That is according to Dr Daniel Roberts, the lead of theCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s Energy Technologies Research Program, who will speak at this month’s Renewable Fuels Summit.

Liquid fuels account for more than half of all final energy Australians consume and 30 per cent of national emissions: “There are really two drivers,” Roberts said. “One is emissions reduction. The other is fuel security. These have motivated alternative fuels research and energy independence ambitions for a long time.”

And whilst electric vehicles dominate the public conversation, Dr Roberts said the harder problem lies in aviation, international shipping, and diesel engines powering remote mine sites and farms. These are sectors where electrification, as he put it, “is unlikely to be able to do the heavy lifting.”

Why forest residues are now worth their weight in fuel!

That’s why CSIRO is now focused on biogenic fuels — converting biomass and organic waste into liquid fuel — a pathway Dr Roberts believes will deliver commercial results ahead of synthetic alternatives. Forestry residues, plantation waste, agricultural by-products and urban waste streams are all in scope. “It’s about recognising the value in our waste streams,” Dr Roberts said. “We have the opportunity domestically to build on existing technologies and make something really useful out of waste.”

The scale required is not small. Dr Roberts described facilities processing thousands of tonnes of feedstock daily, power-station-sized plants backed by hundreds of megawatts of electrolysers and industrial-grade carbon capture. “The first time you do something, it’s always harder and more expensive. But that’s how you learn and improve,” he said.

CSIRO is already active in the field, having participated in a world-first Australia-India trial that demonstrated, at scale, the partial replacement of coal with agricultural waste in steelmaking. It is also working with the Heavy Industry Low-Carbon Transition Cooperative Research Centre to de-risk biomass gasification pathways and cut natural gas dependence across heavy industry.

And on the commercial side, CSIRO is an active partner in the AFWI Fibre to Fuels project, which will see HAMR partner with a dozen or more partners in the forest value chain to demonstrate that plantation residues in Tasmania, Western Australia and the Green Triangle in Victoria’s timber towns can be turned into low-carbon liquid fuels.

Dr Roberts said the industry’s appetite had shifted markedly over the past five years, with net-zero commitments and geopolitical concerns about fuel supply pushing boardrooms to act. The sticking point remains policy certainty — large-scale infrastructure requires confidence that demand will be there for the life of the asset. “Companies considering 30-year infrastructure investments need certainty that customers will be there,” he said.

It comes as the federal government last year committed $1.1 billion to accelerate Australia’s low-carbon liquid fuels sector — a package the Low Carbon Fuels Alliance of Australia and New Zealand, which represents more than 300 stakeholders from feedstock producers to project developers, described as a turning point for sovereign fuel supply.

• To learn why the global timber trade is now tied up in Iranian conflict, click here for Wood Central’s special feature on the Strait of Hormuz last week.

That is according to a peer-reviewed study published this year in npj Natural Hazards, which used the McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) and an ensemble of dynamically downscaled CMIP6 climate projections to model how extreme fire weather will evolve under different levels of global warming.

Across Australia, once-in-twenty-year and once-in-fifty-year extreme fire events are projected to become 2.7 and 3.7 times more likely under 3°C of global warming. Whilst in southeast Australia’s eucalyptus forests those same benchmark events are projected to be 2.1-2.5 times more likely at the same warming level.

Tasmania faces the sharpest trajectory of any region studied.

Under 3°C of warming, 20-year return interval fire weather events are projected to become 3.2 times more likely, whilst 50-year return interval events are projected to become 4.1 times more likely. And even at 2°C of warming, Tasmania’s equivalent risk multipliers are 2.0 and 2.3, respectively.

The study, led by Ryan McGloin, warns that the Tasmanian findings warrant special attention, describing the projections as “particularly significant given Tasmania’s history of destructive bushfires and unique and vulnerable ecosystems that are potentially at risk of being replaced by more flammable vegetation when exposed to more frequent fires.”

The warning is grounded in history. The 1967 Black Tuesday fires killed 62 people and destroyed nearly 3,000 structures across southern Tasmania. Whilst in January 2013, fires razed 203 homes in the village of Dunalley alone. And unlike mainland forests, Tasmania’s vegetation mosaic — fire-sensitive rainforests, alpine shrublands and wet forests — faces a feedback loop in which more frequent fires progressively shift the landscape towards more flammable, fire-adapted vegetation.

