All Things Newz
Law \ Legal

Innovation, Collaboration And The Ever-present Climate Crisis – Interview With Faustine Delaselle, SYSTEMIQ Ltd – New Technology


Everyone who works in innovation is aware of the climate crisis
and the crucial role that new technology will play in helping to
overcome it – from new forms of transport and power to less
damaging materials, improved processes and systems that use
resources more efficiently.

But it can be hard to see the bigger picture, and what
developments will shape innovation in the medium-term. This is
especially the case in heavy industries that depend on fossil
fuels.

To find out more about the challenges that industry faces, the
need for collaboration and the impact of COP26, Kilburn &
Strode spoke to Faustine Delaselle of SYSTEMIQ.


About Faustine Delaselle

Faustine became a partner of SYSTEMIQ in 2020 and is Vice-Chair
of the Energy Transitions Commission, a coalition bringing together
industries, investors and environmental NGOs. She directed the
publication of the Better Energy, Greater Prosperity and Mission
Possible reports.

Faustine is particularly interested in how to reduce emissions
in heavy industry, which comprises four main sectors: 1) chemical;
2) steel and aluminium; 3) concrete and cement; and 4) trucking,
shipping and aviation. These are all energy-intensive industries
and, as decarbonisation proceeds elsewhere, they make up a greater
proportion of the remaining emissions.

Read on to find out more about Faustine’s views on the scale
of this challenge, and potential initiatives to address it.


K&S: What is your background?

FD: My background is nothing to do with energy!
I started my career in politics in France. I wanted to understand
how else one could work for the greater good in society and
that’s how I ended up working on the energy transition. That
was about six years ago.

My work is about building coalitions – joining forces with
a varied range of corporates, financial institutions, NGOs and
governments to see how building collaboration between stakeholders
could trigger system change in this space. I did that through the
Energy Transitions Commission where I was director for six years
and am now vice-chair.

We worked on topics that are key to the transition such as
renewables and hydrogen. We also realised early on that there was a
particular issue and set of opportunities in the heavy industry and
heavy transport sectors, what we call the harder-to-abate sectors.
At the time, people thought there was no solution to those sectors
and we would just have to compensate for their emissions.


K&S: What’s the particular challenge with these
sectors?

FD: It was a mix of things. One was the scale
and level of energy intensity of those sectors. Second, for fossil
fuels, very high heat is intrinsic to the production process so
there was greater scepticism that it could be replaced. And some of
those sectors have had the same process for 200 years so there was
a sense of incumbency and permanence.


K&S: What will be the breakthrough?

FD: There’s no silver bullet but there are
four major types of technologies:

  1. Direct electrification can work but it’s the least
    technologically mature option – though there are interesting
    ideas around steel production for example.

  2. Second, the hydrogen space is really gaining momentum.

  3. Bio-based solutions are easiest to get your brain around
    because they are closest to fossil fuels but they have limited
    potential in the industry and mobility sectors because there is not
    a lot of sustainable biomass around so you can’t scale it.

  4. The final option is carbon capture, which is now probably the
    last to come to mind except for cement and concrete.


K&S: Why is collaboration important?

FD: Collaboration can help fast-track progress.
Shifting to new technologies is more expensive than continuing to
use raw materials. The inputs are more expensive and you have to
invest in new assets rather than use existing assets.

For companies to be driven to invest, you need an environment
that is favourable where the value-chain gives businesses reasons
to invest. That’s partly policy and it can also come from
consumers – buyers of those products who want to buy green
steel or trips to other continents that do not contaminate –
and from financial investors who are looking to decarbonise their
investment portfolios. It’s important to mobilise all
stakeholders to help energy-intensive players to decarbonise.

We have created a major endeavour called the Mission Possible
Partnership focusing on those sectors and bringing together 400
companies. It’s already achieved a great deal in a relatively
short period of time, but it is a work in progress and in the
future aims to go further and faster.


K&S: What role do new innovative technologies play in
overcoming these challenges?

FD: There is a suite of innovation going on.
I’d categorise them into two buckets: innovation in how we
produce cleaner forms of energy – such as hydrogen, renewable
power and bioenergy – and innovation in how you apply those
energy sources in traditional sectors – hydrogen, coal and
iron production, how to power ships using ammonia not heavy fuel
oil for example. You need both levels of innovation.

There are two different innovation models in that context: in
one you protect your intellectual property very carefully and one
player tries to win the market. That is the traditional way that
many companies operate.

The other model is struggling to emerge and that is open
innovation. The major players collaborate to get technologies to
market and give up on owning the IP to help the whole sectors to
transition to low-carbon solutions faster. They build services,
products, relationships with clients etc.


