming CO2 into valuable materials that can be sold and yeah can be used for money and carbon capture utilization and storage historically has been used in some of our technology discussions as CCS plus enhanced oil recovery but recently has been expanded in some places like the international energy agency and others to say that it is CCS plus CCU. So just if it's confusing for me then it's definitely going to be confusing for everybody else for the purpose of this discussion I'm talking about carbon capture and utilization which is CO2 to usable materials. Next slide. So our group CO2 value Australia was formed around a year ago but after a lot of background work to advocate for Australian companies and technologies that want to happen in Australia that transform CO2 into synthetic fuels into building materials like cements, plasterboards and other aggregates and also chemical feedstocks that can replace other hydrocarbon feedstocks so the whole idea has come about because there are actually a lot of technologies in the world that use CO2 as a feedstock that maybe need a little bit of acceleration which could represent quite a lot of carbon abatement for the world and especially as we move towards 100% renewables and a net zero future there will be a lot of heavy emitting industries that need decarbonization pathways so like steel and cement and other chemical industries. So we're aligned with CO2 value Europe which is a think tank in Europe that has around 70 members in heavy industries signaling to the market that there's movement here. Next slide. And globally we've seen that yeah the market has been estimated to be worth between 1.1 trillion and 5.9 trillion dollars globally and we think that Australia could play a really large part in that and final slide. Just given that processing CO2 into fuels and into building materials in particular would focus on using our advanced manufacturing need to develop advanced manufacturing and use our bulk handling and resource processing competencies it's actually an opportunity to sustain ability industry in Australia whilst using our existing competencies and also the ability to export green materials and help to decarbonize our partners and our neighbours. So our website is co2value.org.au and I'm looking forward to talking more in this discussion about the roadmap. Terrific thank you very much Sophia for those of you that just joined us I see a lot of people are coming on now that was Sophia Hamlin Wang speaking on behalf of the CO2 value Australia peak body. My name is Ken Baldwin I'm the director of the Energy Change Institute I'm the chair of the panel discussion today and it's my pleasure now to invite our next panelist Dr Patrick Hartley from CSIRO's hydrogen industry mission to give his perspective on the roadmap. Over to you Patrick. Well thanks very much Ken and good afternoon everybody I hope those of you who saw Dr Finkel's presentation found it useful and interesting I certainly did. I guess in terms of the CSIRO view or my view on the technology investment roadmap it's certainly clearly an important piece of work. I think the development of a long-term strategic approach to developing and monitoring energy technology development investments is really important and particularly needs to be backed up by robust evidence bases which is really what I think the roadmap is all about so really applaud that direction that we're going in and really the need to use that information both in terms of informing policy which is of course the government focus here but also really in providing a clear basis for industry investment I think is particularly critical and we know the industry has been asking for this in many different ways in the energy space. I think also really important to note that as Dr Finkel said that it's a discussion paper at the moment not the final document so the lack of detail which I think is probably pretty clear in the document at the moment and was commented on is understandable from that context it's really a discussion paper which hopefully will start to fill in some of those details as it moves forward. CSIRO's role in developing the roadmap we are involved and again as Dr Finkel mentioned we've been reviewing quite a lot of the content and and perhaps significantly it draws from significant from pieces of work which we've developed in recent years including our recent Australian National Outlook report ongoing work on energy cost development through our gen cost studies and the low emissions technology roadmap which we released in 2017 so there's quite a bit of CSIRO content and involvement in the process. It's fair to say that the goals of the roadmap align closely with that of our energy business unit in CSIRO which is to deliver trusted advice world leading science and new technologies which enable Australia's transition to a net zero emissions energy future and really trying to focus that around solving that energy trilemma which is which is touched on in the in the report but not mentioned explicitly of affordable reliable and sustainable energy systems. Additionally to that I suppose the post COVID-19 era is an opportunity to really reframe that energy transition discussion and look at some of the new opportunities for the diversification of energy sources and supply really as an avenue now to look at the energy security and system resilience questions which which are which are inherent in the energy transition and also the potential for new industries which leverage those opportunities and hydrogen is one which is obviously one we're very interested in CSIRO and we are investing significantly in this area in terms of research and technology development both through our hydrogen energy systems future science platform which really focuses on the early stage research which can help that industry develop and more recently the proposal which which I'm working on to establish a hydrogen industry mission which really delivers in partnerships industry enabling R&D in support of market activation for hydrogen and ready to support that H2 under 2 stretch goal which we saw in the the investment roadmap. We see that goal as I guess ambitious but appropriate our national hydrogen roadmap which we published in 2018 sort saw $2.50 as a as a as a best case but achievable goal and so not too far away from the H2 under 2 I guess in terms of in terms of what the future might look like so you're pretty pretty comfortable with that that general target as something as a cost for hydrogen that really allows a whole lot of different industry applications to come online so you know I might I might just leave it there and hand it back to you Ken. Terrific thank you very much that was Patrick Hartley from CSIRO's hydrogen mission providing his perspective on the roadmap it's now my pleasure to introduce my ANU colleague Professor Frank Yotso to give perspective from his viewpoint thank you there Frank. Okay just a few points here so overall a very positive development actually to have a process a formal process of defining priorities towards a new energy system and a lower carbon overall economic system with with a method and a framework here for for input from from stakeholders and now I think we can be sure that the research community overall including universities will engage quite wholesomely in this this this ample capacity to provide good analysis on technology on economics and also the broader strategic perspectives that invariably come up when you think long-term about a transition like that there's a you know there's a there's a framework for an annual review of technology priorities I think that's really quite splendid that can be a lasting framework institutional framework to to guiding this kind of effort in Australia it's also clear that this roadmap is to flow into a national long-term strategy on lower emissions outcomes which which the country is required to submit under the UN Paris Agreement and and we're engaged in research that will be relevant to that long-term emissions strategy so if you're interested in that please please do get in touch and stay in touch of the remainder of the year so in terms of technology obviously very long list of technology everything under the sun is really mentioned in that discussion paper that has attracted a lot of criticism but you know it's a discussion paper nothing is actually a good starting point to have kind of everything on on the table notably that everything does not include coal and so to me that's actually one of the most significant aspects of the discussion paper that you know implicitly it takes coal off off the table I think as as a future technology for Australia's energy system a lot of mention of carbon capture and storage also yeah often some misunderstanding public commentary around that because you know what's suggested is that CCS for industry not for the power sector and that is absolutely the right approach CCS and CCU carbon capture news for in industrial applications mention of gas as a as a component of all of this very clearly part of a broader push by the federal