A cycle, the authors say, has no natural brake.

The drivers differ by region. In Tasmania and southern Victoria, for example, projected increases in extreme fire weather are driven primarily by rising maximum temperatures, compounded by declining spring rainfall, which lifts the drought factor and lowers relative humidity on the continent’s worst fire days.

In the subtropical eucalyptus forests of southern Queensland and northern New South Wales, increasing humidity associated with a shift towards positive phases of the Southern Annular Mode partially moderates the temperature impact, resulting in the study’s lowest projected increases. There, 20-year and 50-year return interval events are still projected to become 1.8 and 2.0 times more likely at 3°C — figures the researchers describe as not immaterial.

Spring has emerged as the season of greatest concern. Severe fire weather days (FFDI ≥ 50) are projected to rise substantially in north-western and central Australia, while Very High fire weather days (FFDI between 24 and 50) are projected to increase in both the north and south. The pattern points to an earlier onset and overall lengthening of the fire season — with a shrinking window for hazard-reduction burns, a direct operational consequence for fire agencies.

The study — authored by Ryan McGloin, Ralph Trancoso, Jozef Syktus, Rohan Eccles, Nathan Toombs and Andrew Dowdy — is the first to apply the latest CMIP6 downscaled projections under different global warming levels to fire weather extremes specifically for southeast Australia’s eucalyptus forests.

For more information: McGloin, R., Trancoso, R., Syktus, J. et al. Substantial increases in the likelihood of extreme fire weather events for fire-prone ecosystems in Australia. npj Nat. Hazards 3, 28 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-026-00193-9

That is according to Pulse Tasmania, which reports the rig is designed to replicate the planned venue’s fixed-roof structure and will assess whether a treated version of the stadium’s ETFE roof material can eliminate the shadow problem that has dogged the project since early 2025.

Shadows have plagued the design from the beginning.

Last year, Wood Central reported that Cricket Australia and Cricket Tasmania wrote to the Tasmanian government demanding architects redesign or remove the roof entirely, saying the fixed-dome design made the venue “unlikely to be conducive to hosting Test matches” — and potentially unworkable for one-day and T20 fixtures too.

At the time, Anne Beach, the CEO of the Macquarie Point Development Corporation, told a parliamentary inquiry that the transparent covering created contrast on clear days — and that the timber and steel beams, engineered as small as possible, would still cast shadows.

However, in November, a Gold Coast company identified a potential fix: Cricket Tasmania CEO Dom Baker proposed a matte treatment that, when applied to one side of the ETFE material, would disperse light rather than pass straight through —  killing the sharp contrasts on the pitch.

Until this week, it had never been physically tested. Now, the rig will run assessments on shadow intensity, ball visibility, and playing conditions. It will also capture data on how roof treatments affect turf growth beneath — a secondary concern for groundskeepers at an indoor venue.

It comes after both houses of the Tasmanian Parliament approved the $1.13 billion project in December — the Upper House voting 9–5 after two days of debate. The 23,000-seat venue will be the permanent home of the Tasmania Devils AFL team. Its fixed dome, framed in Tasmanian-sourced glulam, would be the largest timber roof on any stadium in the world.

What the roof actually looks like

Late last year, Wood Central reported that the current design documents detail a hybrid timber roof lined with Tasmanian-sourced glulam, paired with metal deck cladding, steel rod bracing, and translucent ETFE pillows. The clearspan structure carries an internal clearance of 49 metres — enough headroom for Test-level cricket as well as AFL, soccer, and rugby.

The Macquarie Point Summary Report specifies lightweight ETFE pillows, a 20-millimetre timber laminate, a secondary glulam system, and Aramax metal deck cladding, all supported by steel rod bracing. The timber form is designed to reduce perceived bulk from street level and preserve harbour sightlines — a tough ask for a structure sitting on the edge of Hobart’s CBD.

That is according to Steve Walker, Principal of Terrafolia Advisory, who spoke exclusively to Wood Central after visiting a series of LVL manufacturing clusters in Linyi, Suqian and Guigang last week. And the production pivot, he says, is only part of the story. “What stands out most,” Walker said, “is the ability to produce high-quality structural products using young plantation logs.”

