Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

True, but it’s frowned upon to editorialize the headline, the milestone is still important imho, and Victoria’s coal heavy generation mix is temporary.

https://environmentvictoria.org.au/our-campaigns/safe-climat...

> But Victoria is catching up. In 2016, the Victorian state government announced new renewable energy targets. By 2020, 25 percent of Victoria’s electricity will come from clean renewable energy. By 2025, that will rise to 40 percent.

Their target is 50 percent by 2030, but I’m overly optimistic based on runaway rooftop solar deployments and the current utility scale projects in the pipeline. It is highly likely most of Australia is 100% renewables powered (electrical, doesn’t include transportation) by 2032, 2035 at the latest.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-can-be-powered-100-by-...

View on HN

It’s not really an achievement when you have a population of half a million and have lots of possibilities for hydro power.

There are other small countries such as Costa Rica or Norway which are also already on “100% renewables” thanks to hydro power.

Also, this is usually just for electricity. They are probably still burning lots of fossil fuels for heating and vehicle traffic.

Yes, and also all of Tasmania's Hydro generation was built before the whole "green" movement - actually I believe the Australian Green Party started the last time they tried to build a dam in Tasmania in the early 1980's.

Tasmania is also blessed in that Hydro is our "base load" which can be ramped up or down in seconds based on the fluctuating wind and solar generation.

I was driving past some of Tasmania's older dam's today on the way home from a hiking trip and I found myself trying to imagine what the river would have been like if the dam's had never been built. While I am thankful for Tassie's dam's and what they'll mean for our future, it's hard to not notice how much they change the environment.

> They are probably still burning lots of fossil fuels for heating and vehicle traffic.

Car's YES... although I'd say a LOT of people (perhaps most) heat with electricity.

Yes, hydro is certainly a zero-carbon energy source but not without great environmental cost.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laTIbNVDQN8 is a good documentary about dam removals in the American west.

It's absolutely an achievement. It takes a desire to actually build hydroelectric power and the will to put it into place.

Washington state could be hydro powered, but it's only 70%, with 20% non-renewable. Quebec is 97% hydro, but 3% nuclear due to a historical political horse-trade. Illinois, despite having the mighty Mississippi River, has 3 total dams and is less than 1% of its energy mix, with more than 50% being non-renewable.

So Costa Rica and Tasmania do enjoy some advantages, but so do lots of other places that haven't accomplished the same.

>Quebec is 97% hydro, but 3% nuclear due to a historical political horse-trade.

This? https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/ma...

Couldn't imagine wanting to import nuclear instead of moving trains full of oil to burn during winter had anything to do with the decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...

Hydropower when in form of pumped hydro could play and important part in renewable future. Quebec and Canada can actually become a battery for New England offshore wind power.

Hydro cannot be the future due to excessive damage to the environment

It's true that hydro has a huge impact on the environment, but it is good for the climate. I think it can be worth it to build some hydro power to replace coal. If we don't, and the climate is fucked, then not having built the dam isn't helping the environment either.

If you pre-destory the environment you are trying to save I'm not sure what you've accomplished. If climate change is envirionmental problem 1a) then habitat destruction is certainly 1b) and low-density renewable energy sources are a huge problem here as are riparian-destorying damns.

The environment we're trying to save is large swaths of arable zones for human habitation. Fish are nice, but we need to be able to grow wheat.

I would be surprised if they're burning much fossil fuel for heating, most Australian homes use electric heating of some form. We don't really have basements, so no boilers, and gas heaters were phased out a decade ago.

But more than the technical achievements, it's a political achievement too. Australia has been mired by coal mining influencing policy for decades, and in the past ten years states have been reacquainted with their fortitude and started making policy that helps the state and not the mining industry.

SA and Tasmania are full steam ahead on renewables and they are leading by example on just how capable new energy technologies can be when deployed with smart policy.

I don’t know any Tasmanians who don’t regularly use a wood burning stove heater in the cooler months.

>wood

Yeah that's a renewable energy you know?

Only with well managed forests.

Solar Power is just renewable with cleaned panels ;)

Long term, I’d expect those wood stoves to be replaced with air source heat pumps.

Hm fair enough, different to where I am in Aus but that is interesting. I wonder if that has been measured recently.

Thanks for the reply. It's good to see concrete progress away from coal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com