Says in the ABC this morning that Dick Smith is wrong to claim no country runs on 100% renewable :

www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-22/fact-check-dick-smith-renewables-entire-country/103617364

Even when focusing on wind and solar-generated power alone, experts rejected Mr Smith's claim that it would be "impossible" for it to power an entire country.

According to a document produced and supplied by Professor Jacobson, the four countries running on 100 per cent WWS in 2021 were Albania, Bhutan, Nepal and Paraguay.

web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/Countries100Pct.pdf



Not saying I agree with Dick Smith, either in whatever he believes about renewables, what he thinks about nuclear, or any notion that the concept of running on 100% renewable is impossible - but I was a bit taken back about ABC Fact Check claiming Albania at the top of the list of countries that 'run on 100% renewables'.

Their evidence appears to be a document cited that says that Albania generates 100% of the electricty it generates from renewables.

Maybe kinda true about generation (if you limit generation to that generated for the national grid), but what it generates isn't 100% of what it consumes.

In fact, it imports somewhere about 20% of it's grid power needs. Plus many places run off-grid on local generators, almost all being diesel. This is due to both remote places not connected to the grid, but also the historical unreliability of the grid.

So I am pretty sure that while 100% of what it generates is arguably renewable, 100% of what it consumes certianly isn't, and thus the notion it 'runs on 100% is renewables' is bollocks. I wouldn't claim to be an expet on the Albanian power grid, but if you keep up with a few engineering journals every month you can read, every so often, the on going saga of the Vlora power station and Albania's attempt to generate the missing 20% it needs to stabilise their grid, via diesel and then gas.

So, point here is not so much about the intricies of the Albanian power system (and I have no idea about the other three countries named as being similarly "100%"), but that ABC Fact Check reads a document that says one thing and then directly presents it as saying another. Basic error at best, and a cynic might suggest it is because of an ingrained bias they have that ensures any interpretation of anything provides the journalists of ABC Fact Check the view of the world they have already decided is correct.

They forgot to mention that the countries named have no heavy industry or manufacturing. There is just no way the world could continue to run on renewables alone.
Nuclear power as a stop gap until cold fusion comes to fruition or extraction of energy from the eath's core.

It is just more palava from the left wing political correct ABC.

Select to expand quote

cisco said..
... or extraction of energy from the eath's core.

It is just more palava from the left wing political correct ABC.

Iceland is running at 99.99 percent renewable with 30 percent coming from geothermal.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

cisco said..
... or extraction of energy from the eath's core.

It is just more palava from the left wing political correct ABC.

Iceland is running at 99.99 percent renewable with 30 percent coming from geothermal.

Noice

Wheres our volkano here?

Iceland is a fishing outpost at best. Great practical example champ.

In the energy topic, just look what is going on at Germany...total basket case at the moment.
Wanna bet they will be reigniting a Coal or Nuke soon if the trend continues and their industry and populace continue to get crushed.

Geothermal is easy in Australia.

Easy, if we would only listen to the scientific experts and not question anything. One of the most celebrated experts, Dr Tim Flannery, told us:

There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia's economy for the best part of a century. They are not being fully exploited yet but the technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward.... But we've totally ignored the technologies that really, I think, have a lot of potential to do the job very cost effectively such as geothermal and solar thermal....

In 2009 he got $90 million federal funding to develop this geothermal generator using this relatively straightforward technology.

I can't find any detailed scientific reports for me to just believe, but by my own non-scientific research estimates power produced to date = zero.

I reckon with a $90 million grant even I could build a geothermal generator that produces less than zero electricity. Hell, macroscienc could probably do it for 1/10th of that price.

So easy.

Flannery linked geothermal got canned because of the huge fall in solar panel prices making it uneconomic.
But before dismissing geothermal try looking up what Quaise, a startup out of MIT is trying, and another German project using deep drilling called EAVOR. They reckon that 99% of Germany has enough heat in it to be worth using to provide district heating grids as well as electricity generation.
It looks like the ABC fact checkers took the word of Stanford as being good enough to rely on

climate.ec.europa.eu/news-your-voice/news/eavorloop-story-harnessing-earths-energy-greener-transition-2023-11-06_en

news.mit.edu/2022/quaise-energy-geothermal-0628

Select to expand quote

Tequila ! said..
Iceland is a fishing outpost at best.

Rubbish!

Have you ever heard of Bjork?

Bitcoin mining in Iceland is a thing!

hashrateindex.com/blog/bitcoin-mining-around-the-world-iceland/

And do not forget these massive eyesores better known as wind turbines need huge amounts of electricity from coal and gas fired power stations.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
And do not forget these massive eyesores better known as wind turbines need huge amounts of electricity from coal and gas fired power stations.

Keep following the party line Trumper.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
And do not forget these massive eyesores better known as wind turbines need huge amounts of electricity from coal and gas fired power stations.

Unlike Nuke stations that just magically appear overnight at no cost and with no inherent dangers.