Part of that competitive edge is feedstock flexibility.

According to Walker, the mills draw on a wide species mix — domestic pine (Pinus massoniana), planted eucalyptus, New Zealand radiata and European spruce — with end customers specifying wood blends, quality grades and certification requirements before a board is cut. As a result, manufacturers can produce LVL on demand, at scale, to any dimensions worldwide.

It comes after Wood Central revealed that Chinese LVL arriving at Australian ports has surged 63 per cent in the ten months to October 2025, with new ABS data recording more than 205,000 cubic metres traded in that period alone. For Walker, the use of younger fibre, purpose-built infrastructure, and on-spec production means China can land product at costs that locals can only dream of.

For global forest asset managers, Walker says this represents a real opportunity.

The implication, he says, is simple: rotation length, fibre specification and market strategy are now directly linked. “Investors who focus on productivity optimisation and value creation, and who align forest resources with the growing demand for engineered wood, will be well positioned for the next phase of the industry,” Walker said. “The future of forestry will belong to portfolios that understand how fibre, manufacturing and markets are changing together.”

It comes as Walker last month set out the detailed case for how Australia’s plantation estate could be better deployed to meet exactly this kind of demand. His paper, A National Pathway for High-Productivity Forestry and Renewable Carbon Supply, published by the Rozette Institute, argues that Australia could double its plantation output without planting a single additional tree — through smarter rotation management, fibre alignment and productivity optimisation across existing estates.

Led by Marc Grünig, Werner Rammer, and Cornelius Senf, the study was conducted by researchers at the Technical University of Munich under the senior authorship of Rupert Seidl, Professor of Ecosystem Dynamics and Forest Management at TUM “Climate Change Will Increase Forest Disturbances in Europe Throughout the 21st Century” maps the impact of climate on stock.

The reference period the team used as a baseline is telling. The years from 1986 to 2020 were already marked by unusually high disturbance levels — yet even under the most optimistic scenario, with warming held to roughly two degrees Celsius, future damage is projected to exceed that elevated benchmark. Under a four-degree trajectory, the disturbed forest area more than doubles.

It comes as Wood Central reported that storms, bark-beetle outbreaks and extreme weather could wipe out up to €247 billion in standing European timber over the same time, with Central Europe already emerging as the continent’s costliest disturbance hotspot under modelling.

Southern and western Europe face the most severe projected changes.

And the researchers warn that damage hotspots will emerge across northern Europe too — and with European timber markets deeply interconnected, localised forest losses have a habit of becoming everyone’s problem at the sawmill and the building site.

The model itself was trained on 135 million data points drawn from forest simulations across 13,000 European locations, layered with multi-decadal satellite data — projecting future disturbance trajectories down to a single hectare, a level of regional precision previously unavailable to policymakers or forest managers:

How much carbon a forest stores, how reliably it supplies timber, and what species it supports — all of it is governed by disturbance levels, and the numbers on all three are headed in one direction. Seidl’s team is pushing for forest policy to get ahead of it, arguing that rising disturbance, while destructive, also creates openings to replace vulnerable monocultures with more climate-resilient forest structures.

“We need to be prepared for significant forest damage in the coming years,” Seidl said. “Forestry must address both the risks and opportunities of rising disturbance levels, supported by new scientific methods and insights.”

The research was conducted under the EU-coordinated Resonate project — Resilient Forests for Society — led by the European Forest Institute.

• For further information: Grünig, M.; Rammer, W.; Senf, C. et al: Climate change will increase forest disturbances in Europe throughout the 21st century, Science 2026, DOI: 10.1126/science.adx6329

That is according to prefabAUS executive chair Damien Crough, who spoke at Offsite25, From Factory to Future, on the Gold Coast last year.

But the turnaround was not accidental. At the 2024 meeting, prefabAUS leadership acknowledged they were “frankly downbeat” about progress — Modern Methods of Construction remained absent from major national programs despite offering clear solutions to Australia’s housing crisis. But the organisation declared it “a fight we simply must win” and launched a systematic campaign to elevate Smart Building to national priority status.

It worked.