government for expansion of gas production and I think most importantly really from a long-term perspective is that all of the renewable energy technologies and renewable enabling technologies including you know the potential for a renewable space energy export and energy intensive products export industry from Australia are in the discussion paper for the roadmap so how to whittle down over 100 technologies to just a handful I think Dr Finkel said he wants a handful in that priority list so a lot of interests that will come together on that and questions really you know what is to be decided what is to be done and what is to be funded really on the basis of such a priority list obviously R&D the question then is what are the areas for Australia right with relatively limited resourcing can really make a difference here relative to a global research effort right and we are the best economic returns for investment and consideration and then we come through a question of funding and that comes through a question of deployment as well so in terms of you know if you really want to make progress here in an area that is really quite central national importance of economic importance decades to come then you know there was any funding commitment needs to be measured in billions not not millions it it seems that arena might get new programs right one would hope that there will be a well resourced if that is the case clean energy finance corporation is an obvious vehicle to use and again that's you that's mentioned in the discussion paper to my mind if the cfc investment mandate is to be broadened and broadened a lot probably then its endowment should be increased cfc makes a return for the government and and in these times of economic recession actually makes perfect sense for government to invest more for government to help drive commercial investment and and to stimulate the economy and in that context allow me to point out that we have published today a working paper on low carbon stimulus or fiscal stimulus compatible with low carbon objectives and I'd warmly welcome any comment and reaction to that paper that we published today there on fiscal stimulus that's compatible with low low carbon objectives as well as economic and social outcomes finally and I'll end on that deployment so minister Taylor has been clear that it's all about technology not taxes implicit he is that deployment will have to wait until clean energy or new technology is at cost parity with existing old technologies or high high emitting technologies the thing is of course experience tells up that many technologies need support in the period where where they become cost competitive until they can be deployed at scale so that can be through co-financing through subsidies of various forms through dare mention it carbon pricing maybe regulation from minimum standards right and cost parity comes later so the tremendous success story of solar photovoltaics tells us this story there was no I mean this is this is no cost cost cost competitive but it wasn't during an extended period of development and deployment and for some technologies you know they will never be at cost parity with their polluting alternatives anything with carbon capture and storage is really in that basket and so in these cases the social benefit of zero carbon production structures and the future advantage in global markets needs to be taken into account when setting policy thanks very much terrific thank you Frank so now I'd like to pass over to another ANU colleague from the energy change institute Liz Ratnam Liz let's hear your perspective on the technology investment roadmap and for those of you in the audience if you would like to start thinking about what questions you might like to ask at the end of the panel discussion please go to the Q&A button at the bottom of your screen and pose questions there thank you very much thanks Ken I have some slides as well are you able to to share them Paris or shall I wonderful so we'll maybe progress to the next slide this is just showing everyone the roadmap and how it looks so the next slide I'll be touching on stage three and stage four so the the stage is six to onwards are going to evolve I suppose after the submission so maybe we'll progress to the next stage where we're looking at the short medium and long term so in the short term in particular my area of interest is in electricity and how to how to make it affordable secure and reliable as the roadmap mapped out and in particular looking at things like residential rooftop solar and battery storage so maybe if we progress to the next slide I'm looking at this short term so from 2020 to 2022 as Frank said we've had a large success with rooftop solar where if we look at a typical residential customer that consumes approximately 20 kilowatt hours a day that cost them approximately five dollars a day that customer installed rooftop solar and a really small unit of one and a half kilowatt unit they produce approximately five kilowatt hours a day of the 20 and that can lead to a reduction in their bill of two approximately three dollars a day depending on what your financial tariffs are for example net meeting feeding tariff that there's a variety of different ways to do it and so we've seen a lot of success because of one reducing emissions and two for the customers saving money on their electricity and so more recently we've seen battery storage reduce considerably in cost so through my research when I started the battery cost for lithium ion for example was you know upwards of 800 dollars per kilowatt hour and now it's like you know projected to come down considerably more and so the payback period we're looking at like you know seven to ten years but if we install that battery storage with the solar PV and particularly in Australia where we have time of use tariffs that allow us to save the electricity that's produced in the daytime and then use that electricity when we come home and use a lot of our power if we just looked at the financial way of like charging and discharging that battery you know there's an opportunity to actually be paid by the utility depending on your tariff of how you do that however if everyone goes or goes and does the same thing like uses the same tariff charges and discharges the battery at the same time and we had like everyone installing the technology we potentially create new new challenges for the grid in that the problem that we had with solar in the middle of the day generating a lot of power but nobody using it because they're at work then gets shifted to the the peak pricing time so some of my workers looked at how do you balance reducing the the cost to expanding the electrical infrastructure to facilitate this technology versus like looking at the financial benefits to the customer and so we're using this QP it's a different control framework if we looked at how to balance those objectives using today's tariffs we could actually you know reduce the cost of expansion for the grid help the customer and reduce their bills and extra two dollars a day which is you know really I think what this short term framework should be about is like how do we we incentivize these different technologies so that they also help the utility as well as the customer and so if you go to the next slide thinking more longer term out to the medium so 2023 to 2030 on the roadmap where we talk about dispatchable generation storage transmission and support for electrification of other sectors what's really interesting is if we go to the next slide the AEMO integrated system plan so if you go through the the system plan on the the right side here this this graph the highlighted region is this 2023 to 2030 and on the other side of the axis we see the the retiring of coal-fired generation so we see Liddell happening in the next two or three years but then we've got like a bit of a window in this period to really prepare for this rapid decommissioning of existing infrastructure so this is really our window to prepare for this this change in generation mix system and so what I sort of see in this medium term is that we need to also address another challenge of the electrification of other industries so for example electric vehicles if you you know drive considerably if you think about 10 kilowatt hours a day that you might need to charge up to 20 it's almost on par with what that 20 kilowatt hours a day was for a single residential customer consuming so it's quite in a large draw on the existing infrastructure to support that electrification particularly at that residential level and so we've got this opportunity to prepare for this decommissioning but we also have this this opportunity to look at how do we leverage these new devices so an electric vehicle also could help the grid in supporting it during times that we needed electricity with storage so we've got this extra load but we also have this extra flexibility so how do we coordinate all of these devices like rooftop solar wind battery backing this renewable energy and also electric vehicles so that's like on