Evidence
The numbers suggest TASC belongs in the national infrastructure conversation
The most useful way to test a project like TASC is not with slogans, but with transparent assumptions, comparable benchmarks, and order-of-magnitude numbers.
On a simple illustrative build assumption, a fully developed corridor could plausibly sit in the range of roughly 168 to 303 TWh of annual electricity production. The central case is about 231 TWh per year.
Why quantify it
Big ideas need numbers early
The aim of these figures is not false precision. The aim is to test whether TASC is merely interesting, or large enough to change national economics if executed well.
Once the scale is quantified, better questions follow. Is the energy output big enough to matter? What kinds of industry does that scale enable? How much compute could it anchor? How material is water relative to energy? What becomes economically plausible if cheap power exists in very large volume?
This page is designed to move the discussion from concept to scale.
Assumptions
Transparent inputs matter more than overconfidence
These scenarios are built from simple, explainable assumptions rather than detailed engineering claims.
Indicative corridor geometry
This page models a simple illustrative case based on a corridor around 1 km wide and roughly 2,400 km long from Kalgoorlie to Longreach. That implies about 2,400 square kilometres of gross corridor area.
Solar land intensity
Illustrative scenarios assume between 40 MW and 60 MW of installed solar capacity per square kilometre, depending on design density, setbacks, servicing, and technology mix.
Solar yield
Illustrative scenarios assume an effective annual capacity factor between 20% and 24%. This is intended to be directionally realistic for strong inland Australian solar rather than a claim about a final engineered design.
What these numbers are
These are order-of-magnitude scenarios for strategic thinking. They are not final route design, not a feasibility study, and not investment advice.
Illustrative full-build potential
Three scenarios for what a fully built TASC could produce
Even conservative assumptions produce very large numbers.
Conservative
Solar density
40 MW/km²
Installed capacity
96 GW
Annual generation
168 TWh/year
Average continuous power
19.2 GW average
Relative to Australia
59% of Australia’s 2024 electricity generation
A lower-density, lower-yield case that still lands at national scale.
Base case
Solar density
50 MW/km²
Installed capacity
120 GW
Annual generation
231 TWh/year
Average continuous power
26.4 GW average
Relative to Australia
81% of Australia’s 2024 electricity generation
A simple central case using 2 hectares per MW and a strong inland solar yield.
Stretch
Solar density
60 MW/km²
Installed capacity
144 GW
Annual generation
303 TWh/year
Average continuous power
34.6 GW average
Relative to Australia
107% of Australia’s 2024 electricity generation
A denser, higher-yield case showing how large the corridor could become if the build is optimised.
The central takeaway is simple:
a fully built TASC is not niche renewables. It is electricity-system scale.
What that energy could support
The point is not just energy volume. It is what the energy can anchor.
Compute and data centres
In the base case, 231 TWh a year equates to about 26.4 GW of average continuous facility load. That is enough electricity to support a globally significant compute footprint if power, cooling, and fibre are designed properly.
Share of global AI infrastructure demand
If the base-case output were directed entirely to AI-related data-centre load, it would be equivalent to roughly 17% of McKinsey’s 156 GW global AI-related data-centre capacity demand estimate for 2030.
Hydrogen as a secondary use
If only one quarter of the base-case output were diverted to electrolysis, it could theoretically support roughly 1.1 million tonnes of hydrogen per year. That reinforces the idea that hydrogen should be a selective secondary use, not the sole rationale for the corridor.
Desalination is not the energy bottleneck
At around 3 kWh per cubic metre for seawater reverse osmosis treatment, 1 TWh of electricity corresponds to about 333 million cubic metres of treated water before pumping and distribution. Energy matters, but conveyance and system design matter just as much.
These comparisons are not arguments for a single use case. They show that once the energy base becomes large enough, the corridor can support multiple major industries at once.
Strategic context
The world is moving toward exactly these kinds of power demands
TASC is not being proposed into a static world. It is being proposed into a world where energy, compute, storage, and industrial location are shifting quickly.
Australia already has the resource base
The core proposition behind TASC is not speculative: Australia has world-class solar conditions, vast land availability, strong political stability, and deep relevance in energy, technology, and strategic supply chains.
The world is building around electricity
Industrial competitiveness is increasingly being shaped by access to cheap, scalable power. AI, electrification, storage, and strategic manufacturing all increase the value of abundant electricity.
Data-centre demand is reshaping power systems
Global data-centre demand is projected to more than triple by 2030. That is one reason large, reliable power precincts are becoming more strategically valuable.
Power now attracts industry, not just households
The next major investment wave is not only about feeding existing grids. It is about creating new precincts where power can anchor compute, processing, logistics, and future regional development.
Supporting source base
The argument is broader than one spreadsheet
These indicative numbers sit inside a wider evidence base around compute growth, strategic industry, supply chains, and realistic energy-use priorities.
McKinsey on compute demand
McKinsey’s 2025 compute analysis frames AI-related data-centre demand at very large scale by 2030. That makes reliable, power-rich locations more strategically important than they were even a few years ago.
McKinsey on data-centre geography
The wider McKinsey data-centre work points to capacity growth, grid pressure, water constraints, and the growing value of locations that can combine power, land, and infrastructure at scale.
Austrade on battery and mineral depth
Austrade’s lithium-ion value-chain work supports the broader industrial case: Australia already has major mineral, processing, infrastructure, and investment advantages that could support more downstream activity.
Nature on hydrogen realism
The hydrogen literature is useful because it sharpens the hierarchy of uses. The strongest case for hydrogen is selective industrial and system support, not treating hydrogen as the single answer to everything.
That is useful because it stops the page sounding like a stand-alone thought experiment. The energy numbers matter more when they line up with external shifts that are already underway.
What these numbers really mean
The corridor is large enough to justify serious strategic attention
Important caution
Big numbers do not remove the need for discipline
Scale does not equal feasibility
A large theoretical resource does not automatically produce a bankable project.
Node quality still matters
The early nodes still have to clear the practical hurdles that matter: land, approvals, storage, fibre, water, logistics, workforce, and capital discipline.
Sequencing matters more than slogans
The strategic value lies in the scale. The credibility lies in building the right nodes in the right order.
TASC still has to clear the real-world hurdles that matter: land, approvals, transmission, storage, cooling, fibre, water, logistics, workforce, sequencing, and capital discipline.
The numbers make TASC worth taking seriously. They do not make it easy.
Closing thought
On a simple build assumption, TASC sits in the same conversation as national infrastructure, not niche renewables.
A central-case output of roughly 231 TWh per year is large enough to support globally relevant compute, major industrial precincts, selective hydrogen production, and substantial water systems.
That does not prove the project. But it does show that the idea is large enough to warrant rigorous attention.
The next question is not whether the scale is meaningful. The next question is whether the first nodes can be built in a way that unlocks it.