4 ms·

Except when hydro isn't working, and they use filthy diesel generators which are worse than coal. [1] This is pure fiction. [1] https://www.hydro.com.au/news/

by 0xy 6y ago

Except when hydro isn't working, and they use filthy diesel generators which are worse than coal. [1] This is pure fiction. [1] https://www.hydro.com.au/news/media-releases/2017/09/15/installation-of-temporary-diesel-generators-at-bell-bay https://www.hydro.com.au/news/media-releases/2017/09/15/inst...

stephen_g 6y ago
OpenNEM doesn’t show any use of distillate generation on the grid in Tasmania since 2016, so they probably did convert them to gas. Over the last year, gas made up 0.9% of their local generation. And you’re wrong actually - in a gas turbine, diesel is cleaner than coal.
nl 6y ago
That was for 3 months, in 2016 because of the Basslink interconnector outage. Your own link includes a link to https://www.hydro.com.au/clean-energy/secure-energy https://www.hydro.com.au/clean-energy/secure-energy which had the current mix. There is 0% diesel, but a small amount (8%) gas.
- 0xy 6y ago
  3 months of diesel-fired power generation negates years of hydro.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    What is your point? Would you have preferred years of coal over hydro and three months of Diesel?
    - 0xy 6y ago
      "100% renewables" when you have diesel generators as a backup plan that are significantly worse than coal is far from 100%. It's only "100%" if you're being deliberately misleading and trying to gloss over the mass pollution of diesel. Hydro is not 100% reliable 100% of the time, so to say it is an absolute fabrication. You will note the OP claims Tasmania is 100% renewable powered without such qualification, a total lie.
      - adrianN 6y ago
        I believe that no method of power generation is 100% reliable all the time. Power outages happen from time to time, especially when important power links are down.
      - Humphrey 6y ago
        Diesel was not the backup plan, but rather unplanned last resort. The back up plan was natural gas, which through a series of unfortunate events was not operational at the time. If memory serves me correctly, they had to organise at great expense to get the diesel generators shipped very quickly from overseas since there was no other option.
      - nl 6y ago
        Diesel creates about 20% less CO2 per kWh compared to coal. Gas is better, but diesel is better than coal. The problem with diesel is usually that it's hard to get large enough output for a regional source. But Tasmania is small enough this wasn't too bad. https://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/findata/matmgt/documents/2012/682-2012/682-2012_Appendix_H-WSTP_South_End_Plant_Process_Selection_Report/Appendix%25207.pdf https://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/findata/matmgt/documents/201... > You will note the OP claims Tasmania is 100% renewable powered without such qualification, a total lie. It's - of course - not a lie at all. They claim they have just reached it now (in 2020). Your criticism is about something that happened in 2016.
        0xy 6y ago
        >It's - of course - not a lie at all The gas generators in Tasmania that will still exist until after 2040 don't exist then. Got it! https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2150819-gas-to-play-role-in-tasmanias-renewable-energy-target https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2150819-gas-to-play-role-...
        nl 6y ago
        Did you read the link you posted? From your own link: > The state is on track to achieve 100pc of its electricity from renewable sources by 2022 (Noting that - as the link in this HN story points out - they got there early) > It sees gas providing back-up power to solar and wind projects, as well as being used for household heating and industrial purposes
  - nl 6y ago
    This isn't true. Oil (Diesel) generation is about 20% better in terms of CO2 output vs coal. https://www.google.com/amp/s/reneweconomy.com.au/graph-of-the-day-how-green-is-your-electricity-12278/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/reneweconomy.com.au/graph-of-th... And how can it "negate years of hydro" anyway? Say there are 5 years of zero emissions and then 3 months of diesel emissions. That creates some CO2 but it doesn't somehow erase the emission savings previously. That makes zero sense at all.
    - 0xy 6y ago
      >And how can it "negate years of hydro" anyway? Because 3 months of diesel averaged over 5 years (hydro fails only once every 5-10 years, not yearly) already makes that less than 100%. Additionally, they STILL use gas today -- right now. 100% is fiction. It's not even true today. How are you not getting this? 100% is a lie. The state government even admits as much. "The Tasmanian state government still sees a role for gas in its plans for a big expansion in renewable energy output by 2040, after introducing legislation in the state parliament yesterday." https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2150819-gas-to-play-role-in-tasmanias-renewable-energy-target https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2150819-gas-to-play-role-... Tasmania has gas generators. These gas generators run TODAY. That means that there are times when they are not 100% "renewable", making the headline claim false.
      - nl 6y ago
        > Because 3 months of diesel averaged over 5 years (hydro fails only once every 5-10 years, not yearly) already makes that less than 100%. So average it over the year it happened, not 5 years? This seems a pretty reasonable thing to do. (But if you do average over 5 years it would also be reasonable to include the energy exports, in which case it is well over 100%)

by 0xy 6y ago

stephen_g 6y ago

OpenNEM doesn’t show any use of distillate generation on the grid in Tasmania since 2016, so they probably did convert them to gas. Over the last year, gas made up 0.9% of their local generation. And you’re wrong actually - in a gas turbine, diesel is cleaner than coal.

