 Hello everyone out there. We're going to wait a few minutes here and just let everyone sign in and then we'll take off with our webinar. Okay, our number seems to be stabilizing here. So I'm going to start sharing my screen here. Sure. Welcome everyone out there to today's today's broadband are on transforming industry in America, zero carbon action plan as part of the greater greater zero carbon action plan project led by STSN with many consortium partners from around the world. Plan for the next hour here is I'm going to do a brief introduction to Z cap by me, Chris Patai of Idri. I'll be talking about the overall net zero challenge and what this means for industry for about 10 minutes or so just sort of setting the base foundation under this. And then Paul Fennel of Imperial College one of the world's experts on decarbonization of cement and steel and especially through carbon capture and storage. We'll be talking about decarbonization of those sectors that which happened to be the two largest industrial matters for about 20 minutes. Then I'll return to talk about decarbonization bulk chemicals for about five minutes and then Emily Grubert of Georgia Tech, one of the world's leading people on industrial policy for decarbonization will talk about the policy tools and recommendations again for about 10 minutes. But the final 15 minutes will be reserved for audience Q&A. And the questions will be accumulated through the Q&A chat function and I ask you to please confine yourself to questions and I will pick through those as as Paul and Emily are talking and I'll bring those up in the last 15 minutes or so. So just the overall coverage of the project. We have six major sectors power generation transport buildings industry land use for agriculture forestry and other purposes materials and obviously there's some cross up between industry and materials. But it's all the major emitters in the economy, not only the energy supply and demand, but the agriculture forestry and other land use which will be critical for meeting that zero. The importance of a net zero transition this applies to all sectors is a rapid upscaling of renewable energy, electrification of the economy wherever and energy based electricity energy is economically feasible and practical. And where it's not a transition to hydrogen advanced biofuels and other clean fuels manufactured with zero carbon power and other sources. An element to this will be sustainable forest and agricultural lands and a transformation of practices there and reduce material waste through material waste allowing us to move more towards a circular economy and I'll be talking about that in a moment. Now key to both the overall welfare implications of this into the political into the political ramifications is rejuvenation of the industrial heartland of the US, especially in the Appalachian region in the Midwest. And this these kind of lessons can be applied globally, we can all reason there needs to be a just transition all regions have to be brought forward together. Government back I'll be talking about the we need government back financing investments regulatory support at all critical stages the transformation, including for job training in the new sectors and moving people out of some of the older sectors into the new sectors, and especially in a national research development and demonstration and deployment strategy, which we absolutely critical for industry. And there'll be there isn't within the larger documents and I encourage you to download the main report the executive summaries the sector summaries as applicable to you. There's a larger framework for technology for for rejuvenating American federalism for engaging with a framework for foreign policy and how the national US national policy international policy can work together, and especially industrial policy because most of these sectors are highly traded and very competitive, and we need you need to think globally in order to generate a decarbonization transition. The basics here most of the people in the audience will know this but it's always good to refresh the global carbon budgets for one point, sorry, to 1.5 to to see I am Canadian. I do work in the metric system but I'll put up the Fahrenheit ones for for me as needed and implications for heavy industry. This graph is a global CO2 emissions since 1980 on the left hand side is the the gigatons of carbon that have not been admitted into the atmosphere, rising from 2020 and 1980 to over 40 by 2020. Had we carried on and on the path that we had been on from about 1985 to 2010 we would have been on that red line, which effectively was akin to sending ourselves into a Blade Runner like world. We do have current we there are a lot of current policies and play for climate policy. There's been transformative trade change in the electricity sector and parts of transportation, and we've managed to haul that line probably somewhere down to about plus three C. It's still not good enough but it's a lot better than where we were going. The Paris agreement and DC pledges and it looks like the head of the US is heading back into the Paris agreement, get us down to about plus 2.7 C again better but not good enough. Where we need to be collectively is on this blue line heading down to net zero mission for to see down to net zero emissions by about 2070 and then flat. One point five C and for the and we're already plus one point one C today, we need emissions have to drop to zero by 2050 and then go into the deep negatives and that has important implications for industry. This figure is from the IPCC special one point five report a couple of years ago, and it shows the global pathway for getting to one point five which is that kind of thick blue slide there to is a little bit more forgiving. One point five means we have to drop into this deep neck negative zone past 2050. So in other words for every amount of emissions that are still being emitted. And if we're slow at this every in doing some catch up. We're going to have to be doing negative emissions that we have to be literally drawing carbon down out of the atmosphere, either through land through land use practices, or directly using direct direct air capture technology, and then pushing that CO2 underground, and that is not going to be cheap. And we're looking probably at somewhere between 200 to $300 a ton, given all given commodity given input cost given price, you know how difficult it is how many, how many of these things we can get that gets set up. So every by every sector that is still emitting past 2050 is effectively going to have to pay this $200 $300 per ton, if they still want to keep operating