Federal commitments now include $54 million specifically for MMC development, $49.3 million to support state and territory prefab and modular programs, and $4.7 million for a voluntary national certification process. Those allocations follow the November $900 million National Productivity Fund and an additional $120 million in targeted competition payments to accelerate prefabrication adoption.

Industry Development Specialist Lance Worrall said the formal recognition marks a decisive break from the past: “Smart Building is now explicitly recognised within the National Housing Accord, and in the Future Made in Australia industry programs,” he said, adding that the 2025 election outcome had allowed governments to act with greater urgency on housing and manufacturing.

Regulatory changes are now underway.

The Australian Building Codes Board has introduced new national standards for offsite construction — covering design, approvals, production and performance — alongside a manufacturer certification framework. Industry analysis estimates the framework could deliver between $2.9 billion and $5.7 billion in economic benefits.

Meanwhile, the state governments have followed with hard targets.

Queensland has set a 50 per cent MMC target for government projects, with a dedicated MMC sub-group now embedded within its Building Ministerial Advisory Council ahead of the 2032 Olympics. New South Wales launched a $10 million modular housing pilot with pattern-book fast approvals. Victoria committed $50 million to a Future of Housing Centre of Excellence. Western Australia allocated $50 million to its Housing Innovation Program. South Australia and Tasmania each established dedicated MMC social housing initiatives.

And financial investment is shifting, too. Commonwealth Bank now offers prefab-specific lending products enabling access to up to 80 per cent of the contract price before home installation — directly addressing cash flow and procurement barriers for manufacturers and developers. A Federal Treasury working group is separately reviewing the remaining financing obstacles to scaling factory-based production.

PrefabAUS says the momentum reflects a deliberate ten-year campaign. Crough pointed to the organisation’s “Building the Future We Want” roadmap — federal recognition enabling state programs that create demand for innovation hubs, which in turn grow manufacturing capacity and workforce skills. It comes as Wood Central reported on THE PRECINCT, a new model using Australian timber to make prefab viable at scale.

The contest, industry leaders say, is no longer whether MMC will reshape Australian housing. It is whether the sector can scale fast enough to keep production onshore. “The future for Australian Smart Building is a future built here, manufactured here,” Worrall said. “We will not have a Smart Building future unless it is A Future Built in Australia.”

Automated Architecture, or AUAR, makes portable micro-factories that produce the full wooden framing of a house — walls, floors and roofs — in 24 hours. Co-founder Mollie Claypool told CNN the system produces timber panels more quickly, more cheaply, and more precisely than a conventional framing crew, freeing carpenters to focus on construction rather than component manufacturing.

It’s a claim the building and construction supply chain wants to stress-test — but the underlying model is sound.

Architects send building plans to AUAR’s AI-powered software, the Master Builder, which calculates how many panels are needed and exactly how much timber a developer needs to purchase.

The micro-factory — which fits inside a standard shipping container — is dispatched directly to the building site with an operator, who uses a robotic arm to measure, cut, and nail timber into panels, leaving precise openings for windows, doors, wiring, and plumbing. Contractors fit the panels by hand.

One micro-factory, Claypool says, can produce the framing for a typical house in about a day — a process she says would take a conventional timber-framing crew four weeks. On cost, AUAR claims its service runs 30% cheaper than a standard framing crew and up to 15% cheaper than ordering prefabricated panels from a large off-site factory and transporting them to the site.

The system can build parts for buildings up to seven storeys high.

AUAR can also respond to timber’s natural variations. It accounts for knots, bends, and warps — calculating the most efficient cutting pattern from available stock to reduce waste. “The precision of the finished panels produces a tighter building envelope,” Claypool adds, “lowering heat loss and improving the energy efficiency of the finished home.”

AUAR currently operates three micro-factories across the US and EU, with five more scheduled for delivery this year. So far, it has raised £7.7 million, with 600,000 square metres of panels in production — enough to build hundreds of homes. But Claypool’s ambition is to grow that to 1,000 micro-factories on sites by 2030, producing 200,000 homes every year.

Wood Central understands the company is in active discussions with several new US partners as part of what it describes as a growth phase, following its 2024 partnership with construction investment firm Rival Holdings. That makes sense, given 94 per cent of single-family homes built in 2024 were timber-framed, and Goldman Sachs has identified the country’s housing shortfall — estimated at between 1.5 and 5.5 million homes — as the root of its affordability crisis.