Well lookie-look at that.

www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-22/fact-check-dick-smith-renewables-entire-country/103617364?utm_source=seabreeze.com.au

Turns out somebody did fact check RMIT / ABC Fact Check. And the facts put out by RMIT / ABC Fact Check weren't real facts. They were, in fact, bollocks.

The fact presented that Albania runs on 100% renewable was slightly out. Atleast, by my calcs 33.7% is less than 100%.

....renewables in Albania contributed 33.7 per cent in 2021, with the rest contributed by fossil fuels, biofuels and waste, according to the International Energy Agency

The great people at RMIT / ABC Fact Check go on to review their article and note the report states :

..that "getting to 100 per cent renewable energy [in Australia] over the next two decades would be expensive unless there are major technological advances to backup renewable supply..



Interesting though that ABC Fact Check has now removed their assessment that Dick Smith's claim "didn't check out" and replaced it with ..... nothing. Zip. Ziltch. Silence.

Why can't they admit Dick Smith's claim ... Verified, ABC & RMIT Fact Check claim - Debunked.

I guess it is their article, thats why.

Lucky my enquiring mind didn't believe the scientists.

Carantoc 1
Scientists who can't be questioned because they have superior knowledge and must therefore be simply believed 0

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
And do not forget these massive eyesores better known as wind turbines need huge amounts of electricity from coal and gas fired power stations.

These aren't eyesores on the planet?

and really do need massive amounts of electricity to drive them.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
And do not forget these massive eyesores better known as wind turbines need huge amounts of electricity from coal and gas fired power stations.

^^

Pcdefender makes a statement containing three points :

1) Wind turbines are massive eyesores - this I would suggest is in the eye of the beholder and subject to personal opinion and relativity

2) They need huge amounts of electricty - this would depend on one's definition of 'huge'. And also in the term 'amounts of electricity' pertaining to one's interpretation of an "amount' of electricity being measured in voltage, amperage or joule.

3) The electricity they need must come from coal or gas fired power stations - this to me seems to be the only absolute falsehood, yet the only one not called out. The 'huge' amont of electricity these 'eyesores' require can come from any source, nothing unique about coal or gas fired power station electricty, over battery or diesel or biofuel or hamster wheel driven generated electricity.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
Well lookie-look at that.

www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-22/fact-check-dick-smith-renewables-entire-country/103617364?utm_source=seabreeze.com.au

Turns out somebody did fact check RMIT / ABC Fact Check. And the facts put out by RMIT / ABC Fact Check weren't real facts. They were, in fact, bollocks.

The fact presented that Albania runs on 100% renewable was slightly out. Atleast, by my calcs 33.7% is less than 100%.

....renewables in Albania contributed 33.7 per cent in 2021, with the rest contributed by fossil fuels, biofuels and waste, according to the International Energy Agency

The great people at RMIT / ABC Fact Check go on to review their article and note the report states :

..that "getting to 100 per cent renewable energy [in Australia] over the next two decades would be expensive unless there are major technological advances to backup renewable supply..



Interesting though that ABC Fact Check has now removed their assessment that Dick Smith's claim "didn't check out" and replaced it with ..... nothing. Zip. Ziltch. Silence.

Why can't they admit Dick Smith's claim ... Verified, ABC & RMIT Fact Check claim - Debunked.

I guess it is their article, thats why.

Yep, looks like a classic case of misinterpreting the data because it aligns better with their message.

Now, does that classify as misinformation, flat out lie, or just plain crap investigation?

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
Yep, looks like a classic case of misinterpreting the data because it aligns better with their message.
Now, does that classify as misinformation, flat out lie, or just plain crap investigation?

I'd certainly classify it as misinformation.

That doesn't automatically imply I'd classify it as deliberate, but it contained core information that was incorrect, so I'm not sure it couldn't be misinformation.

That said, I'm also not sure I'd pick one of the three options you provided.

A salient point is that there should not be a "message". The purpose of the fact check series is that it is unbiased fact checking. In fact, it's entire purposes is to sort the biased from the unbiased. This is what it claims to be:

It is jointly funded and a partnership between RMIT University and the ABC, combining academic excellence and the best of Australian journalism to inform the public through an independent non-partisan voice. RMIT ABC Fact Check is a signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network's code of principles.

I'd perhaps classify it as embarrassingly poor journalism verging on the incompetant driven by a self-indulgent, ingrained bias and narrow view of the world formed from living in a cossetted victim mentality bubble and being detatched from all reality.

Is that too harsh ?

Have you thought about forwarding your findings to Derryn Hinch?

I'd certainly agree with this bit

"I'd perhaps classify it as embarrassingly poor journalism verging on the incompetent"

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
Lucky my enquiring mind didn't believe the scientists.

Carantoc 1
Scientists who can't be questioned because they have superior knowledge and must therefore be simply believed 0

Science is not a belief system. Scientists are happy to be questioned, that's how peer-review works. Scientists, quite likely do have superior knowledge in their area of study, but they don't expect to be believed, because... science is not a belief system.