that is the size of the prize of complete decarbonization of all the industrial sectors. Well much of industry can be electrified there are big sector specific challenges. First of all, it's the extract use and throw away model for most material use. We do do some steel and aluminum recycling. Basically we dig stuff up. We process it into something useful. We use it to we turn it into something we turn it into like something like a car, which then wears out. And then we either throw it away and as I say we recycle a tiny bit of it with huge GHG implications. We've maxed out the thermodynamic efficiency of most of the core technologies in industry, we are still fundamentally using 1880s technology in steel cement and much of much of chemicals it's a lot more efficient than it used to be. We've managed to do a lot of great things with digit digitization and better process flow, but we need a transformative change if we want to push into another level of efficiency. Low, medium and high process heat unlike buildings to buildings transport and electricity industries have very specific temperature and temperature and energy type needs. Most of most of the GDP is generated down the low range range for steam food processing what have you under 250 degrees Celsius most of it under 150 really a lot of chemicals production is somewhere between 250 and 1000 transforming bulk chemicals and then a few key sectors need over 1000 degrees processed heat. If you much much of our civilization is built built on steel iron or iron ore which which is what steel is fundamentally fundamentally made out of with some additives comes out of the ground with oxygen attached to it we have to separate the oxygen from at first in one way or another, and then melt it so we can process it into something process it into steel products and all that co2 goes off into the atmosphere. The other big material that we use in our civilization cement is made from limestone. Oops. Is made and we heat that and co2 comes off of it when we heat it pre create creating what's called quick lime or calcium oxide and then we combine that with a bunch of other materials as the precursor to making cement and that co2 just goes up into the atmosphere. Hydrogen production for ammonia for fertilizers and other chemicals. Hydrogen is a key feedstock for much of the chemicals industry and probably two thirds of the people on this webinar would not exist today without hydrogen made from either coal or methane that's transformed into ammonia which gets transformed into urea for for fertilizers. So a lot of us are actually made out of fossil fuels out of one one way or the other. Now, can we change that non ferrous metals now is mainly aluminum carbon feedstock for chemicals. Much if you look around you almost everything around you has been gone through the chemicals industry at one point or another, and much, much of the minute most of those chemicals are held together by a carbon lattice of one shape or another that allows that material to do what it does for you. And we make need to make sure that new materials aren't ghd combusted in a process intense. Now there are a bunch of big technical options here and Paul's going to get into them for steel and cement. But the first most important is we need to be more material more efficient with our materials and and just simply reduce substitute reuse and recycle more this is these are the basic building blocks of a circular economy. We're still going to need new materials and then we're faced with a choice between keeping the existing process or changing it. If we keep the existing process we can use what's carbon called carbon captured storage or the CO2 gets captured off the back end and pushed underground. Typically, you can have an alternative heat source, you can have heat pumps, a small set scale pro solar process heat for medium heat needs you can use small modular nuclear concentrated solar thermal again waste heat that's. been raised up, but over 1000 C there's only a few options biomass biogas hydrogen synthetic natural gas or direct heating with electricity, but again that's that requires a lot of electricity instantaneously applied. Or you change the existing process and again Paul is going to get into this in terms of steel and cement and I'll talk about chemicals. So this is my last slide before I pass over to Paul, but in the long run, we need to move to a material circulation system that meets our needs but lives within the planet planet boundaries. The question is how, if you start starting the top right circle here. We need we need to, we need to somehow convince or reorganize our economy such that we're only only creating and using the physical and things that we actually need in terms of tools consumer goods buildings vehicles. Carbon pricing will be critical for this eventually urban planning the structure our cities greatly affects how much steel and cement we need and cultural norms in terms of what stuff we what stuff we need at different times of our in our lives. We also need to co design for long life reuse reuse material and material efficiency use of the least greenhouse gas and recycled and more recyclable materials. And we need to design things like cars that what at the end of a car's life, we can easily strip out the copper we can easily strip out the plastic and glass and what's left can be endlessly recycled in an iron recycling loop. And that requires design up front that requires systems up front. And in order to do this we're going to have to change the art the education for architects for engineers for trades we're going to have to change building codes. This is much of this will save a lot of money and can be done fairly fast, but it's fundamental fundamental to the supply chains that produce much of the material of our civilization. While things exist, we want to use them in a small multiple user high capacity factor way don't leave things don't leave cars lying around 90% percent of the life not being used, if possible, share share those things in a coven friendly way somehow. And that's going to that's going to depend on use markets and institutions. And finally, we're still going to need more stuff. And that's where production decarbonization is comes in I'm going to pass over to Paul now he's going to be talking about cement and steel, and I will be I'll talk to be talking about chemicals. Right. How do I take over the slide show. Chris you may need to stop sharing and then that way Paul can start sharing his screen. Screen. Okay, can you see me can see the screen. Yes, it's not in full presentation mode yet but we can see the PowerPoint. There you go. Okay, so