CRCs leading the way to Net Zero goals, generating billions in value for all Australians
Media Release
Cooperative Research Australia (CRA) today launched an independent study that confirms the venerable Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Program is generating billions of dollars in C02 abatement outcomes and decarbonisation-focused economic activity, creating thousands of jobs by unlocking substantial private sector R&D.
The report, undertaken by ACIL Allen, showcases the contribution of 13 CRCs/post-CRCs who are directly or indirectly supporting Australia’s decarbonisation goals.
“Australia’s globally renowned CRC Program is at the forefront of efforts to achieve our ambitious climate change targets, with more than $1 billion of private and public investment in research and development to help Australia reach Net Zero by solving gnarly industry problems.” said Jane O’Dwyer, CEO of CRA.
ACIL Allen estimates that this investment, which is only a subset of the full CRC investment, will generate an estimated $4.8 billion in additional economic output for Australia, $3.3 billion in cumulative undiscounted CO2 abated, and thousands of jobs, from 2017-2032.
“These CRCs have extraordinary reach throughout the economy, bring together over 1,600 partners and project participants across research, industry and government, with links into more than 18 countries across Europe, the America, Asia and Oceania.
“The CRC model provides a well-established mechanism for unlocking private-sector R&D investment and fostering productive industry-research collaboration. That co-investment with industry, and collaboration across industry and research, is critical to Australia being able to meet its decarbonisation goals.
“But, there is still significant work to be done if we are to reach these ambitious climate targets. CRCs provide important national capacity that is readily scalable to accelerate change and innovation. With relatively little additional Federal investment and increased flexibility, the CRCs can supercharge our decarbonisation efforts across a huge breadth of sectors from concrete to transport, from heavy industry to future fuels, from the oceans to finance,” Ms O’Dwyer added.
The report, titled Mapping and quantification of CRCs’ work on decarbonisation, forecast that the contribution of this group of 13 CRCs over 2017-2032 will:
- Generate substantial economic activity: an increase of $4.8 billion in Australia’s economic output (GDP)
- Raise economic welfare across Australia: an increase of $1.7 billion to Australia’s real economy as a result of industry-led decarbonisation research and innovation.
- Create significant employment opportunities: 3,705 job years to 2032 are delivered (an average of 265 FTE jobs years per year).
- Provide significant value for money: $5.80 generated in additional economic output (GDP) for every dollar of investment and in-kind contributions.
“Decarbonisation is a highly complex global issue with a wide array of policy, market, and social considerations at play,” Ms O’Dwyer said. “What we can clearly see is that the extent to which CRCs are helping propel Australia towards a sustainable, prosperous, and decarbonised future; one where Australia realises its emissions goals.”
The decarbonisation challenge
A 2023 review by the International Energy Agency into Australia’s energy targets1highlighted that while recent policies support decarbonisation, significant changes will be needed to reach net zero by 2050.
Under current projections, Australia is expected to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 37% below 2005 levels by 2030, well short of our reduction target of 43% from 2005 levels by 2030.
“Achieving a Net Zero economy will require a collective and collaborative effort across all sectors and sections of society – the CRC model is well placed to facilitate this collective action,” said ACIL Allen Director of the Science and Technology practice, Dr John Söderbaum.
“Australia has a suite of decarbonisation-related policies and strategies aimed at supporting Australia’s national decarbonisation goals. The work of the CRCs is strongly aligned with these goals and there is strong potential to further enhance their work programs to expand the CRC contribution to realising Net Zero outcomes,” Dr Söderbaum added.
CRCs a ready-made solution
Chair of the study’s Steering Committee and initiator of the project, CRC TiME CEO, Dr Guy Boggs, said CRCs represent an important lever to support more rapid progress toward Australia’s decarbonisation goals.
“CRCs provide an effective and flexible mechanism for stakeholders from different sectors to work together, leverage their collective expertise, and address complex challenges through collaboration and strategic investment in delivery, translation and commercialisation of research,” Dr Boggs said.
“The CRC model is a ready-made solution that is already delivering significant impact. Mobilising this collective capacity is an immense opportunity, with additional and more flexible funding models needed to help further drive this collaboration across CRCs to deliver even more benefits for the Australian economy as we transition to Net Zero.”
