"100% renewables" when you have diesel generators as a backup plan that are significantly worse than coal is far from 100%.

It's only "100%" if you're being deliberately misleading and trying to gloss over the mass pollution of diesel.

Hydro is not 100% reliable 100% of the time, so to say it is an absolute fabrication.

You will note the OP claims Tasmania is 100% renewable powered without such qualification, a total lie.

Diesel creates about 20% less CO2 per kWh compared to coal.

Gas is better, but diesel is better than coal. The problem with diesel is usually that it's hard to get large enough output for a regional source. But Tasmania is small enough this wasn't too bad.

https://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/findata/matmgt/documents/201...

> You will note the OP claims Tasmania is 100% renewable powered without such qualification, a total lie.

It's - of course - not a lie at all. They claim they have just reached it now (in 2020). Your criticism is about something that happened in 2016.

Did you read the link you posted? From your own link:

> The state is on track to achieve 100pc of its electricity from renewable sources by 2022

(Noting that - as the link in this HN story points out - they got there early)

> It sees gas providing back-up power to solar and wind projects, as well as being used for household heating and industrial purposes

Diesel was not the backup plan, but rather unplanned last resort. The back up plan was natural gas, which through a series of unfortunate events was not operational at the time. If memory serves me correctly, they had to organise at great expense to get the diesel generators shipped very quickly from overseas since there was no other option.

I believe that no method of power generation is 100% reliable all the time. Power outages happen from time to time, especially when important power links are down.