thanks very much, Chris, and I'm going to talk about decarbonization of cement production for starters, and then I'm going to talk about decarbonization of iron and steel. So, to start with, why, why are we looking at cement and iron and steel, why, why are we looking at certain cases to retrofit processes to decarbonize our existing iron and steel production processes well. The trouble is that cement processes have major kiln refurbishments only once every sort of 25 years. So they're here and, you know, they're a heavily capital intensive piece of equipment, and it's not going to be refurbished for a long time and replacement times or even longer, they sort of go on a 50 year replacement time. They, the iron and steel is actually a significant proportion of the industry. You couldn't see that US industry emissions are predominantly actually other industry chemicals is big but they're still a significant proportion of industry. Specifically, one reason why they're difficult to decarbonize is that the majority of the emissions from cement production are from the intrinsic chemistry of the process. So it's extremely difficult to decarbonize them because the first thing you do is to take limestone and to make calcium oxide quick limers. This is already said. So, and that 60% of the emissions are intrinsic to the process there requires very high temperatures and also importantly we're seeing your email. Ah, wrong screen. Okay, sorry I moved it over because I'm looking off to the side but maybe I'll just go to that screen. It's very difficult to substitute for cement has been around for a very long time and ordinary Portland cement is extremely useful it's in building codes everything has been set up to allow its use. Hello, here you can see, can you see the cursor, hopefully you can see the cursor. You can see the cement production process you've got a rotary kiln down here, and you feed in your limestone, you emit a whole load of CO2. You may be putting carbon capture and storage on the end of this. It all comes through cooled down at this stage after the limestone, it reacts with sand and a few other things. And at this stage it becomes cement clinker. The clinker is then cooled stored ground with other materials and what comes out of the end is cement. There are a number of different potential ways to decarbonize cement I'm going to go into a few of them in the next few minutes. Before I do. It's important to note this is again figures from the zero carbon action plan that emissions intensity so the amount of CO2 that you're emitting per ton of product. Tons of carbon per ton of product have been going down very, very slowly as a function of time, but they're basically at the limits in terms of where we can actually get to. The other thing that's important for the US is that cement production is widespread throughout the United States and present in many different states. The modern plants require around 3.3 gigajoules of thermal energy per ton of clinker and the average thermal intensity globally fell from 3.75 to 3.5 gigajoules per ton over that sort of 14 years. But it means that there's not a vast amount of gains to be had from efficiency. Again, as I think Chris has said is the locations of a number of cement plants in the US and you'll note that the red here is the old plants, more than 40 years old. And you can see that there's a lot of old plants, old cement plants around in the US. Another important thing is that cement and iron and steel are very top weighted in terms of the largest companies have significant a very overweight in terms of proportion of large companies versus proportion of the total number of companies. And that makes a difference when you're trying to do things in certain ways it's it's good because it means you only have to persuade a smaller number of CEOs to do something. But in other ways, it's difficult because it means that in this case, particularly since capital investments in iron and steel and chemical plants and cement plants are very large. It means that it's difficult to turn over rapidly in these industries and that means that once a plant's built, it's going to remain in a fairly similar configuration for a while. You need to be able to retrofit things like carbon capture and storage to them rather than radically change the processes. So technical options for decarbonizing the cement. Well, as I think you'll probably be getting idea. There is a large amount of CO2 produced intrinsically to the process. And so you're going to have to do carbon capture and storage in order to radically decarbonize cement production. So heating is of interest to drive the calcination and clinkering reactions. But again, 60% of the CO2 is emitted directly from calcination. You could use hydrogen cement kiln theoretically, you'd have a problem sealing it but you could theoretically use it but again doesn't address the CO2 emissions from calcination of limestone. You're probably spotting a bit of a theme in the presentation so far. So, having said that CCS is going to be important. Let's have a look at the costs. Well, we've done a review of different costs from the literature and what's very important to note is that cement here is in the middle. The blobs refer to sort of the number of studies that have been done at the site of the blobs and the colour refers to the different types of carbon capture and storage that have been looked at on processes. And the important thing is that some processes are much more suited to cement and iron and steel than others. It turns out for boring thermodynamic reasons that it's a bad idea to put post combustion scrubbing using any means onto cement plants but it's a great idea to put oxy-fuel combustion processes on them and an even better idea to put on calcium looping processes to look at them and that's good because that's what I work on. There are another of other things that you can do to reduce the carbon intensity of cement plants. So, if you note here, you've got your clinker. This is the really carbon intensive thing that you're producing. All of your energies is in this section of the plant. And if you can add what's known as supplementary cementitious materials to your clinker, which are things that act like their cement clinker but they're not actually cement clinker. Then you can significantly reduce the intensity of your cement process. So, clinker is sort of the stuff that goes to form cement. And you can replace that clinker with a number of alternative materials such as coal ash, granulated blast furnace slag, naturally occurring rocks, called pozzolans, and biomass or other ashes. Now, you'll note that there's a slight issue