the technology side which I think the roadmap addresses really well however I kind of seen like what enables all of this technology and our ability to move forward is the the supporting technologies of control and coordination and sensing so if you can't see the problems you can't it's hard to address them for example and traditionally in the distribution sector we've had very limited sensing so in the past we've relied a lot on customers calling and letting us know when there's problems in the grid and then doing an investigation that's starting to change but to facilitate millions of devices to allow for these full coal fire generators to be decommissioned is really going to require a lot in terms of the sensing and control and coordination so we move to the next slide in terms of long term I really see that as like us getting prepared for this rapid decommissioning of coal power generators and in there they've talked about growing capacity so you know if you think of that 20 kilowatt hours a day for one customer and adding like almost doubling that for electric vehicles and other electrification we're going to need more capacity in addition to the capacity that we're going to require to decommission these existing infrastructure so capacity growth like I see the medium term was our opportunity to get it right and then we're going to expand I think I've got one last one or two last slides how am I going for time so longer term decommissioning those generators and then the next slide if we move on yes my indicative shot there so it was really interesting to look at this and just I suppose the key message I want to convey is of course we need to invest in the technologies and to bring down the cost to enable the adoption but equally supporting those technologies so for example grid security technologies micro grids simulated technologies these are all going to support these renewable technologies deployment and to get to this kind of scale that we need to go and a few red things thing highlighted there like grid sensors and flywheels I I think we're missing from the roadmap and so the last slide I think yes I agree with with this slide except for in the red text here I probably add not on track who is the control and coordination and the cyber resilience so that's what we're we're doing a lot of work in the research sector to to facilitate this transition however we need to have the sensors and the data and and stable control systems in place to to facilitate this this path forward so thank you I think that's my last slide I'll hand it back great thank you very much Liz so now we'll move on to welcome Anna Scarbeck from Climate Works and Anna will give us her perspective on the technology investment roadmap thank you Anna thanks Ken hopefully I'm unmuted now so I'm very supportive of all that's been said so far and with the opportunity of following the other speakers I won't repeat those messages but rather dig deeper on a couple of those areas particularly around what does supporting deployment of these technologies look like and and how might we consider grouping the long list of technologies in to say that the top half doesn't that that Alan Finkel and others have called for so to open of course Climate Works Australia has recently published a detailed study of the decarbonisation technologies that are available in Australia that's our research series decarbonisation futures which builds on work that we did with ANU five years ago with Frank who's with us today and that's available on our website and I won't go through that today but to say that all of the technologies in the scenarios that we study are included in the government's technology investment roadmap what that work showed is that the technologies are available and in many cases mature or already demonstrated and what's needed is to accelerate their deployment and that it's the the pace of deployment and scale is the is the acceleration that we need I'm pleased to note that the technology investment roadmap itself acknowledges this and in particular also acknowledges the breadth of the sectors where these technologies need to be deployed and so in relation in particular to sectors outside of electricity the paper acknowledges that challenges to deployment of cost-saving technologies across the built environment transport industry and agriculture is a priority and so we have used a similar framework to the slide that was just shown there from the IEA looking across the sectors where these technologies can be deployed those those sectors buildings industry transport agriculture and electricity across all of those sectors we see that the technologies can be grouped into broadly four pillars of decarbonisation and this matters for the prioritisation because the research shows that we need all of these that it isn't about one picking picking picking a few that will do the whole job those four pillars are energy efficiency and demand management electricity obviously zero emissions electricity through renewable and fuel switch so that's electrification and also switching to biofuels renewable hydrogen as a substitute for gas and all other fuel switch opportunities in the non-electrified energy sources and then the fourth are the non-energy emissions for which largely the opportunities are sequestration or substitution and again there's a range of technologies that are needed and all of those four pillars apply across all the five sectors so a key message when thinking about this task is to think about grouping the challenges into priorities rather than perhaps the individual technologies and looking at how those technologies work together to address each of the pillars of those challenges so when Climate Works has looked at how do we support the deployment of this breadth of technologies we are encouraged by the successful history of combination of push-pull measures and that's where the initial upfront investment considered say the push which is the focus of this technology investment where might government investment do its job is combined with the pull measures that really send the signal that there is a long-term market or an ongoing buyer of the technology that the push signal can support some initial cost reduction and so we've seen in the clean energy sector that has worked well for example when we had the RET initially it was a buying signal that was set at what was thought to be 2% of the market was actually a specified number of megawatt hours and then that as the market grew that goal grew to 20% and stood there as a confirmed buyer of that share of electricity on top of that there was then government investment through arena and cfc that combined to provide upfront grants and concessional debt and and those two organizations stood in the market also as a funder of 10 large-scale solar farms through a coordinated round which which over 18 months saw the cost per megawatt half there were more bidders than winners to that to that 10 round program because there was the long-term market signal that the RET and this and the state reverse options by that point provided so we will be keen to see how that combination of push-pull measures can be applied to all the other priority technologies that this technology investment roadmap is exploring such as renewable hydrogen such as demand management energy efficiency in the built environment such as the transport measures electrification of vehicles so the technology investment roadmap focuses on economic stretch goals we've heard about the h2 under 2 and they are a really helpful endpoint goal which which which we consider can be paired with what we would call usage stretch goal and the deployment then comes into the frame as what the actions that government and and corporate buyers can support so if we think about the economic stretch goal is ultimately the price point at which we would see universal usage when it's when it's competitive for the market to be deploying at widespread these deployment stretch goals help us set the interim steps along the way what can procurement do when when government can partner as an investor but also as a buyer or through policy to require that the market be the buyer so for example in transport we're seeing state governments are buying electric buses but we also know from our research what the what the usage stretch targets are that align with the carbon trajectories of the Paris agreement to set us on a path of two degrees or one and a half so in the in the renewable electricity sector we know that that requires renewables to reach three quarters so 75 percent or more of the grid this decade and a emo confirms that's possible and for transport we know that electric vehicles would ideally reach about 75 percent of all new vehicles sold by the end of this decade to stay in line with a one and a half degree trajectory so that's a usage stretch target it equates to about a third of the fleet within a decade interestingly five years ago the research showed that maybe these would take three decades to reach one third of fleet deployment so the technology