5 ms·

That’s still deceptive. Renewables don’t cancel out fossil fuels, whether you import them or not.

dingle_thunk 6y ago
Um. The exports exceed the imports. They are net exporting renewable power to Victoria. The fact that Victoria exports back non-renewable power isn't in their control. Tasmania is an exceptionally small state. Population 500K. Based on the renewable power sources available, they must rely on a network for stability. Otherwise, they would have to massively over-develop their power infrastructure. This itself would be unsustainable. The issue is not that Tasmania needs to over-build. It's that Victoria needs more renewables. If TAS was a net importer, that would be a different story.
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  > The fact that Victoria exports back non-renewable power isn't in their control. So it is not in their control to be powered only by non-renewable energy. The rest of what you have written doesn’t change this simple fact.
  - Retric 6y ago
    They could use energy storage just fine. However, by on net exporting electricity they reduce the amount of fossil fuels Victoria uses so it’s a net win environmentally. Nuclear has similar issues where baseload generation is inefficient when trying to cover shifting power demand. Thus small cities next to nuclear will import power even if they are a net exporter. In the end larger electricity grids are simply more efficient.
    - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
      What does any of this have to do with the fact that the title is incorrect?
      - Retric 6y ago
        The title is correct. They are also using another area as an efficient battery which is both environmentally and economically a net positive.
        LudwigNagasena 6y ago
        Show me how all these numbers add up to 100%.
        Retric 6y ago
        Production always exceeds consumption due to transmission losses. So, simplified you can produce 120% export 15% and import 5%. That’s net export, and covering 100% of demand. That’s also how they can have a “200 per cent renewable target by 2040.”
        LudwigNagasena 6y ago
        If I open Wikipedia what I see is "100% renewable energy refers to an energy system where all energy use is sourced from renewable energy sources." which is completely what I would expect from the definition of "100% renewable energy." What you are talking about seems like meaningless political wordplay.
        Retric 6y ago
        Plenty of ways to define things. Batteries for example aren’t actually renewable energy sources. So when a solar or wind powered off grid home uses batteries to store solar energy for later usage is that 100% renewable energy as long as the power is originally from sunlight? It seems somewhat silly to say such homes are battery powered. The same terminology is used when homes skip the batteries and send power to the electric grid only to use that amount of power later. Sure, they could spend more resources building batteries, but that’s wasteful. Don’t get me wrong, it’s easy to disagree with the common definitions. However, as long as the definitions used are common and describe the situation you can’t say they are lying. PS: Fossil fuels are also from sunlight just like wind, so saying their not renewable is really talking about the ability to use them vastly faster than their created. Which fits the batteries / grid as renewable energy storage definition just fine.
- agurk 6y ago
  > Um. The exports exceed the imports. As per the GP's comment, in 2020 that is not the case and have been a net importer.
matthewmacleod 6y ago
They kind of do though; exporting renewable power means less non-renewable power needs to be generated by the importer.
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  It cancels non-renewable power that was not produced, when you also subtract non-renewable energy that was produced you are doing double counting.
imtringued 6y ago
CO2 levels are global and the atmosphere is a pretty good "storage technology" for CO2. It doesn't matter where and when you pollute. It only matters how much you pollute. If renewables+fossil fuels allow you to pollute less than either renewables alone or fossil fuels alone then that's what you should do.
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  Sure, and if Tasmania was powered 100% by renewable energy it would be less efficient.
snewman 6y ago
Look at it this way: if Tasmania ceased to exist, CO2 emissions from power generation would increase, because on average Victoria would need to run their coal plants more. That strikes me as a pretty pragmatic definition of "100 percent powered by renewable". Edit: per comments downthread, perhaps they're actually not quite there yet, but still I think the principle holds if internal generation is exclusively renewable and net imports are negative.
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  > if Tasmania ceased to exist, CO2 emissions from power generation would increase So it is actually over 100%? I don’t understand what you are even calculating when you say 100%, for me it makes no sense.

Um. The exports exceed the imports. They are net exporting renewable power to Victoria. The fact that Victoria exports back non-renewable power isn't in their control. Tasmania is an exceptionally small state. Population 500K. Based on the renewable power sources available, they must rely on a network for stability. Otherwise, they would have to massively over-develop their power infrastructure. This itself would be unsustainable. The issue is not that Tasmania needs to over-build. It's that Victoria needs more renewables. If TAS was a net importer, that would be a different story.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
> The fact that Victoria exports back non-renewable power isn't in their control. So it is not in their control to be powered only by non-renewable energy. The rest of what you have written doesn’t change this simple fact.
- Retric 6y ago
  They could use energy storage just fine. However, by on net exporting electricity they reduce the amount of fossil fuels Victoria uses so it’s a net win environmentally. Nuclear has similar issues where baseload generation is inefficient when trying to cover shifting power demand. Thus small cities next to nuclear will import power even if they are a net exporter. In the end larger electricity grids are simply more efficient.
  - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
    What does any of this have to do with the fact that the title is incorrect?
    - Retric 6y ago
      The title is correct. They are also using another area as an efficient battery which is both environmentally and economically a net positive.
      - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
        Show me how all these numbers add up to 100%.
        Retric 6y ago
        Production always exceeds consumption due to transmission losses. So, simplified you can produce 120% export 15% and import 5%. That’s net export, and covering 100% of demand. That’s also how they can have a “200 per cent renewable target by 2040.”
        LudwigNagasena 6y ago
        If I open Wikipedia what I see is "100% renewable energy refers to an energy system where all energy use is sourced from renewable energy sources." which is completely what I would expect from the definition of "100% renewable energy." What you are talking about seems like meaningless political wordplay.
        Retric 6y ago
        Plenty of ways to define things. Batteries for example aren’t actually renewable energy sources. So when a solar or wind powered off grid home uses batteries to store solar energy for later usage is that 100% renewable energy as long as the power is originally from sunlight? It seems somewhat silly to say such homes are battery powered. The same terminology is used when homes skip the batteries and send power to the electric grid only to use that amount of power later. Sure, they could spend more resources building batteries, but that’s wasteful. Don’t get me wrong, it’s easy to disagree with the common definitions. However, as long as the definitions used are common and describe the situation you can’t say they are lying. PS: Fossil fuels are also from sunlight just like wind, so saying their not renewable is really talking about the ability to use them vastly faster than their created. Which fits the batteries / grid as renewable energy storage definition just fine.
agurk 6y ago
> Um. The exports exceed the imports. As per the GP's comment, in 2020 that is not the case and have been a net importer.

matthewmacleod 6y ago

They kind of do though; exporting renewable power means less non-renewable power needs to be generated by the importer.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
It cancels non-renewable power that was not produced, when you also subtract non-renewable energy that was produced you are doing double counting.

imtringued 6y ago

CO2 levels are global and the atmosphere is a pretty good "storage technology" for CO2. It doesn't matter where and when you pollute. It only matters how much you pollute. If renewables+fossil fuels allow you to pollute less than either renewables alone or fossil fuels alone then that's what you should do.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
Sure, and if Tasmania was powered 100% by renewable energy it would be less efficient.

snewman 6y ago

Look at it this way: if Tasmania ceased to exist, CO2 emissions from power generation would increase, because on average Victoria would need to run their coal plants more. That strikes me as a pretty pragmatic definition of "100 percent powered by renewable". Edit: per comments downthread, perhaps they're actually not quite there yet, but still I think the principle holds if internal generation is exclusively renewable and net imports are negative.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
> if Tasmania ceased to exist, CO2 emissions from power generation would increase So it is actually over 100%? I don’t understand what you are even calculating when you say 100%, for me it makes no sense.