here in that coal ash should be being faced out as part of the other parts of decarbonisation. So there's a bit of a problem there and actually around the world coal ashes is surprisingly in demand. And people actually need it for a variety of things, but hopefully it'll go away and if you buy a mass ash or something like that. But you have to play with the chemistry of the cement. You have to make sure that your cement is the right chemistry. China was up until recently replacing up to 40% of its cement clinker with a replacement such as coal ash, but that does lead to some issues with the cement quality. And they've now got to push to bring it back up to maybe 70 to 75% clinker going into cement. So there are limits as to how far you can actually replace things. These directly reduce emissions from cement manufacture while meeting the current building standards, which is really important the because the pulverised fly ash has been in or coal ash has been used for a long time it's in the codes. And so people know, you know, people know how to specify it. Direct air capture Chris mentioned it co2. Reason why it's not a good idea to think about just emitting the CO2 from a cement plant and then capturing it from the air later on is that the CO2 in a cement plant is at high concentration. And so capture is preferred from that sort of source rather than emitting the CO2 and then capturing it later. It's just fairly basic thermodynamics. Would you try and capture. If you wanted to capture water, would you take it from a running tap or a river. You take it from the river where it's easier to get out. Interestingly, cement actually carbonates over a few decades when it's in place and could take up up to 30% of the process emissions which are about 60% of the total emissions when being carbonated over a sufficiently long period of time. Now, a lot of people want to move to alternative cements. There is types of alternative cements that could reduce the CO2 emissions by 22 100%. These need very significant testing and establishment of the viability of the alternative cements. The first thing you need to know about them is that they have the correct strength and long life to actually replace ordinary Portland cement. So establishing the code standards and setting guidelines with training will be really important in developing these alternative cements. But as a friend of mine who used to work in the cement industry said to me, build a bridge, have it stand up for 20 years and they might look at your cement substitute they are very very cautious about things. And you know that's with good reason because you know, you don't want your buildings to fall down. So in summary, supplementary cementitious materials offer rapid decarbonization at low cost but there is there are significant limits to how far you can go. Electrification or hydrogen use miss 60% of the emissions so they're out CCS is extremely important, and it's not just one single technology. Sometimes CCS will be better suited to cement than others. And moving swiftly on to Yeah, we're just slowly running a running out of time if you can kind of compress the iron and steel. Yeah, cool. Thanks. So, importantly, again, there's substantial emissions from combustive fossil fuels. And they're accounting for about 5% of global emissions. And again, there's a significant process emission from the process. So it's the same sort of idea there are non substitution or CO2 emissions from the process is not quite as bad in iron and steel because you can actually use hydrogen. So there's two different main pathways you can either make it in a blast furnace which the first one, or by directly reducing the iron. You either use a blast furnace or you react your iron directly with a reducing agent and then essentially melt the iron. One has is much more common the first one, but it has much higher specific emissions. So it's not true what a blast how a blast furnace works, but suffice to say that there are reasons that you use metallurgical coke within blast furnaces. They do not just act. So there is the ingredients for a brass furnace iron or a metallurgical coke, and the coke is required component you couldn't just replace that with hydrogen otherwise your bed would just slump through to the bottom. So recycling good idea. Produced a lot of it's produced a lot of steel spruce fire processing scraps get steel. The electricity that's used needs to be decarbonized. And as Chris has meant it mentioned, you need to take out impurities. You could use fossil replace fossil coke with bio charcoal. So, so to say, which is a essentially a coke substitute, but it is expensive and for very, very large blast furnaces which are the majority of the ones that are emitting a large amount of co to you and producing most of the steel, you can't actually make a direct replacement because it's not as strong as metallurgical coke and doesn't lead to sufficient. Strength in the materials it's going down in the blast furnace CCS can also be added. It is costly, but it's probably going to be required on existing blast furnace assets. Hydrogen is useful, you can actually replace the use of the blast furnace as a whole by a direct decarbonization method using renewable hydrogen. There are demonstrations already ongoing, although the Alredea demonstration actually takes methane and reforms it to hydrogen. It's showing some promise. It's not for blast furnaces. It's a new technology. In the future, we may be able to do to produce iron via electrolysis, but this is very, very small scale at the moment. And we could also start to think about novel thermochemical cycles, where for example, you might be producing. natural gas in and via a combination of different reactions end up producing iron through here, and also hydrogen as a separate process you can in this case you can swing between production of line and production of hydrogen. And I will stop there and let Chris go on to talk about chemicals. Oh yeah right. There we go the start video. Hello everyone. Again those transfer those transfer moments in zoom. Okay so chemical production, I'm going to keep this very short. Lots of stuff in the report of people want to read it. There are well over 20,000 human made chemicals in use with more being added every day. Almost everything you around you as I said everything almost everything around you pass through the chemical sector in one or in multiple stages. The big eight feedstocks now there are more than 20,000 chemicals there are eight big feedstocks hydrogen ammonia methanol, ethylene and ethylene or propylene which are called collect the orphans. And then the ball of benzene tell you the mix