[dingle_thunk]

Um. The exports exceed the imports. They are net exporting renewable power to Victoria. The fact that Victoria exports back non-renewable power isn't in their control.

Tasmania is an exceptionally small state. Population 500K. Based on the renewable power sources available, they must rely on a network for stability. Otherwise, they would have to massively over-develop their power infrastructure. This itself would be unsustainable.

The issue is not that Tasmania needs to over-build. It's that Victoria needs more renewables. If TAS was a net importer, that would be a different story.

[LudwigNagasena]

> The fact that Victoria exports back non-renewable power isn't in their control.

So it is not in their control to be powered only by non-renewable energy. The rest of what you have written doesn’t change this simple fact.

[Retric]

They could use energy storage just fine. However, by on net exporting electricity they reduce the amount of fossil fuels Victoria uses so it’s a net win environmentally.

Nuclear has similar issues where baseload generation is inefficient when trying to cover shifting power demand. Thus small cities next to nuclear will import power even if they are a net exporter. In the end larger electricity grids are simply more efficient.

[LudwigNagasena]

What does any of this have to do with the fact that the title is incorrect?

[Retric]

The title is correct. They are also using another area as an efficient battery which is both environmentally and economically a net positive.

[LudwigNagasena]

Show me how all these numbers add up to 100%.

[Retric]

Production always exceeds consumption due to transmission losses.

So, simplified you can produce 120% export 15% and import 5%. That’s net export, and covering 100% of demand. That’s also how they can have a “200 per cent renewable target by 2040.”

[agurk]

> Um. The exports exceed the imports.

As per the GP's comment, in 2020 that is not the case and have been a net importer.