3 ms·

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

by 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%)

3 ms·

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

by nl 6y ago

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%)