xylene so it's a chemical suit out there, soup out there, but they do kind of build upon one another and you'll note the prevalence of carbon and carbon and hydrogen in them. Now a key one here ammonia which is used mainly for fertilizers demand for ammonia has largely levelized levels off globally like we as we've kind of reached the point where we're producing enough food as long as we can distribute it to everyone properly. The demand for ammonia has kind of it was rising rapidly is now kind of stabilized, but the demand for the other chemicals is going about up about 5% per year almost double typical economic growth and you can kind of see it from the amount of plastics and other materials that are appearing around us all that stuff comes from the chemicals industry. The carbon and decarbonization of these chemicals is about decarbonizing the process heat, the hydrogen to cleaning up the hydrogen production and resourcing finding another carbon source and end of life handling for that carbon. So in terms of decarbonizing process heat for the low heat needs, local distributed solar waste heat capture, energy and heat cascading if we can put our industries roughly in proximity to one another and move waste heat between them using steam or hot water, you can use industrial heat pumps to take that heat up to the level that it's needed, and then commercial ones do sell it up that go up to 150 C at this point in time and theoretically they should be able to get into the 200 250 C range, if the heat source is available to do that. So for the medium of heat levels focus for focus solar heat again heat cascading off a very high heat source or potentially nuclear may be really useful. And then with the high heat, you're going to need biosynthetic methane hydrogen coal or gas or natural gas with CCS to hit those, hit those heat levels and clean up the heat. And the production is that you'll probably have heard a lot about hydrogen production lately though the whole renaissance of hydrogen, and most of that has been actually driven come out of the industrial sector. As, as, as the targets have come down from minus 80 down to net zero, that last 20% was going to go was going to go to industry and now they have to go to zero to. And if people restarted re looking at electrification hydrogen would have you so there's a lot of these technologies that have already been designed they've been re written up patents exist out there. But it's a matter of re kind of pulling them out of the, you know, blowing the dust off them and then starting to do the piloting and the engineering studies necessary to bring them up to full commercial scale. So you can come out from two big sources one week. Okay, most hydrogen is what we call gray. It's made from coal or natural gas that basically using a chemical process the hydrogen is stripped off the carbon. And then the carbon is combined with an oxygen molecule and then released atmosphere using what's called steam methane reforming the water gas shift reaction. So the trick is you can use CCS to capture that co2 fairly economically and put it underground, creating relatively clean hydrogen. It's relatively cheap to like if in the US a kilogram of hydrogen costs about $1. See, blue hydrogen will be about $1 50 so it's considerably more for the cost of the hydrogen, but in terms of cost of producing chemicals it's very little. So clean hydrogen, which is hydrogen made by splitting water into hydrogen oxygen is considerably more expensive today, because of the cost of electricity and electrolyzers, but has the potential to come down as the cost of solar of solar electricity falls and potentially as the cost of electrolyzers fall with increasing economies of scale, and both of them are options in different regions. And here that is we're still getting a grapple on is the carbon sourcing and post use handling. All carbon is carbon that are molecular level molecular level me, roughly speaking, but where it comes from matters. So at the very as we start to decarbonize these sectors we can start recycling fossil carbon using carbon capture and utilization. You don't have to mind that none of it ends up in the atmosphere or if it does it gets counted. You can potentially gasify biomass to strip to break down biomass into all its constituent components and then use those components, but again there's trouble with that in terms of coming up various catalysts when have you it needs a lot of development. And then this direct air capture we can literally strip carbon right out of the air but as Paul recently said it's a very thin thin it's a very miniscule part of the air around us which is mostly night nitrogen is likely to be quite energy intense, but it's it is possible from an engineering point of view, and then disposal. So as we use carbon in the in the chemical industry we need we need to kind of institute a system where that carbon either cycles, or it ends up underground because then ends up in the atmosphere adds it adds to the net stock. So, I'm going to hand over to Emily here, and stop sharing. Thanks very much. I will share mine. I'll talk a little bit about policy tools and recommendations for the next few minutes and then hopefully leave some good time for questions. So one of the things that I think has been coming out over the last 40 minutes or so is that the industrial sector is a difficult to decarbonize sector kind of writ large. We are a lot about decarbonization and electricity and such, in part because there are a lot of options for doing that it's all kind of a single product this type of thing, which makes it in some ways easier to tackle with industry I'll talk a little bit about what some of our some of our results suggest and about some of the considerations as we think about going forward for decarbonization. So, we saw this, this graphic earlier but I did want to come back to this point that policy for decarbonizing these highly concentrated and very heterogeneous industrial sector is pretty challenging, not only because of the industrial concentration elements of this but also because these facilities are quite long lived and so basically every time we invest in something that's a pretty long term commitment in terms of what we're going to see out of that sector for a while. The industrial concentration thing is important partially because it gives us a little bit more of an idea of where we're aiming when we think about policies and general recommendations for decarbonization. I think one of the things that's important to recognize here is that industrial interests are also fairly concentrated. This can be a double edged sword in a lot of ways because it