None of this is happening in a vacuum. As Wood Central reported in December, Europe’s most advanced robotic prefab plants are already showing what zero-labour panel production looks like at scale — floor and wall assemblies delivered flat-pack to site with, as Timber Development Association CEO Andrew Dunn put it after touring those facilities, “not a single Allen key in sight.”

The question is whether those models can be adapted to local conditions, supply chains and building standards — and how quickly.

That urgency is reflected in where research dollars are flowing. Australian Forest & Wood Innovations (AFWI) — a $200 million research and development fund backed by $100 million in federal funding by the Australian government — has already committed to projects targeting exactly this gap, including the Automated Design for Prefabrication in Timber Construction and The Precinct, a large-scale centre to process wood fibre into frames, trusses, wall panels and flooring at manufacturing scale.

Back in the UK, David Philp — chair of the Chartered Institute of Building’s digital and innovation advisory panel, and not involved with AUAR — told CNN the window for treating this technology as optional had closed.

“These innovations were an opportunity a few years ago, but now they’re a necessity. They’re not a nice-to-have anymore — they’re key to any construction business model.”

But the remaining barriers are not technical, he said. It’s cultural — particularly in England, where just 9% of homes built in 2019 were timber-framed, compared to 92% in Scotland. “The technology and standards are there — the real barrier is culture. We’ve got deeply ingrained traditional ways of working, so the challenge now is people and change, not tools and processes.”

AUAR is not alone. London-based Facit Technologies produces on-site micro-factories for wooden components, while US-based Cuby Technologies uses modular production units that combine to handle various construction elements. What distinguishes AUAR’s portable, container-delivered model is its flexibility — particularly relevant for regional and remote sites where logistics costs make centralised prefabrication plants impractical.

As for the broader picture, Claypool isn’t shy about what’s at stake. “Good homes are not just a construction problem,” she told CNN. “It’s a social problem. When homes are scarce, and we’re slow to build them, everything else suffers.”

• To learn why the UK’s largest contractors are looking to modern methods of construction – like prefabrication using mass timber parts – to meet the country’s target of 300,000 new dwellings each year, click here for Wood Central’s special feature from August 2025.

Slated to open later this year, the $1.45 billion, 39-storey ‘plyscraper’ will eventually contain more than 30,000 cubic metres of timber — shipped by European giants Stora Enso and Wiehag — across 21 storeys of the tower, with seven four-storey’ timber habitats’ sandwiched between steel-and-concrete mega floor plates above a seven-storey concrete podium.

And the glass panels going up are anything but conventional.

Spanish BIPV manufacturer Onyx Solar — working through Australian building products supplier Metz — is installing 1,794 crystalline silicon solar louvres across the tower’s active facade as part of a bespoke 247 kWp system. Speaking to PV Magazine Australia earlier this month, Onyx Solar revealed that each unit carries 28 mono-crystalline cells in a 4+4 mm glass configuration and produces 138 Wp at peak output. “The louvres also form a self-shading system that cuts direct solar heat gain internally,” Onya Solar said, turning the tower’s skin into a “vertical power source.”

Designed by BVN and New York-based SHoP, each ‘habitat’ comprises four floors of timbered space stacked inside a steel exoskeleton, eliminating the need for internal columns. “The timber floors are connected to the concrete floors via drag straps,” said Tim Allen, timber structural lead for TTW, who spoke at Timber Construct — Australia’s only timber construction conference — in late 2024. “Why build a 39-storey building partly out of timber?” Allen said. “Because it comes down to using the right timber for the right application.”

Whilst in October last year, Peter Morley, the Dexus project director overseeing the build, said the team had “broken the back on the most technical, structural phase of the project,” with the hybrid timber approach allowing the developers “to bring the building up quicker and get the façade on quicker than a more traditional build.”

“That’s because we’re jumping up five levels every time, and while we’re going up, we’re coming back and infilling with the timber within each of those five-storey zones,” Morley said. Atlassian Central is co-owned by Dexus and Atlassian, with Built and Japanese construction giant Obayashi appointed as builders, confirming the building remains “on schedule” for a 2026 opening, with the tech giant expected to take over five of the seven habitats in late 2028 following a full fit-out.