improvement has been rapid in the last five years and and and we consider that these usage stretch goals are a really important pairing of policy and buying commitment to help achieve the economic stretch goals I support also Frank's analysis that fiscal stimulus measures are a great opportunity to align the double dividend of decarbonisation and economic revitalisation and happy to to join the conversation on that afterwards there are other examples where those usage stretch goals have played a big role for example in the built environment governments acted as the first buyer of four and a half star commercial office office buildings and that then helped catalyze the whole market not just for those initial government-tenanted offices but now it normalized that now nearly all commercial offices will build at a four and a half star or five star so that they can attract that sort of government tenant that I hopes an illustration of the power of the push-pull signal and we're looking forward to working with this community and the government in the development of what measures can follow the prioritization that the technology investment roadmap has catalyzed thank you very big thank you very much Anna now I'd like to bring in our final panelist Sanjiva to Silva so Sanjiva is the acting general manager of the technology roadmap task force so he will present some slides which tell us a bit more about the process of how the roadmap will be developed and evolved over time so welcome Sanjiva thanks very much Ken and I missed the very beginning of this the webinar you may have already acknowledged country but just to just to begin by saying that in the spirit of reconciliation I and the Department of Industry acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which we're meeting across Australia their connections to the land sea and community and we respect their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are on the webinar today so having said that let me begin by I do have some slides but not absolutely necessary to put them up so thanks Ken for inviting me to speak I think I was surprised a number of the panelists have already done a lot of my job for me by highlighting the sort of things that I wanted to stress at the beginning of this discussion if we can move to the next next slide so the person that put these slides together for me they've actually made it animated so if you could just track track it through so that we have the whole screen full Paris that'd be great so back in August when minister Taylor asked us to start working on this project a couple of things were really apparent from the very beginning the first was that deploying a low-emissions technology was not going to be something that the government could do alone that sounds sort of obvious but a partnership with industry with communities and with the private sector and investors is in particular that partnership was going to be crucial to our success or failure and the second thing was that in this space technology is moving so quickly this couldn't be a certain forget we couldn't just have a technology roadmap that we published and and hoped that that would somehow chart chart us on the way towards 2050 so there are two characteristics that a couple of the speakers have outlined and the doctor Finkel has outlined throughout the throughout the workshops that we've been doing but it's worth repeating this document that we released in on the 21st of May that is not the roadmap that is just a discussion paper and I know we've included a fair bit of detail for a for a discussion paper but we wanted to do that to get the kind of engagement that we're actually seeing so the first point to make this is a discussion paper the roadmap is the process and the ongoing annual statements that will come and the second aspect of it is to just get at that fact that we now have a platform whereby Australians can come together and have this discussion on an annual basis which from my from my thinking is probably the most valuable thing that we've achieved with that discussion paper so just to say Dr Finkel and and I have been involved now over the last week with around seven or eight workshops all of them have been oversubscribed and the level of engagement has been fantastic both incredibly well informed teaching the task force and others in our our team you know things that we we we've seen new perspectives on how we would approach this work so all of it has been fantastic and so what we're saying is that this discussion needs to continue and the take home message I guess from my presentation will be that on the 21st of June we'd hope that people can put into writing their submissions into this roadmap process because the task force will look at them very carefully as we head along we did just on that we did lose a couple of months in terms of the release of the roadmap because of the COVID pandemic and and what I would encourage people to try and do is to try and meet that 21st deadline only because we will have a lot of submissions and working through them will be you know tough if things are coming far past that but of course we want to hear from everyone in terms of this process can you click through all of the other the rest of the animation there thanks Paris now this is a variation of the slide that was put up earlier that comes from the roadmap but it just it's kind of a bit clearer on what stage we're at and what this first low emissions technology statement that will be released later this year what that first statement is going to really focus on the discussion paper set a vision and you can read that vision it's it's maybe not as punchy as some people would have hoped for but I can tell you that the central platform that vision is that Australia takes a leadership role or you know we are already a leader in many of these areas but that Australia takes a leadership role into the future domestically and internationally on the deployment of low emissions technologies that's really the core part of the vision of this roadmap after setting a vision we pulled together a few a few people from across our department from across the public service but also we had an excellent engagement from arena in particularly to do a survey an initial survey of about 140 technologies that were that were important CSI row our colleagues at CSI row kicked the tyres on that review and the output of that review is presented in the discussion paper we will have missed technologies in that also our assessments may be maybe more ambitious or less ambitious that in relation to particular technologies than people on this call might have liked this was the whole opportunity and please write in and let us know where we've slipped up we want to hear from you on on those things a key thing about that survey is the fact that we approached this process by going very broad very broad ignoring some of the political social dimensions to some of those technologies we went broad because we did want to make sure that everything was in our field of vision as we get towards our priority setting the second thing and I was really happy to hear Anna say this say this point which is that before you prioritise the actual technologies which of course will change over time and evolve before you set those technologies in the near medium and long term you need to be clear about what are the challenges and opportunities you're going to pursue now we pitched our initial thinking on that in to in the roadmap in the discussion paper but we are really welcoming people to come to the conversation and let us know what you think Australia as a country needs to prioritise in the near medium and long term in terms of the challenges and opportunities we we pursue through technology now in terms of the first of the first statement there are going to be two really critical things that it will do it isn't going to just stop as the discussion paper did with just a broad survey it is going to identify priority technologies and there are two basic components to how we see that happening first there's the technical analysis that we're doing but second we have a panel led by Dr Finkel but including people that you know it's just a pleasure for me personally to be working with you know leaders from across industry across the Australian private sector as well as government who are helping us do the much more difficult task of sort of judging where we lay our priorities what challenges and opportunities we pursue so that's the identification of technologies and finally just to say that Minister Taylor core to his thinking is that while we recognise there are various issues that factor into the deployment of technologies we follow he fully accepts that the first order task is to understand when those low emission technologies come into economic parity with their competing business as usual counterparts and that is the core of what we are calling these economic stretch goals and so that that will frame a lot of the thinking around how we approach that statement after the statement there will be a continuing