ROFL.
That's funny .
What the modelling shows is that by just using existing technology we can get to around 99% of annual demand just with wind and solar and some storage .
That's not taking into account the future tech and potential.
This is why engineers model things . To help prove theories and to find gaps. Which is exactly what Dave has done. He has comprehensively shown what is doable with technology that is a few years old.
He has also identified the gaps which means they can develop solutions for those gaps. That's what engineers do.
E.g. Given that we are switching to evs we will be growing our off grid energy storage capacity enormously over time.
20,000 evs with a 50kw battery is 1gw . We buy 1 million vehicles per year. At 50% ev penetration and being very conservative on that battery size that means we will be adding 25gw of storage a year just in our cars. Every year .
That doesn't include home batteries, commercial batteries etc.
That is a shipload of energy storage well under utilised.
The Dud's plan for nuclear is for 7 sites . Total output might be about 7gw at best given that a couple are SMRs.
So clearly we are going to have a huge amount of energy storage available to us. A number that dwarfs the Dud's nuclear folly.
Way more than Dave's model has allowed for .
Then there's excess solar . A 5 year old study by the CEFC shows that we have enough rooftop solar potential to power the whole country. Just from rooftops. Not from solar farms. Possibly twice what we actually need .
So it is very easy to see how using modelling like Dave's can help us steer our investment in the right areas going forward.
https://www.cefc.com.au/insights/market-reports/how-much-rooftop-solar-can-be-installed-in-australia/
