The latest Net Zero Australia (NZAu) was released last week. Produced by a team led by former national chief scientist Professor Robin Batterham it claims to show ‘How to make net zero happen’ relying largely but not exclusively on renewables.

Even a cursory reading shows that ‘making net zero happen’ relies not on renewables but on wishful thinking and magic pudding economics.

We are told for example that ‘the required build rate of batteries is ~17 GWh/year between now and 2035’ whereas ‘large-scale battery projects under construction at the end of 2022, only totalled 2 GWh and the Scenario with the lowest new battery storage need by 2035 is 134 GWh. Good luck with that!

We also have to hope that there are breakthroughs in green hydrogen which relies on billions of dollars in subsidies, as do all renewables.

Making ‘net zero happen’ also relies on the construction of a ‘large fleet of gas-fired peaking’ plants which will have to remain operational until all the batteries and green hydrogen and pumped hydro are built.

That won’t please the Greens or indeed Bowen who seems to think it is possible to power Australia just on renewables. It’s not.

Accepting those caveats, yes, Australia could become a renewable superpower in much the same way that Australia could become a military superpower.

Australia is ranked 16th in the world as a military power at present behind Ukraine which is 15th despite having the 6th highest defence budget in the world, approximately USD 52 billion (AUD 76.2 billion). To become a military superpower it could outspend the US which spends USD 762 billion and has 92 destroyers, 11 aircraft carriers, 13,300 aircraft, and 983 attack helicopters, as of April  2023.

So why aren’t we trying to become a military superpower? Presumably, because it is extremely expensive and unrealistic to increase defence spending by 443 per cent.

Now, hold that thought because Professor Batterham calculates that to decarbonise Australia by 2060 using renewables backed by gas we will need to spend $7-9 trillion.

That’s a staggering amount of money, almost 16 times more than the Australian government’s total net debt of $574 billion. If we were able to average it out over the next 37 years, it would come to a bit over $243 billion per annum, the equivalent of more than half the government’s net debt every year for the next 37 years.

What would we get for that? A large fleet of gas-fired peaking plants to back up a huge fleet of renewables. Clean hydrogen (maybe)  and its infrastructure. A network of carbon capture and storage basins to reduce emissions from the gas plants. An increase in the number of people employed in the energy sector of more than 400 per cent. And a huge increase in the amount of land needed to generate electricity.

The report estimates that an area of 120,000 km2 would be covered in wind turbines, solar panels, and transmission infrastructure. That’s a footprint bit over half the size of Victoria (227,444km2) and a bit under twice the size of Tasmania (68,401km2). Of that, 83,746 kms2 is land held in pastoral leases or freehold, and another 16,426 is held in the Indigenous estate.

The vision splendid of this renewable nirvana is described in a new book by Professor Alan Finkel, another former chief scientist as ‘forests of wind farms … and endless arrays of solar panels disappearing like a mirage into the desert’. Finkel is a born-again true believer. The blurb on his book says, ‘If governments, investors, industry, and consumers get this right over the next three decades, history will judge us as the generation who ushered in the Electric Age and helped to save the planet. The world will be transformed – with Australia, if we seize the opportunity, as a global leader.’

Batterham is more sober. He sees the problems. The NZAu report points out circumspectly, that ‘Land use change will impact First Nations, farming communities and biodiversity’ and recommends that the ‘Indigenous Estate should be accessed by agreement with First Nations communities’ advising that Aboriginal ‘Communities must give Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)’. No doubt Labor hopes that even if locals disagree, the Voice will consent to the rapid transformation of Aboriginal lands into wind and solar industrial estates.

The report is more nakedly brutal with everyone else saying, ‘Access to private land, and agreements on benefit sharing with communities, should be primarily achieved by negotiation with compulsory acquisition a last resort.’

Batterham acknowledges that ‘clean energy projects also have significant environmental impacts including land damage, habitat loss, wildlife destruction and displacement, and other pollutants (e.g., noise, reflections, heat, waste).’ Yet as elsewhere the report plumps for the impossible recommending, ‘We need to rapidly accelerate approvals while addressing biodiversity.’ The fact is that it is not possible.

Take Chalumbin on the Atherton tableland in far north Queensland. If it is approved, 146 km of access roads, on average 70 metres wide, will be cleared to install 94 turbines on the ridges of native forests that are home to endangered species such as the Sarus crane and the endangered spectacled flying fox. The locals, including the indigenous people for whom the area is a sacred site, are furious and say there has been no consultation.

Chalumbin is only one of the hundreds of wind and solar projects being fought. Projects that will destroy the environment for almost no benefit because the energy provided is vanishingly small and must be backed up.

The real solution is to abandon the monstrous delusion of being a renewable energy superpower and decarbonise the economy in the same way that every other country has — using hydro and/or nuclear.

Batterham objects to nuclear because it is against the law, although the NZAu report doesn’t seem to mind defying the laws of physics, engineering, or economics. He also claims nuclear is too expensive based on the calculations made by CSIRO and AEMO. This is what Labor calls ‘disinformation’. Once you factor in that renewables only operate at 30 per cent capacity, need to be backed up by gas, and have to be synchronised, they are far more expensive.

When it comes to costs Labor’s track record isn’t great. It went to the last election claiming that making the grid 82 per cent renewable by 2030 would cost $78 billion. According to NZAu report the real cost is $1.5 trillion by 2030 and up to $9 trillion by 2060. That makes the report not so much controversial as courageous in the Yes, Minister sense. As Sir Humphrey explained ‘“Controversial” only means “this will lose you votes”. “Courageous” means “this will lose you the election”!’ The only question is how soon?