process and so round and round and we will revisit it each year after the process we want to make sure that this is also an opportunity for the government to step back and balance its portfolio look across its investments in clean or low emissions technology and say this balanced portfolio balance we have is appropriate to where we want to head and the balancing points in particular where we're looking at there you know have we spread our risk appropriately have we looked at you know investments in mature technologies that will ensure deployment in the near and medium term but have we also set up the research and the basic R&D that we need to ensure that in 2050 Australians are ready to contribute to solving the big problems we see that the big challenges we see up to that extent of course we then have to deliver our investments and we're also going to bring a heavy emphasis into impact evaluation really tracking how is our investment performing against the goals that we've outlined now can I think I'm probably out of time so I might just quickly just look at the next slide and say the key thing the key thing to recognize in terms of the character of this process and the statement the next slide Paris thanks and if we could just track through that the key thing here is that this is not a panel the panel the ministerial reference panel will not be presenting a separate report which recommends various actions by government which then the minister either accepts or not doesn't the statement that will result at the end of this year which the task force will support the drafting of but minister Taylor will will own will be owned by the government and so it will be a document that outlines how the government will track the ministerial reference panel is guiding us at every step along that drafting process and you know I'm really grateful that Dr Finkel has given up a huge amount of his time even in the last couple of weeks but going back months now to guide us in that process obviously we are talking to industry and communities and what we what we will come out with is this is this low emissions technology statement later in the year I'm I'm really happy to answer questions but I might just leave it there for now thank you terrific thank you very much Sanjeeva and we now have had a chance to hear from all our panelists on their perspective I would like to encourage those of you that are listening into the webinar to now put your questions on the Q&A button at the bottom of the screen we have quite a few already and and we'll go through them in the next half hour or so I'd like to kick this Q&A session off with a couple of questions myself of the panel the first of these I will like I would be interested to hear your perspective on what should be the stretch goals that we've heard about in the discussion paper and that Sanjeeva just mentioned so from your perspective what are the big technology goals that Australia can really contribute to on the technology roadmap at the time so let's think about that but my first question is around the the process of filtering these technologies and we saw the chief scientist this morning show a slide which had a number of filters progressing through the technology roadmap process starting with the capacity to create large abatement the capacity to provide economic value the technology readiness etc etc so these filters are applied successively as the roadmap progresses and of course reduces the number of technologies that are being prioritized down to a smaller list so my question is that's fair enough you're putting this in terms of the of the overall objectives of the of the scheme but how do we avoid technology lock-in particularly at an early stage in this sort of process or even technology lock-out for something that might suddenly develop more prospectively in coming years than was thought initially and could be allowed back into the into the investment process so I'd be interested to hear the panel's views on on ways in which we can make sure that lock-in and lock-out doesn't happen to the exclusion or the inclusion of technologies over time you'd like to go first on that can jump in on that Ken I think just some lessons perhaps from hydrogen industry development and that national hydrogen strategy which was adopted last year late last year I think one of the key desires from that strategy is really to have a very adaptive approach to technology choices and recognize that you know I think the key point here is this process of review measure and decide again and keep doing that I think it's really important not to lock in things for a long long term that as you say might might suddenly be supplanted by a by disruptive innovation or or other other factors so it's challenging because some of these things require huge capex investments and you know the organizations that want the industries that want to do that will need the certainty around that so it is a bit of a double-edged sword but certainly remaining adaptive I think is the key the key part of that thanks Patrick anybody else Frank oh yeah I mean it would seem that the process that maps that's mapped out in a discussion paper allows for adjustment right of priorities over time and you know means inescapable that if you if you intend to provide support for specific technologies then they need to be chosen application of criteria such as abatement potential is important you'd obviously want some sort of notion of cost effectiveness in that and a notion of the the probability or possibility of emerging advantage comparative advantage in different technologies fine you'd want to think about it in those terms I'd I'd agree and I'd oh sorry Elizabeth did you want to go so just I'm keeping it as adaptable and flexible as possible is very important but obviously the shape of a funnel is would indicate that we would be wanting to make sure that as many technologies as possible are considered at the beginning and so that's why this discussion paper and responses to the discussion are going to be super important because if anything's being forgotten at this stage it needs to be included and then there needs to be some mechanism to bring in new disruptive technologies down the track if they're necessary thank so I agree sorry so I was just going to add that I think it's really important to fund on multiple timelines so for example when I started work on battery storage it was during the smoker smart city oz grid trial and at that point in time it was not cost effective however I started to ask the question like when does it become cost effective and now you know more than 10 years later we're starting to see that technology um being quite disruptive and so I would see it's quite important to to fund both research that might not be cost effective like considered in the short or medium term but then to like bring that forward at some later stage where things become adaptive so so having multiple horizons of research um long-term strategic and short-term and being able to shift them around I think is is quite important could I add my um so just to really support I mean Alan also brings that idea of a an adaptive approach you know through the hydrogen strategy into our thinking now you know there are certain things you can invest in that are going to support you no matter how things develop one of the the classic one is it where you invest in skills you know and and capability that supports you however the future state of the world develops one one also on that point that of the time horizons one thing that the roadmap explicitly recognizes is that with our current investments we need to see impacts in the near term the median term and the long term so those impacts need to be weighted and balanced accordingly so that the structure that I described has specifically been created for that the last point I would make again is just that the minister has emphasized the importance of us getting better at also cutting ending funding where things are not delivering the results that we would have seen we wanted to see so that's that's probably one of the most difficult things about technology investment may I just add one more thing just in in terms of the roadmap is meant to be technology neutral so one thing that we should be considering as well as that we don't want just the loudest mouths to be getting fed we need to be making sure that we give equal voice to a lot of different technologies and not just be backing one winner a portfolio of winners would be ideal good okay well thank you panelists for those thoughts on on lock in and lock out have in the back of your mind what your stretch goal contribution might be for the very end but we'll now move to some questions from the audience so we have a question here from eventus talking about the fact that you know that there are issues even as we speak about grid stability and we've seen for example the the effect of the lack of transmission in some areas where there was curtailment of of solar in parts of the West Murray region due to grid overload so aren't we already needing