K&S: Do you sense a lot of resistance to the open innovation
model?

FD: It’s not in corporate culture to do it
this way. There is some initial progress and some collaborative
projects between two, three or four companies. It is slow moving
but not unheard of.


K&S: Where is the innovation coming from in this area?

FD: It’s relatively mixed. Some is from
universities but they need to connect with industry to stress test
the validity of the technology. We’ve seen big players invest
in their own innovation machine, but there are also new entrants.
They’ve been pushing big incumbents and challenging them to go
faster, which is important when you’re in a race against
time.


K&S: Do you think young people will bring a new mindset?

FD: Big industrial sectors are not the most
attractive to young engineers and chemists, because they have the
image of incumbency, and an energy-intensive and polluting
environment. It can need an HR drive to provide opportunities for
more innovative mindsets.


K&S: Are any policy or legislative changes needed?

FD: From an IP perspective, it’s not my
speciality but we should make sure open innovation is enabled. It
might be quite radical but in a radical world one could imagine a
push from governments to release patents on some technologies that
are absolutely critical for climate, in the same way as we have had
the debate on COVID-19 vaccines.

One thing we stumble across on a regular basis is
anti-competition law. A lot of collaboration might appear
anti-competitive and that is a bottleneck from a regulatory
perspective. We are facing a climate emergency and there might be
good reasons why we need a bit less competition in the short term
in some key areas, while remaining cautious in the non-climate
dimensions of the market.

[Gail Taylor of Kilburn & Strode adds: This is certainly
an area where we see companies exploring different models,
including closed innovation, open innovation and shared innovation.
There are also ways to combine different models, for example patent
pooling. Patent pools are quite common in the IT, telecoms and
automotive sectors and could also be relevant for sustainable
technologies.]


K&S: Are there any particular areas of innovation you find very
exciting in this area?

FD: I think we don’t speak enough about
innovation related to reuse and recycling of materials. People are
used to talking about renewable energy, hydrogen and increasingly
direct air capture as well. The missing dimension is how do we
better use resources, which includes innovative mechanisms to sort
materials that have been put together in complex products that need
to be dismantled. There’s a lot sitting in landfills that could
be a source of wealth and economic development.

Innovation in product design is an exciting area and we’ve
heard that you need design to be thought through in a different way
to deliver change. But there are also innovations coming to the
market using different chemical processes which could provide a
wealth of possibilities.


K&S: What were the achievements and disappointments of
COP26?

FD: It’s a complex topic. COP26 was a
moment of hope – that despite COVID there was an
unprecedented involvement of non-government players showing up and
committing to net zero with the next five to 10 years and that was
encouraging. What was disappointing was the fact that governments
didn’t rise to the challenge and the national plans submitted
don’t put the world on the right track. There were commitments
on topics such as methane emissions, deforestation and the road
transport and steel sectors but not with the level of specificity,
implementation plans and financing plan to make them credible.

In the next couple of COPs, we need to see governments raise
their plans again to put the world on a 1.5 degree trajectory, to
give us confidence that we can put the plan into action.

There is not that much time! Those actions should have been
taken yesterday. We are running against time and the last IPC
report shows that the window of opportunity is closing fast. It
needs to happen in the next one to two years.


K&S: Are you confident we’ll get there?

FD: I’m not confident. That’s a very
depressing thought.

It makes me worried for the next generation. Once it’s too
late, there will be feedback loops at climate level and we
won’t be able to put the genie back into the lamp. And those
effects will be felt for decades or centuries and will be horrific
in terms of their impact on society.

We don’t have to look far. We’re already seeing droughts
across the world – Santiago, Chile is actually running out of
water this year. Even in France we’re seeing major disruption
to climate patterns that threaten agriculture every single year.
Those things will only accelerate.


K&S: How optimistic are you?

FD: It depends on the day. I want to remain
optimistic and continue fighting. But the more time it takes for
the world to get its act together, the more difficult it is to see
the light at the end of the tunnel.


K&S: What can individuals do?

FD: Two things. One is watch your own behaviour
wherever you can: small things help. The other is vote – a
lot is driven by government policy and there are not many
governments that are making it their top priority.

A number of European countries in the Nordics, and maybe Spain
and Portugal, have done things well in terms of deployment of
renewables, consultation and collaboration with industry players,
but no one is the perfect example.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.



Source link

Related posts

Amendment To Salvage Unused Immigrant Visa Numbers Advances In House – Work Visas

Critical infrastructure cyber notification obligations: when do you need to comply? – Security

New Federal Legislation Aims To Eliminate Tax Write-Offs For Contributions To NIL Collectives – Sport