Thread: ACT goes 100% renewable

Don't overlook the enviromental damage which is still occurring as a result of hydro lakes which in the main were ancient massive forests simply flooded and which release tons of carbon for decades. Read Gerry Bates book. Tassie is not that clean and green and water supply reliability is highly questionable. The battery of the nation is simply political spin and BS.

Have to agree with the smoke n mirrors analogy😐

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

If the rest of the country copied the ACT this country would be 100% renewable.
It can be done. Britain has just gone a whole week without burning a single lump of coal

If your prepared to burn lots of trees, also known as biomass, i would rather keep the trees

Originally Posted by Slunnie

Just having a read. Great to see ACT buying in so much renewable energy via the grid. It was also good to see that last year SA was 53% renewable and Tasmania was almost totally working on renewable. Rest of the states need to get their act together with NSW 15%, QLD 10%, WA 16% and Victoria 21%. For renewables, about 1/3 comes from Hydro, 1/3 from Wind and 20% from small scale solar.

It will be interesting to see if there is any shift in government direction on this after todays election.

Unlikely

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Australia is a big country and the sun is always shining and the wind is always blowing somewhere.

Umm , can i refer you to Copernicus and Galileo, controversial i know, but the science is pretty much settled

First? Hobart and Tassie were way ahead of the Act.

Is all virtue signalling propaganda from the ACT Soviet.

Cheers

RF

Carbon dioxide is demonised, yet it comprises just 0.04%, 400ppm of the atmosphere. It is a trace gas, and has practically no effect on the earth's temperature. We breathe it out every minute of our lives. Plants need it to grow. At 0.018%, or 180 ppm, plants start to have trouble growing. At 150ppm, they die, and so does everything else on the planet. Plants use water more effectively at higher concentrations, hence the greening of parts of the world that were struggling. Crops grow more effectively, leading to record harvests. Yes, the climate is changing, but it has done so since time began. See the roman warm period, medieval warm period, and the little ice age.
So, many people have been conned, and a few others have made lots of money.

Originally Posted by INter674

Don't overlook the enviromental damage which is still occurring as a result of hydro lakes which in the main were ancient massive forests simply flooded and which release tons of carbon for decades. Read Gerry Bates book. Tassie is not that clean and green and water supply reliability is highly questionable. The battery of the nation is simply political spin and BS.

Have to agree with the smoke n mirrors analogy😐

Hmmm, I really suspect here that the author is simply political spin and BS. It's like how people have misquoted a speech to say that wind wont ever pay for itself (meaning, in a no wind area).

Hydro will continue giving green energy, its just not without a start up cost, exactly the same as all renewable sources. Sure, it may release CO2, but that wont be comparable to the burning of coal as a replacement.

Second point, is that the CO2 that is released by a submersed forest is a part of the environmental carbon cycle, The carbon in it has been absorbed from the atmosphere and is released to be reabsorbed. Its not introducing new carbon into the environment like what coal is.