investments in technology in the sort of underpinning of these of these energy areas and this was a question that was directed at Liz but I'd be interested to hear the other panelists views on that curtailing in the large transmission because of limitations in the grid is not particular to just that part of the grid it happens around like from the customer and all the way up right so if for example there's a lot of solar and everyone on your street has solar panels and the grid hasn't been expanded to facilitate that solar the the voltage will potentially rise to a point where your inverter will switch off and so it's been curtailed in that way so really backing these renewables with storage or technologies that can shift this energy around is quite key in terms of you know leveraging the the the renewables that we have in decarbonising so you know there's a lot of work that has to be done in terms of control and coordination for grid stability and also how do we like you know coordinate these devices so that supply and demand is balanced so let's now move on to another question so one of the audiences pointed out that already there are financial reasons why people are moving away from gas at the domestic level at least and and indeed many industrial processes that are being transformed and electrified so they're asking are we perhaps headed for a gas network death spiral and the supplementary question to that is should we be considering moving away from gas entirely rather than distributing hydrogen with this infrastructure well if i may briefly i put it on twitter the other day we disconnected gas in in my house and you will see that really as a bit of a wave in future and so there's a big question mark i think over the viability of constructing and maintaining in a long term gas distribution networks to households it's probably an altogether different story in terms of business commercial and industrial applications where you'll probably see gas being used for quite some time to come yeah i think i can jump in there too i think you know you're seeing in the hydrogen industry side of things you're seeing you know people like ben wilson who who's involved in this work um his organization uh australian gas industry group are really looking hard at hydrogen and actually really really driving a lot of those demonstration projects in that space now across australia and so i think they're recognizing that that that their infrastructure is you know has a has a different future but i don't i don't i think i think as we just heard there are multiple gas industries some things like industrial heating again hydrogen can play a role but it could be a longer term proposition so there's more than one answer to this this question i think good thank you patrick so uh there's a question here that i actually remember hearing being asked to the chief scientist this morning uh and so i think you know this deserves maybe a bit more airtime um the question is from uh from freya uh is there any focus on increased efficiency to minimize demand on energy wherever possible uh what kind of prioritization does efficiency have in the roadmap uh so this is a question that relates um you know more to the demand side than the supply side where technology clearly is often focused on the supply side so it's interesting to hear from the panelists where they see the the role of technology on the demand side of things uh being a significant contributor i have to start with this one um and uh our research shows the demand side is an extremely significant contributor in nearly all sectors and indeed at one of the consultation sessions that alan finkel ran for the industry sector uh it was pointed out there that um that many of the call out boxes in the document uh the discussion paper focused on the supply side technologies and and would there be an opportunity for similar focus on demand side technologies and of course alan finkel's response was it's a consultation paper if that's your view then use this process to share that view um so i certainly um uh endorse the encouragement for the demand management sector to um to make that more evident and indeed there's been some new CRCs recently that that have that focus on the opportunity for australia to have a competitive advantage also um we have a double dividend potential here not only does the demand side potential allow obviously cost savings uh for the energy users but we do have um technological advantage opportunities um already because of the nature of our grid the combination of distributed energy resources demand management grid integration and the digitization and business model evolution is an innovation space that many international investors are looking to australia as an exciting and fast moving um test bed and therefore launch pad for those for that sector the other opportunity of course um the state we're on from victoria has a universal rollout of smart meters which enables uh more sophisticated demand management uh technologies and again there is an opportunity for a competitive advantage um positioning for australia so we have both the technological wherewithal uh the financial benefit and finally the emission benefit is substantial and that links to the cost as well so um our research shows that um on the path to decarbonizing the built environment energy use per square meter in buildings can harm and in fact we can maintain electricity use for the built environment at level of the building stock doubles but that's only if the demand management technologies play their part and that goes to deployment and business model rollout for what it what what can be thousands of thousands of transactions of small equipment upgrades fortunately that's quite stimulus friendly so i'm hopeful that at the moment though the stars would align um and that we can indeed craft the support measures to bring forward that and we know on the demand management side it's very relevant for industry as well there's been a lot of work done on um on on the use of gas yeah particularly for um upgrading boilers economizes um and the opportunity for electrification and heat pumps so the the efficiency and industrial modernization is another opportunity that aligns with stimulus investment economic recovery and bringing in the demand management focus to industry as well as built environment and of course electricity grid with the recent development yesterday from the amc as well to formally create a market for that i do i do believe it will will and should play a prominent role in the technology prioritization good thanks Anna anybody else like to contribute to that discussion eliz um yes hi so um likewise i completely agree um efficiency is quite important and key and i suppose the thing i'd like to highlight is um disadvantaged communities and their ability to to potentially like invest in the new technology to to reduce their build i think it's quite important um when setting these um um maybe rowmaps to consider like the society as a whole and financial ability to to to invest in that technology i might just add as well i mean i think i think um the the role of energy efficiency just taking taking a leaf from the international book you know there's wonderful wedge diagrams of emissions reduction that the the iea puts out regularly energy efficiency seems to have a growing chunk of that of those wedges as we move forward so i think it's internationally recognized it's a key it's key emissions reduction technology indeed very well uh so let's now consider a couple of other questions first of all uh a bit of a question here for san jiva uh tom asks are the assumptions and data behind the roadmap analysis going to be released publicly thanks ken uh yes um so if i can just take that i i understand that question was also asked this morning a couple of times and it's in relation to the abatement numbers that we used in generating the size of the bubbles in the that's now if this is sounding like a different language to people either i'm just referring to the bubble charts we had in the roadmap itself um so the abatement numbers that we do have that we calculated we aren't proposing to release and it's for the following reason it's a it's a technical reason the methodology of how we arrived at those abatement potentials was based on comparison of the low emissions technology with its bau counterpart but also assumed a kind of maximum level of deployment for that individual technology and so um what i'm saying is the we assessed it individually for each technology in order to allow us to compare one technology to another in terms of its abatement impact but um it does not allow you to simply add up all of the abatement potentials to derive a full abatement thing because what we haven't considered is how what the deployment of one technology impacts others now i could give you a hundred examples of the kinds of relationships i'm talking about but that work that technical work we haven't done so the absolute abatement numbers behind the size of the bubbles are not particularly relevant because they're in