DEAR News Of The Area,

DEREK Musgrove speaks from experience and the practicality of his engineering background and 45 years in the power generation industry.

His logical conclusion that net zero cannot be achieved 20 years earlier than the agreed target for 2050 makes absolute sense to me.

Given our population grew 2.5 percent in the last year and assuming our GDP growth over the next 25 years will average, say, two percent, it is reasonable to assume the demand for power will follow the same trajectory.

The present demand/output of dispatch-able power at peak time is 33Gw.

In 2050 at the forecast growth rates that means we will need approx 55Gw at peak.

Since renewables currently account for 50 percent of the current peak demand, in 25 years’ time the renewable energy supply will have to produce around 10Gw more than that currently being supplied.

Wind currently accounts for less than 2.5 GW of peak demand, that is a little more than the current output of Liddell.

In 2050 wind and solar will need to produce at least 25Gw more than today’s output, just to remain at 50 percent of the demand.

The numbers may be hard to comprehend but the bottom line is net zero means fossil fuels, or nuclear, will still be required to meet the demand for dispatch-able power for base load as long as there is an equivalent offset in renewables.

A tenfold increase in the area needed for solar and wind farms means 3000 square kms will be required.

That is assuming renewables remain at 50 percent of demand.

That does not account for the additional land required for distribution infrastructure.

In reality the eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai underwater volcano in January 2022 has had a greater impact on climate change than the output of all the Co2 from our fossil fuel power generators for the next 50 years.

The current push for more renewables, and the fervour behind the climate change and subsequent Co2 output scare is the mantra of the leftist activists.

The renewable market is driven entirely by corporations with vested interests in the financial benefits to be gained from the construction outcomes.

Environment impacts are of a much lower priority and become secondary.

Regards,
Bruce LUMSDEN,
Pennant Hills/Hawks Nest.