means that not only are their opportunities potentially to get an entire industry on the same page about the next steps might be but there are also a lot of opportunities to have a fairly directed and pretty well organized opposition to some of the things that might lead to, you know, frankly the disappearance of some of these pretty long lived and capital intensive assets. One of the things also to bring up here is that industrial organizations like the Portland cement Association and some others that focus on different different sectors are pretty organized and are pretty influential so kind of coming back to this point about concentrated interest. This is both an opportunity and a bit of a challenge for policy, because there is a lot of need to really understand some of the power structures within these, these industries as we think about what the next steps might be. So where do we act if we're talking about decarbonization in the industrial sector regulation is relatively dispersed and one of the things that I wanted to point out is that unlike utilities which are often overseen by utility commissions, and are often granted a natural monopoly in exchange for being essentially guaranteed that we don't necessarily see that in a lot of other industrial sectors. So the kinds of things that we see with electricity that end up looking a lot like command and control policies like renewable portfolio standards and similar are a little bit less common, but also a little bit less possible within the United States. So this is an approach to industrial regulation. When we do actually see where regulation tends to target and what the kind of legal pathways for regulating industry tend to be. Generally speaking, the focus on environmental outcomes, safety outcomes and anti trust outcomes historically, potentially this could change but within the structures that we currently have these tend to be the places where action is really possible. So the US environmental policy more generally is that it tends to be reactive to pollution rather than proactive about pollution, which essentially means that it's much easier to tell somebody to stop polluting than to kind of ban a certain type of from the start. It's a very coarse way of saying it, but in general, you're more likely to see kind of a penalty for creating some pollution rather than an outright ban on something. So as we think about what kinds of actions we might wish to take, or be able to make understanding some of the structures that we have around what's actually regulable is interesting. This is part of the reason that I think a lot of people talking about decarbonization in modern American industry really do talk quite a bit about public private partnerships, really trying to identify places where there are long term pathways toward outcomes that are consistent with the carbonization policies that don't necessarily rely on say legal intervention or something along these lines. One of the other things I want to raise in talking about policy and policy action, potentially regulatory action, is that a lot of the time we're also working within a precedent and a historical context where people understand that in the past, either trade rules or environmental rules have led to permanent plant closures in ways that Boston had pretty long lasting negative impacts on the local communities. So this is important to raise, not because I'm saying this is definitely something that's going to happen. I think we have a lot of pathways for ensuring that we do this better than we saw with sort of the rapid deindustrialization of the iron and steel industries 30 or 40 years ago, for example, but I think it is relevant to realize that a lot of the people that work in these industries and a lot of the regulate or not regulators but a lot of the industries themselves and the industrial organizations have this association with fairly, fairly dramatic plant closures in the past that often lead to a very immediate opposition to regulatory change. So understanding that and kind of working within the context that people expect that's maybe what's going to happen if we make any changes to the industries at all, I think is important for realizing that this might not be a super smooth process in some cases if we're not very careful to acknowledge those issues. So, in the last couple of minutes and then I do want to turn it over to questions I wanted to kind of wrap up with. Okay, so given that we have this challenging setting in terms of what we actually regulate how we maybe move forward. What do the levers actually look like and what does that mean for activities that we could undertake, whether kind of in a command and control way or regulatory way or in a more organic way in some, some senses. One of the things that I think is really important when we talk about industrial decarbonization that did come up a bit during our presentation today is this notion of material efficiency. At some level, it's very difficult to decarbonize a lot of these industries material efficiency can't get you to zero, but in terms of actually reducing the overall emissions of some of these industries quickly thinking about ways to do more with less energy essentially is a pretty important leather here and one that likely has some kind of follow on benefits as well. Another one, obviously technology and fuel shifting is a pretty significant pathway. Of course, it doesn't get you all of the way there as Paul mentioned in a number of different contexts, but it is something else that matters that tends to be correlated with more capital investment on the production sides. Different industries make up this overall sector and so the diversity of those industries actually does require fairly diverse solutions as well as we've talked about things like feedstock substitution, fuel switching potentially to electrification using hydrogen things like this, and then also carbon capture for a lot of those processes that maybe have kind of inherent emissions issues on the policy side we also have multiple levers which is kind of a good news thing as well. I think the, the recommendations that we make with this particular project are first of all to target funding to decarbonizing processes themselves, particularly where their technical challenges that may be blocking private investment or cause they're not to be kind of an openly arising interest in doing this on the industrial side without motivation. Another one that I think is actually worth looking at if you're interested in the stuff within the report is talking about actually developing some markets for these decarbonized commodities, potentially on the government