the that we've used them just to give you a relative indication of different um technologies i hope that's clear so that the the numbers around the abatement potentials will not be released however the numbers around all of the rest of the work if people are technically like if they technically dispose and they want to sort of share their thinking on those numbers i'm very happy to discuss them with them but um yeah that's on the abatement numbers it would simply be confusing if we release the absolute abatement values that we derived if that needs a follow-up question if that needs a follow-up response it's an important point and i just want to be clear about it so i'm happy to keep going so maybe just to move on to analysis down the track so a question from lee what is the process in place for developing a robust impact assessment and who will be involved in developing this process and will the impact assessment focus on advances to technological innovation or the impacts more broadly the first thing to say is that the roadmap lent very heavily on the work that csiro has done on impact evaluation we talked to a number of people even globally i think syro's impact evaluation approaches kind of recognized or has been described to me as gold standard so what we are proposing to do is to use the general principles of that impact evaluation framework and lift them up in some way i don't want to be too prescriptive at this point because there are some important decisions that we need to take collectively on how that would happen but we really welcome feedback on that just to say that it will be based our approach will lean on the cyro work and will put into full view the impacts that we are wanting to see so around the stretch goals around you know those things in the roadmap those impacts will be what we are measuring the success or failure of of our portfolio against also we won't take over you know all of you know the agencies their their role in this process what we would be hoping to do through this is just to set out broad parameters of how we expect that impact evaluation to occur good thank you for that san jiva so there's been a number of pardon me questions about the policy dimension to technology in in this area and i do remember this morning that the chief scientist mentioned how the roadmap and other technology based strategies such as the national hydrogen strategy fit together and and how policy then acts as a framework super structure over those particular strategies and roadmaps do you want to say something about that san jiva because there's a number of questions in that regard and i think the thing to say about that is that this is a technology investment roadmap so this is really the primary task of this particular process is to optimize the government's technology investments working in partnership with industry in the private sector and things like that so it really is about the investment you know of government funding we do not we do not ignore the fact that of course there's a whole plethora policy issues that also heavily impact the deployment of technology however there are other processes so this this process for the sake of the task force i don't think we can take over the whole of the government's program on this stuff the team's already working pretty hard so but it is a key input and i think the document that will really bring this all together is the long-term emission reduction strategy that will come out before the next conference of the parties that document will explain how this which is a key input and i think minister taylor has described it as a very key input into that broader picture how this fits with that all of the other policy that's happening related to low emissions technology related to policy around low emissions technology just to name a few i mean you know obviously there's also the hydrogen strategy which is a critical document and does go into you know the various various things that we need to deal with in that sector very good so we've got a number of very specific technology questions here so maybe i'll turn to a few of those so a question from noise is for mineral carbonation and carbon dioxide utilization in the mining industry what is the biggest hindrance today in development of that technology and i guess this is asking the question potentially of sephir in terms of how this might fit into the roadmap thank you so mineral carbonation can be applied into a range of different industrial scenarios so we can be taking carbon dioxide from so many different sectors steel cement also from cleaning up mining and hard to abate sectors in the future so really the technology i'm here representing co2 value australia but i also work on a mineral carbonation international a technology that transforms co2 into building materials over the last seven years we've enjoyed quite a lot of government support and australian support but really we've struggled for to gain international recognition for ccu technologies until about one or two years ago so the real key has been getting people to acknowledge that there's a really high potential for scalability that it's an investable option to turn co2 into building materials and other other fuels and things and so because ccs has been has taken up a lot of airtime with regard to carbon carbon technologies we found it that until two years ago we had a little bit of trouble getting airtime but now the technology is past a certain readiness level which the roadmap was really good at setting out and now the key is going to be continuing that momentum and also helping other companies to also progress up that technology readiness level in acknowledgement that the potential is so high even though they might need a bit more support in that valley of death that elizabeth was also talking about helping those technologies get through that really hard first 10 years could result in so much potential cleaning up a lot of industries that will be needing fire into the future towards 2050 thanks Sophia and actually that raises a question raised by another participant and again this is maybe something for san jiva so Sophia mentioned the valley of death so investment to help technologies move through the valley of death can be considered you know a bit of a big leveraging opportunity because you know once you get through the valley of death and you can start to move out the other side then things can start to grow and take off somebody's asked a question about mature technologies and and so that's where this is relevant where you know a lot of the investment the r&d has actually happened already so is there a sort of tension between investment in new technologies that might be kicked along and reach the market earlier an important factor in considering where to invest versus very mature technologies which have already you know flattened the the the cost curve but are on the other hand looking for scale so a number of questions are along these lines so we might maybe have a little bit of a discussion around that and not just san jiva necessarily but others as well well it's where the the multi layers of time frames are really helpful so the document talks about the next two years the following three and the and the remainder of the decade and I know there's a goal that the whole thing be simplified and you know ideally you could count on one hand what the nation's priorities are but the portfolio approach is ultimately what will be needed so in the the documents quite clear that in the short term there is a there are a large bucket of technologies for whom deployment is the challenge and that the investment there I would surmise is likely to be investment that's directed at the pool part and that is purchase commitments for example or investment in business model updating for example so that the deployment of those technologies occurs where the portfolio approach comes in is technologies that still need to be pushed along the early stage part in order to have their emissions benefit in the latter half of the decade will obviously be part of that impact framework that san jiva was talking about and which is why it's going to need to be multi layered but I think the document allows for those different time scales and so those mature technologies earn their emissions reduction points if you like at the early times so they'll get points in that category for being ready to abate immediately but they're not being deployed in the business as usual scenario so that's where the funding can help you know catalyse that deployment whether it's a bit of cost reduction sweetener or or combined with policy similarly at the other end where it's early stage but you know there's a large abatement potential so one example we haven't talked much about at the moment is the agriculture sector but our research from decarbonisation futures shows that the potential for example for substitution of some of the livestock feed whether it's vaccines for the livestock or whether it's the combination of their feed that reduces their methane production while maintaining