Collaboration can unlock Australia's energy transition without sacrificing natural capital

The research, published May 29 in Nature Sustainability, demonstrates that Australia can fully decarbonize its domestic and energy export economies by 2060 while avoiding harm to important areas for biodiversity outcomes, safeguarding agricultural activities, and respecting Indigenous land rights.

"The amount of land required for the energy transition is massive, and the speed at which we need to be deploying renewable infrastructure is unprecedented," said first author Andrew Pascale, research scholar in the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment. "At the same time, we've shown here that not only can it be done, but that it can and should be done while incorporating the perspectives of many different stakeholders."

If stakeholders work collaboratively to identify the most suitable areas for development, the researchers found it would be possible to site the over 110,000 square kilometers -- around 1.7 times the size of Tasmania -- of renewable energy infrastructure needed by 2060 to reach net-zero in Australia while preserving lands for biodiversity and agriculture.

If stakeholders refuse to compromise on their interests, however, it would lead not only to higher energy prices but also a clean energy shortfall of almost 500 gigawatts. Such a shortfall would undermine the modeled decarbonization pathway, potentially requiring an unwanted and likely costly pivot to an alternative.

"There are legitimate tensions surrounding renewable energy development," said co-author Chris Greig, theTheodora D. '78 & William H. Walton III '74 Senior Research Scientist in the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment. "There are values -- protecting biodiversity, respecting Indigenous estate, supporting farmers -- that must be respected and incorporated into planning processes alongside concerns about the climate."

The researchers drew from their prior work on the Net Zero Australia study, a multi-year, multi-institutional collaboration that charted unique pathways for Australia to fully decarbonize and maintain its domestic and export economy -- a nearly $6.2 trillion task (in 2020 U.S. dollars). During Net Zero Australia, the team consulted with stakeholder groups including the National Farmers Federation, National Native Title Council, and the Australian Conservation Foundation. In the present study, the team drew from those conversations to incorporate stakeholder values about land use into their technoeconomic model, identifying the most suitable lands for renewable energy development and those that should be excluded from consideration.

"In thinking about renewable energy planning, we're taking into account different biodiversity goals and protections for natural capital, which is critical for when you're trying to implement projects," said co-author James Watson, a professor of environmental management at The University of Queensland. "This is among the first works to put biodiversity and natural capital into the same picture as energy planning in Australia, which is a much-needed step in the right direction."

The researchers combined the modeling results and stakeholder input to propose a 'traffic-light' approach for siting renewable infrastructure. They identified where energy projects could be easiest to site (green), where they could be potentially sited pending further stakeholder engagement (orange), and where development would be off-limits (red).

The researchers contrasted their proposed system with the renewable energy zones that the Australian Energy Regulator uses for energy planning, noting that at least two existing renewable energy zones have over 90% overlap with biodiversity exclusion areas.

"There is a difference between modeling a net-zero pathway and planning one," Pascale said. "What looks good from the standpoint of resource quality and proximity to existing infrastructure might not hold when you simultaneously consider biodiversity and other national commitments. If 90% of the land in a proposed renewable energy zone will trigger a response from conservation groups, then it may be time to rethink."

Greig added that at a broader level, the research highlights the importance of flexible, robust net-zero pathways that account for land-use uncertainties. Such a methodology would require moving away from conventional, top-down modeling approaches to flexible pathways that are conscious of different and sometimes competing priorities for natural capital.

"We've identified a need for a government planning and approval process that integrates the diverse interests of energy development, Indigenous land rights, environmental values like biodiversity, and natural resources more broadly," said Greig. "Those perspectives are typically siloed, which is a recipe for decisions that make unacceptable tradeoffs and compromise biodiversity alongside Indigenous and farmers' rights."

The researchers suggested that an immediate planning goal would be to prioritize turning possible development sites (orange) into ones acceptable to diverse stakeholders (green) as quickly as possible.

They also underscored several uncertainties, such as missing critical habitat data for many Australian species and how all species might respond to climate change, which would require greater flexibility within individual transition pathways accompanied by regular model updates. If any unexpected and extreme changes in land availability exceed the flexibility designed in the pathway, the researchers acknowledged that the model's outcomes could change.

However, Watson said that such uncertainties should not prevent planners from using the best available data to take action on renewable energy development.

"We have to deal with the problem we are facing today, thinking about where endangered species are right now and focusing on keeping those habitats intact," said Watson. "We can take action while acknowledging we need better data, which is far preferable to simply forgetting or ignoring biodiversity."

"I see this paper as a wake-up call," he added. "The take-home message is that we need a clean energy future, and that we need to plan for that future -- and the large spatial footprint it will require -- without defeating our other societal goals."