The report highlights several ways that the Commonwealth-funded CRC Program is bringing together industry, universities and government to apply evidence-based research to help reach Net Zero.
For example, Blue Economy CRC is harnessing clean energy to fuel offshore commercial vehicles as they operate out at seas; Future Fuels CRC is undertaking world-leading work on supporting adoption of Net Zero emission fuels; iMove CRC is accelerating electrification in mass transport; and SmartCrete CRC is developing technologies to transform hard-to-abate sectors such as concrete and cement.
“This work shows CRCs to be a critical part of the nation’s research and innovation infrastructure. In particular, they are a responsive and integral partner on the path to Net Zero, committed to collaborative actions to help deliver on Australia’s decarbonisation mission,” Dr Boggs said.
“The activities of CRCs have evolved over time to meet Australia’s growing decarbonisation needs and industry priorities, demonstrating the flexibility of the CRC model. Working across multiple sectors, there is potential for the CRCs’ individual and collective capability to be leveraged to contribute even more toward our ambitious climate goals.
“The opportunity is now to develop a shared action plan across government to further harness this infrastructure and draw on the capacity and capability of the CRCs towards Net Zero.”
View the Report, Fact Sheet and Case Studies Booklet on the project website.
1 International Energy Agency (2023). Australia has raised its climate targets and now needs to accelerate its clean energy transition, says new IEA review. https://www.iea.org/news/Australia
-has-raised-its-climate-targets-and-now-needs-to-accelerate-its-clean-energy-transition-says-new-iea-review.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
10 comments
Login here Register here-
leefe
-
Harry Lime
-
Canguro
-
Ankisip
-
Clakka
-
Harry Lime
-
Canguro
-
Canguro
-
Harry Lime
-
Clakka
Return to home pageSod the economic value – how much impact on the actual environment issues is all this having?
Can someone translate this corporate weaselese?It reads like something out of joint venture capital sales brochure.
Harry, some wear their entrée into the House of Babel with smug but unconscious satisfaction in their capacity to weave bullshit in such a way that almost all are captured by the spin. Don’t forget, we now live in the post-truth world, where businesses and individuals compete in the art of creative fabulism; competition is vicious & winners take all. It used to be snake-oil salesmen and step-right up hucksters fleecing the gullible, now it’s corporate PR and ad agencies paid handsomely to hypnotise the mob with sophisticated tales of smoke & mirrors… once under the spell, deft extraction of dollars can proceed.
I like the part about the Clean Energy Offshore Vehicles.
That would be sail boats. I like sailing.
Thoughts of Tall Ships, with sails; solar panels and batteries for electric propulsion when docking.
Really modernising the ancient history books.
Give me a break
Some of you commentators astound me sometimes. I seriously wonder whether any of you have bothered to do any research on CRCs, and the benefits that have been achieved or whether you’re just happy in your pants to rattle on with cynicism and tarring all corporates and others interested in industry with the same brush.
I have successfully used information and papers from Australian and other CRCs for my own research, and have found them to be a valuable resource. I note also bodies like Standards Australia use info from the CRCs to develop our own technical Standards.
Here’s a list of the Australian CRC members. Australia founded the concept of CRCs, which have now grown to develop many CRCs internationally, all highly respected by governments and industry.
Would you be telling me they’re all idiots or charlatans?
It would help if they didn’t fill their media releases with contemporary cliches,cant and management jargon,it would blow a weasel word bingo card out of the water.
FWIW, a brain-fart from my upstairs & underworked pottage of miscellaneous gleanings: as handsome a concept as it sounds, and kudos for its timeliness, but I don’t think carbon capture, sequestration, decarbonisation and whatever other innovative options get squeezed out of the techno-uterus are going to add more than a scintilla’s worth of net benefit against the current (and growing) carbon-based load we’ve added to the atmosphere and oceans.
I’m not anti CRCs, Clakka, I have no axe to grind, I was employed once, decades ago, in one of the R&D qangos and had dealings with CRC people; as you’d know they rely heavily on PPP investment to get their projects up and running and through to completion; they mean well and are not ill-intentioned but at the same time there are plenty of MSc & PhD grads out there looking for research money and willing to invest in blue sky research.