their agricultural production we showed that in two different scenarios agricultural emissions could halve if that technology deployment goes well and it might mean we need to use drones to do it widespread it might mean that we need we need to think about what's the business model for adjusting the feed at scale but there was a 40 megaton saving between one scenario and another nationwide within a decade so there are some very um high impact technological bets that you'd want to place a bet on and that that needs some still some some push through in that earlier stage so it's one when you get to the detail I think thinking about it in the time categories and thinking about that difference between mature and emerging um makes it quite easy and certainly I say quite easy in our research we categorised which technologies needed support in deployment because they're already mature and which which of them were emerging and needed a bit more of the pull through and I think you could have a matrix result in that impact assessment that Sanjeeva was talking about that would allow the government investment to be tailored for those different needs Anna and others you know know a lot more than me about these these particular issues so I would totally defer to her and just to support what she's saying there one interesting thing I mean one of the best parts of my job at the moment is that a lot of great people pick up the phone when I call and they're explaining their thoughts on these different ideas and one of the professors in the states that I was I was put in touch with I think from people in your team can so just to confirm I mean what I'm saying here is just my own early thinking about certain how do we approach these particular issues um and and also actually one of the panel members who who's who's really said to us you know the challenge is going to be getting a laser-like focus to the government's investment and when we talk of the valley of death I think we often talk about that as being the one that gets you from you know gets you from sort of small-scale demonstration out to larger-scale demonstration and commercialization but this profession in the states who has done an in-depth study of the US innovation system says there's actually these three valleys of death and one occurs when you know the university researcher or whoever has come up with their idea but to get it to the first prototype stage that when you can see a prototype it's much more likely that an investor who's going to you know see the wheels turning on it and and want to invest you know so he's identified these three different points but one of the big challenges and the one that I hope Anna and others will make written submissions that we can kind of digest quietly is how do we bring that laser-like focus to the government's investment the minister's very clear we don't want to be stepping on the toes of the private sector we don't want to be now crowding out private investment unwittingly what we want to do is to really understand we have a small you know we have a relatively small amount if you look at the total investment required to pull these technologies through it's a it's going to be a relatively small amount of money that we'll be able to need to get up the greatest bang for buck and you know that's the way we need to approach spending public money so you know where are those specific points in the innovation chain that we we need to see the government's investment and do they vary from technology to technology it's a very complex complex question yeah I think it was reflected by quite a few participants here as being a key question that needs to be looked at over time so speaking of time we're at the end of our allocated time I'd like to just go quickly around the panel Sanjeevra excluded to ask them about in a few seconds what they think should be a stretch goal in the roadmap if they have one I might start with Patrick because we've already heard about the $2 kilo hydrogen stretch goal Patrick what do you think about that and what do you think about a pneumonia stretch goal that is simply placed that's so you caught me caught me off guard there can I was going to say my work is done yeah the age two under two goal is quite makes a lot of sense from my perspective I think and based on the analysis we've done ammonia another story yeah I mean I don't know what that price would be and clearly with things like ammonia you start to ask the question is it about production or is it about at at use in potentially in foreign countries FOB so maybe an FOB an FOB price for ammonia might be might be something we should look at but I can't give you a straight number on that don't want a doll about it quite yet but yeah thank you Patrick uh Sophia we absolutely would like to see a CCU or a CCS US stretch goal this morning Alan Finkel mentioned that he thought a CCS stretch goal could be something like X dollars per tonne of CO2 costs of storage that doesn't really work in the CCU space so I think we need to be getting some independent government validation for amount of CO2 abated and the industry development potential so a little bit more work needs to be done in this space thank you Sophia uh Frank please also think about interim targets so if it's a roadmap that's usually something that shows you the way not just the destination um and you know when we think about goals then quantity goals make sense as well look to other countries Germany for example in the material that's coming out there today hydrogen strategy compact with the steel industry there's a stretch goal there of providing five mega five gigawatt equivalence electrolyzer capacity just to the German steel industry think of those kind of stretch goals so for me um when I think about stretch goals I'd like to see renewables essentially generating energy for free and then you know how do we think about what a being a good citizen is so you know how do we limit our expansion of the infrastructure and things like that so I think a stretch goal you know targeting a really cost dollar per kilowatt hour so like to let's say two cents per kilowatt hour for electricity essentially takes the the kilowatt hour off the off the table because it becomes so cheap and makes us think more deeply about how do we control and coordinate and make this sort of grid work and finally Anna I'm going to hedge by saying each sector needs its stretch goals so uh if buildings for example I'd focus on demand management because you've got the electrification happening in the other sector and thinking about zero emissions homes zero emissions buildings and the stretch goal being the percentage reached within the half decade and the decade because we already acknowledge this its cost is not the issue as much as it is the way it's funded financed but I'd also want to support the stretch goals that Frank mentioned for industry and there are so many more industry sub sectors where we could have some really powerful stretch goals around material substitution and use across we've mentioned steel hydrogen aluminium cement for example and then transport the same an electrification stretch goal for transport of of passenger not just cars but also buses and trucks so we've had very little discussion about freight but I want to mention electrification of trucks we also show that that needs to reach about two-thirds of of new trucks in a decade being electric and aviation Australia an island continent has a competitive advantage but also need to be able to have zero emissions transport in the future and and we have an airline sector right now seeking support from government so looking at clean aviation fuels both electric for short haul I know there are commercial investors already doing venture capital for that and biofuels for long haul and we should be investing hard there that's the need that's never going to go away well I think that is a good point at which to to finish thinking about a stretch goal looking well into the future but as Frank mentions also in the in the in the near term as well we are at a point now where we haven't obviously answered every question put forward but I've tried at least to group them and answer as many as we can in in bundles thank you to our audience so we still have lots of questions to go maybe we can help by answering some of them offline we had a terrific turnout today well over 200 people we still got a more than half of them with us and and it's been a terrific discussion I'd like to thank our panellists Sophia Hamlin Wayne Patrick Hartley Liz Ratnam Anna Scarbeck Frank Yotso and particularly San Givita Silva for walking into the lion's den with us today and we hope to to hear more about this in in coming weeks and indeed encourage everyone who participated to have a good look at the discussion paper and provide your input into the response process so thank you all once again the only new energy changing suit will be having more webinars like this during the COVID-19 situation and we look forward to hosting you again on another occasion thank you all very much