side that's through things like procurement policies or subsidies potentially but as Paul mentioned with cement in particular and steel as well, there is a tendency to be a little bit suspicious about things that are made with new processes, partially because there is a pretty significant safety component to a lot of the use of these materials. So actually developing a market that doesn't require people to be basically first movers with no benefit is a pretty useful thing to be doing here as well. Another one related is to revise codes and regulations to actually both allow and encourage both testing and use of some of these lower carbon materials. So actually ensuring that they're in use and usable so that we have an idea of how they perform is a pretty valuable and pretty important thing to be doing with building materials and in specific. Honestly, the complexity of a lot of these transitions is sufficient that convening and coordinating stakeholder forum to actually understand some of those complexities is also going to be relatively important here. And it's something that I think would likely be generative I guess in helping people understand where we kind of need to go, what kinds of levers we can actually pull directly within these particularly specific context and things like that as well. So to kind of wrap up with this to I wanted to point out also as we close the decarbonization is not just an investment story. And I think this is actually more important to the policy context of decarbonization than we sometimes acknowledge. So, some of this does kind of come down to big carbon intensive processes and facilities needing to close, or be fully replaced, sometimes that looks roughly the same and oftentimes from the worker perspective and from the community perspective that can look pretty similar. So, carefully managing those phase outs and kind of understanding what the confines of a just transition might be I think will be pretty important for success in the industrial sector just as it is for the electricity sector and I'm interested to see how that moves forward given that we are kind of seeing faster movement in electricity right now. Another big one is that this industrial transition is going to disrupt existing supply chains, particularly if we're not pretty careful about that. Some of the stuff that came up. We already see a lot of industrial effort to use waste resources within the system for a variety of reasons, but some of those may go away. Colash being a really significant one that like Paul mentioned we've already actually seen where you start to see shortages with some of these things that people have kind of gone out of their way to learn how to use it so as to create maybe an environmental benefit from using these ways. So understanding when and where that happens. We have some huge advantages in that again there are not that many facilities that are actually engaging in some of these practices. So you probably can kind of predict who's tied to what as long as you're taking a really specific view of what's going on with this transition. Another really important one I think is that the past might not predict the future. We see a lot of impact is non stationarity with decarbonization efforts and climate change things in general, but I think that is an important one in this industrial transition as well. One of the big things being, you know, how do you actually account for the impact of really long term investments if you expect them to perform better in the future. I do a lot of life cycle assessment. One of the things that comes up a lot is that if you electrify a process in a dirty grid, maybe that's going to show up is performing pretty badly right now. But because you expect the grid to be decarbonizing over time, probably you expect it to be doing better in the future. So if you're building something that's going to last for 50 years, it's maybe worth it to take the slightly more intensive process right now given some of the future conditions that you expect and that's something that we do need to be watching out for. And then another one just being how do we actually anticipate some of these emergent conditions. One of the ones that I think is maybe under considered that some of the materials that we expect to be available by products right now could for example require entirely new minds as we scale up and that's not necessarily something that I think we're actively talking about. Then I'll ask one just being in general climate change will probably affect industrial activities. So things like, you know, performance of materials under one condition may not actually be sufficient for the future. Perhaps some facilities are okay operating under certain heat conditions but not others. So thinking about a lot of these things as well as we kind of move through our policies and expectations about the future I think will be pretty important. And I will turn it over for questions and also flag that we have another upcoming webinar on food and land use on the 24th from 3 to 4pm. Thank you for being with us today. Thank you Emily that was great. We have two CCS questions here that are somewhat related. So what I'm going to do is fold them into one and I'm going to throw it at Paul to answer. Someone asked for Paul you say that retrofitting with CCS is necessary for existing cement plants giving capital intensity and long life. What about Greenfield cement plant investments over the coming decades in developing countries to meet rapid growth are there other options out there and I'm to tack on to that. I'm going to wrap up here. We always hear that CCS is expensive. Is that just because it's a new technology are their prospects for much lower CCS costs when it's used at scale, and the technology is more mature and you are the perfect person to answer both of those. Right so, indeed, retrofitting with CCS is going to be necessary. There are a number of new cement plants giving their capital intensity and long life, but there are a number of new technologies which are coming around, such as this particular technology the direct separation reactor, which could be significantly in terms of having an integrated process that also captures CO2. So, because of the process emissions you're always going to have to have some sort of carbon capture and storage, unless you go to an alternative form of cement. However, you can integrate carbon capture and storage much more intelligently with a cement plant or an iron steel works or something like that then just saying, here is the cement plant, and right at the end of the screen right at the end. Yeah, I'm just going to put on a something