At street level, crews are also well advanced on a new pedestrian connection from Railway Colonnade Drive to the Devonshire Street Tunnel entrance — the heritage passage running beneath Central Station between Lee Street and Devonshire Street — which will, for the first time, allow pedestrians to access the tunnel directly from the colonnade as part of Central’s broader Third Square redevelopment.

Operating out of HAMR Energy’s Portland Renewable Fuels facility — backed by the Australian Government’s $1.1 billion Cleaner Fuels Program — the company is looking to produce up to 300,000 tonnes of low-carbon methanol produced from the Green Triangle alone. Whilst a second plant, Australia’s first methanol-to-jet facility, will go further: 135 million litres of SAF per year from an $800 million plant announced earlier this week.

Forestry residues are not waste.

Speaking about the recent announcements, Timber Towns Victoria President Cr Karen Stephens said the projects demonstrate the value of forest products (including residues) to the local economy: “Forestry residues are not waste — they are a valuable resource that can be turned into low-carbon fuels for use in aviation and shipping, creating jobs and new income streams for regional Victoria.”

Meanwhile, OneFortyOne’s Director of Corporate Strategy, Nick Chan, recently called the project “a defining moment for plantation forestry in Australia,” pointing to the Green Triangle’s year-round operations, established logistics, and sheer scale as the natural feedstock advantage.

Australia has almost no domestic SAF production.

That gap is the opportunity. And with federal funding already flowing and aviation partners already committed, the Green Triangle doesn’t need to wait for someone else to build the market — it just needs Victoria to recognise what’s already here.

“Our communities have always understood the value of the plantation estate,” Stephens said. “This investment is proof that the forestry sector has a strong and diversified future – and we call on the Victorian Government to recognise the strategic importance of the Green Triangle and ensure regional communities capture the full economic benefit of Australia’s emerging renewable fuels sector.”

• To learn more about the ‘Fibre to Fuels’ project, click here for Wood Central’s special feature last month. And to learn more about the opportunities for Victoria’s timber towns, click here for Timber Towns Victoria’s media statement.

It comes after the Coalition and the Greens crossed the aisle to force the Australian National University to hand over documents underpining the method.

The motion put by NSW Nationals Senator Ross Cadell, a long-time supporter of Australia’s $23 billion forest-based industries, orders the ANU to produce substantive written communications between its staff and the federal environment department DCCEEW; consultancy and research services agreements connected to the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee; and gift deeds or gift forms tied to work undertaken by Professor Andrew Macintosh.

One of the key drivers of this Order of Production of Documents (OPD) was that the Emissions Reduction Assurance Commission is currently considering whether to recommend that the Minister approve this method despite the ANU not making the primary documentation available to the public during the consultation process, thereby denying Australia’s forest scientists the ability to test the proposed method’s calculations

Wood Central understands that the decision by the Greens and key crossbench Senators to back the motion is of key consequence. “These strange bedfellows are far from natural allies,” according to Stuart Coppock, a lawyer with legal standing on the model. “And their calculation is simple — they want to know who has been funding the Macintosh model and why…including a focus on the gift deeds.”

It comes after ERAC Chair Professor Karen Hussey last year confirmed to a Senate committee that the New South Wales Great Great Koala National Park, which will take out 40% of the state’s hardwood supply, cannot be established without its approval.

The ACCUs generated under the scheme are the funding mechanism.

If the documents that come back show that external interests have impacted the science underpinning the method, it calls into question the integrity of a method put forward by the New South Wales Department of Environment and Heritage.

Wood Central understands there have been sustained concerns across the sector for some time, centred on two specific failures. “It suffers from key integrity failures, particularly additionality and leakage, and does not meet the evidence-based standard required by the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee,” Coppock said. And on leakage, the argument is blunt.

Underpinning concerns are a genuine scientific dispute over carbon storage. “Does halting harvesting in Australian native forests produce the long-term sequestration that the Macintosh model claims? The majority of independent peer reviewers say no,” another source said. “So do scientists work inside the NSW Government. So does ABARES — the research arm of the Commonwealth’s own Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The method does not meet the evidence-based standard that the ERAC is legally required to apply.”

When the documents are produced, the Senate will see whether the model was built to find an answer or to deliver one.

The ANU will have to answer either way.