nl 6y ago

That was for 3 months, in 2016 because of the Basslink interconnector outage. Your own link includes a link to https://www.hydro.com.au/clean-energy/secure-energy https://www.hydro.com.au/clean-energy/secure-energy which had the current mix. There is 0% diesel, but a small amount (8%) gas.

0xy 6y ago
3 months of diesel-fired power generation negates years of hydro.
- adrianN 6y ago
  What is your point? Would you have preferred years of coal over hydro and three months of Diesel?
  - 0xy 6y ago
    "100% renewables" when you have diesel generators as a backup plan that are significantly worse than coal is far from 100%. It's only "100%" if you're being deliberately misleading and trying to gloss over the mass pollution of diesel. Hydro is not 100% reliable 100% of the time, so to say it is an absolute fabrication. You will note the OP claims Tasmania is 100% renewable powered without such qualification, a total lie.
    - adrianN 6y ago
      I believe that no method of power generation is 100% reliable all the time. Power outages happen from time to time, especially when important power links are down.
    - Humphrey 6y ago
      Diesel was not the backup plan, but rather unplanned last resort. The back up plan was natural gas, which through a series of unfortunate events was not operational at the time. If memory serves me correctly, they had to organise at great expense to get the diesel generators shipped very quickly from overseas since there was no other option.
    - nl 6y ago
      Diesel creates about 20% less CO2 per kWh compared to coal. Gas is better, but diesel is better than coal. The problem with diesel is usually that it's hard to get large enough output for a regional source. But Tasmania is small enough this wasn't too bad. https://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/findata/matmgt/documents/2012/682-2012/682-2012_Appendix_H-WSTP_South_End_Plant_Process_Selection_Report/Appendix%25207.pdf https://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/findata/matmgt/documents/201... > You will note the OP claims Tasmania is 100% renewable powered without such qualification, a total lie. It's - of course - not a lie at all. They claim they have just reached it now (in 2020). Your criticism is about something that happened in 2016.
      - 0xy 6y ago
        >It's - of course - not a lie at all The gas generators in Tasmania that will still exist until after 2040 don't exist then. Got it! https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2150819-gas-to-play-role-in-tasmanias-renewable-energy-target https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2150819-gas-to-play-role-...
        nl 6y ago
        Did you read the link you posted? From your own link: > The state is on track to achieve 100pc of its electricity from renewable sources by 2022 (Noting that - as the link in this HN story points out - they got there early) > It sees gas providing back-up power to solar and wind projects, as well as being used for household heating and industrial purposes
- nl 6y ago
  This isn't true. Oil (Diesel) generation is about 20% better in terms of CO2 output vs coal. https://www.google.com/amp/s/reneweconomy.com.au/graph-of-the-day-how-green-is-your-electricity-12278/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/reneweconomy.com.au/graph-of-th... And how can it "negate years of hydro" anyway? Say there are 5 years of zero emissions and then 3 months of diesel emissions. That creates some CO2 but it doesn't somehow erase the emission savings previously. That makes zero sense at all.
  - 0xy 6y ago
    >And how can it "negate years of hydro" anyway? Because 3 months of diesel averaged over 5 years (hydro fails only once every 5-10 years, not yearly) already makes that less than 100%. Additionally, they STILL use gas today -- right now. 100% is fiction. It's not even true today. How are you not getting this? 100% is a lie. The state government even admits as much. "The Tasmanian state government still sees a role for gas in its plans for a big expansion in renewable energy output by 2040, after introducing legislation in the state parliament yesterday." https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2150819-gas-to-play-role-in-tasmanias-renewable-energy-target https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2150819-gas-to-play-role-... Tasmania has gas generators. These gas generators run TODAY. That means that there are times when they are not 100% "renewable", making the headline claim false.
    - nl 6y ago
      > Because 3 months of diesel averaged over 5 years (hydro fails only once every 5-10 years, not yearly) already makes that less than 100%. So average it over the year it happened, not 5 years? This seems a pretty reasonable thing to do. (But if you do average over 5 years it would also be reasonable to include the energy exports, in which case it is well over 100%)