Again, no issue with that.
I hope, I guess, that I’m wrong, but at this stage I’m happy (hah!, ironic term) to tag along with the thousands of climate scientists – all of them, strangely enough, named Hanrahan – and eke out my remaining years watching it all unfold into the predicted scenario of kaka getting flung upwards into the spinning blades.
For attn, Clakka….an addendum: I found & downloaded the 75 page Mapping and quantification of CRCs’ work on decarbonisation report, and skimmed through it, treading carefully though the mire of entangled gunna do’s and expected benefits in search of actual hardcore indication of what was actually going to be done vis-a-vis ‘decarbonisation.’
Alas, the expected elysium of enterprising and effective endeavours proved to be as elusive as a Wollemia nobilis in a Radiata plantation. A bit of guff about replacing mining industry diesel transport with hydrogen, a lot more guff about training scientists and educating people to be conscientious citizens, and not much more.
Canguro,you’re my man.Not all of us are omniscient.
Yea Harry Lime … indeed, we none of us are omniscient. I have a constant and at times embarrassing battle trying to be a man of few words.
Yea Canguro … a reminder that also CRCs are promoting research of the respective members, and of course marketing with the objective of collaboration in any relevant field – a networking forum. And yes, there’s a tendency (these days) to couch things in ‘marketese’, which one may not wish to plough through. But, on the other hand, there are those looking, that may not wish to plough through peer-reviewed academic papers, so the CRC-type docs can serve as a method to set the quest into deeper research in motion. I guess you are aware of how guarded academics are of their ‘stuff’, and even moreso, that of the organizations that engage them.
In view of these matters, as the nuances of science and demand become ever more complex, better than the olde slow stay in the dark corners of the hatcheries tendencies, the CRCs cast around and cast light on possibilities that can lead to contracted collaborations that lead them into secured developments – bringing to functional operation and of course the rewards of credence and monetization – it’s how the world goes around – and now more than ever it’s becoming globalized. And in globalization, development involves the complexities of treaties, law, proprietary information, the needs of people and states and competition – and the reality is, we’re a long way from everything being ‘Open Source’.
As for your dive into decarbonization, good onya, and wow, what an intense test at the front edge of tech, and in a highly politicized arena. One in which there persists much hugging onto info, and where vested interest leverage runs amok. Like all aspects of climate change abatement, it’s a con-o-worms, chock full of punters, proponents and detractors – a reason why governments have to be involved in trying asap to leverage the tech and investment. At least the CRC had at least one paper, bones, deficits and all – perhaps a point was being made?
There’s no magic wand here that circumvents the hard yards of bringing risk accounted high tech to standards and to market. I am a member of the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors, which is affiliated internationally. For many years research collaborations and drafting of standards has been underway to establish methods and processes for quantification and costing of carbon in the built environment. Although in the interim, some frameworks have been brought to practical use, there is yet to be established certified Australian and International standards. Quantity Surveyors (aka Cost Engineers) are the lead profession in this process. It is mind-blowingly complex, and relies heavily on inputs from other relevant tech / scientific specialists, and as such will always remain inherently fluid, relying on constant review and amendment. Its scope is not only for building construction, but also for industrial and civil engineering projects, and critical for the modern understanding of ‘Life Cycle’ analysis of risks, quantum and costs of all projects from feasibility, through design development to commencement and completion, and also through maintenance and end-of-life and per se demolition. It aims to be comprehensive, including embedded carbon, land use, sequestration, emissions and carbon credits for example, and goes across all raw materials, manufactured inputs, transportation, plant and labour inputs, design and fabrication and construction, all temporary and permanent through to completion. And it’s such a new process, it requires also review and agreement on vocabulary and definitions, let alone frameworks and methods / scope of measurement.
Needless to say, the objectives of all moving through the process of climate change abatement have mandated the quantification and costing of carbon in the built environment. In the alternative, we could push on using the ‘Blind Freddy’ method, and risk wastage, dysfunction, depletion, misdirection and stranded assets – just like in the ‘industrial revolution’ era. It seems it’s only the crooks that have no concern about such outcomes.