that captures the CO2. And I'm not going to bother thinking about how this bit can integrate well with this bit. I'll answer the other question Dan Lashoff said what's calcium looping and calcium looping is a way of doing post combustion capture of CO2 but using calcium oxide I'm not going to go through the flow sheet, but essentially you use calcium oxide as a looping sorbent which captures CO2 here and then releases it here so you have to release the CO2 at some stage you have to produce a pure stream of CO2. But you can capture it from your exhaust exhaust gas and then recycle it over here and emitted as a pure stream, which you then pump up and pump underground and sequester. The reason that it works well with cement manufacture is because the thing that you're looping round calcium oxide where you're taking calcium oxide, making calcium carbonate, making calcium oxide, making calcium carbonate is actually the raw material for your cement plant as well. And so you don't have to add on any new material, any new bits, well you have to add on a few bits of equipment, but you don't have to add in any extra chemicals to your plant. It's efficient. There's all sorts of thermodynamic reasons why it's an extremely efficient process when particularly when integrated with cement manufacture. I think I'll stop there because Chris is giving me the look of I've heard enough of calcium looping in my life. No, I wasn't signaling anything at all. I know that I have struggled with calcium living that is true. Paul's papers are excellent reference on that just Google his name and what have you and dig through Google Scholar and you'll find lots of references for that. Last year, Frederick Juniana asked industries usually argue that they cannot be more regulated than their competitors in other countries because they would have to close their very soon profit margins highly trade right traded. Since the government cannot pay for all the changes needed. How can it decarbonize its national industry without causing problem economic problems. This short form answer what I have what the direction I think we need to go with that but then I'm going to pass over to Emily who's going to have probably have some more developed ideas of myself. First of all, yes, you're starting with steel cement chemicals industries that are highly traded they're very thin, typically thin profit margins except for chemicals. It's very GHG intense and the facilities last a long time. The first trick you the first thing you have to do is create alternatives you need an accelerated art research and development program commercialization of new facilities that are zero, because these things last so long that literally the next generation has to be as near zero as possible. In order to do that for firms to make those kind of really risky technical and financial investments. They need lead markets they need somewhere to sell this stuff, or that they might need up some upfront financing that they pay back and they need somewhere to sell it in the end so if they can produce steel that costs 40% more than standard steel, you know, they're going to get blown out of the market if they just try to sell into the normal market but if they have if they can sell it into government at that plus 40% or if they can sell it as premium steel to a car maker who then brads their car as a green steel car. Then they can then they can recover that you've got it you've got to link those lead more expensive lead markets with the end with end users who can actually pay for it. And that's on the pulling the technology frontier frontier along, and on the back end I think we need to start having minimum carbon standards, and the very worst facilities do have to start thinking about closing and often they're, they're so old the capital was long paid off anyway, that the key thing there is transitioning the existing where is the is the workforce there, can we get that workforce in the community built around it. So, either replace that facility with a modern one, or figure out what to what to do there and it's a hard political question, but I'll hand I'll pass over to Emily now. Thank you. I'll give you my spicier takes because I think Chris covered a lot of the, the stuff that I do agree with in terms of what we probably would like to see my, my personal somewhat spicy take is that a lot of the time when policies are arguing that it's a little bit overblown and I think particularly for things like cement, where there's very very heavy, like rock transportation essentially like, are you actually going to try to transport that from overseas if I make you raise your cost by 10%, maybe, probably not if I make you raise your cost by 50% 100% that starts to look a little bit different but I think one of the things that as we think about policies and incentives and things like that that does need to happen with some of these conversations is really trying to figure out where that argument is true and where it isn't and I think there are some circumstances where it's probably a bit overstated how much there's actually a really major ongoing competitiveness problem. So that's the sort of spicy unpopular opinion potentially more broadly though I think a lot of the time what we're starting to see is that people are implementing things like carbon minimums or carbon maximums rather border carbon adjustments and such that are not necessarily the only way forward but are certainly a way forward. We've actually seen a couple of big international deals get shot down relatively recently because concerns of carbon intensity and so it's certainly a mechanism that we have where you basically start to say, some of these, these products are just unacceptable if they have a certain level of carbon intensity so therefore we're actually asking you to produce a different products to therefore your competitiveness with this other product that's unacceptable is probably not actually a concern as much. But it is indeed a situation where there is going to be a lot of investment needed and really thinking through the dynamics of some of those questions is important so agree it's an issue I think it's a solvable one. We're at the hour. I'd first like to thank everyone that gave us this last hour and in having this conversation I think it's incredibly important and all of us. And I, and we're available. You can find us on Google just go through SDS and you can find us if you have any direct questions and we're all available to address those. And I just want to, and I don't see any more pressing questions so I'm going to call it here. Thank the, thank the panelists and thank the crowd. Thank you very much.