As I said you are all over the place, and this post is even more so.
Go back and re-read our discussion from your first mention of Snowy 2.0, you will see you first comment doesn’t make sense because as you later realised you were actually talking about the existing snowy scheme not 2.0.
Then you started confusing and arguing about my comments about 2.0 with the existing snowy scheme, rather than look at the facts I was saying in context to what I was actually commenting on and the question I was answering.
Anyway, as I said you should re-read the discussion slowly and you will see where you went wrong.
———————
In regards to 2.0 being huge or not, Snowy 2.0 will store energy equivalent to 3,500 Of south Australia’s big Tesla battery, and the Tesla Battery cost $116 Million, so it would cost over $400 Billion to match Snowy 2.0 with Tesla batteries, so even if cost blow out to $10 Billion it’s not that bad.
it will be able to output over half of Victoria coal generation or more electricity than Tasmania’s current hydro generation for 7 days straight, now I consider that a huge battery.
Can it run Australia all
Simple mistake, I thought you might have been able to understand a simple sentence. I’ll edit it for you -
The Snowy hydro was pointless during the heavy rains and flooding, because it would have exacerbated the flooding. Listen to an industry expert, starting at the 17:25 minute mark -
https://www.abc.net.au/radionationa...TFVNhAvBXqJlr0gZETHZNxf08KQC50Eajfg&fs=e&s=cl
And for your beloved Snowy 2.0 -
Snowy Hydro now expects completion in 10 years, not four, by 2026. Some experts consider even this extended timeframe to be optimistic. Construction of the tunnels is running at least six months behind the latest schedule and the transmission connection is unlikely to be built by 2026 anyway. The all-up cost has increased at least five-fold, to $10 billion-plus, as energy experts warned the Prime Minister and the then NSW premier in 2020.
The underground power station and tunnels alone will cost more than $6 billion, and Snowy Hydro avoids mentioning the transmission connections to Sydney – $4 billion-plus for HumeLink and the Sydney ring – and to Victoria. To make matters worse, Snowy Hydro refuses to contribute to these transmission works, leaving it to electricity consumers to pick up the tab. Transmission tariffs in NSW will increase by more than
50 per cent if the NSW government allows Snowy Hydro to get its way, based on analysis in a Victoria Energy Policy Centre report.
Despite the assurance that taxpayer subsidies were not required, the federal government was forced to shore up Snowy 2.0’s business case with a $1.4bn “equity injection”. Further taxpayer funding is inevitable, warned Standard & Poors when it
downgraded Snowy Hydro’s credit rating in 2020.
Far from bringing electricity prices down, Snowy Hydro’s
own modelling predicts that prices will rise because of Snowy 2.0.
As far as the claim that Snowy 2.0 will add 2000 megawatts of renewable energy to the National Electricity Market, Snowy 2.0 is not a conventional hydro station generating renewable energy. It is no different to any other battery, and as such it will be a net load on the NEM. For every 100 units of electricity purchased from the NEM to pump water uphill, only 75 units are returned when the water flows back down through the turbine generators. Not only is the electricity generated not renewable, Snowy 2.0 will be the most inefficient battery on the NEM, losing 25 per cent of energy cycled.
And on the final claim of minimal environmental impact to Kosciuszko National Park, vast areas have already been cleared, blasted, reshaped and compacted. Hundreds of kilometres of roads and tracks are being constructed, twenty million tonnes of excavated spoil will be dumped (astoundingly, mainly in Snowy Hydro’s reservoirs), and noxious fish will be transferred throughout the Snowy Mountains and the headwaters of the Murrumbidgee, Murray and Snowy Rivers, devastating native fish and trout. The NSW government has even agreed to issue exemptions to its own legislation to override the prohibition of such pest fish transfers – an astonishing precedent.
The massive cost and environmental impacts of Snowy 2.0 cannot be justified for providing occasional longer-term storage.
The latest revelation in this dismal saga is the proposal for four high-voltage transmission lines through eight kilometres of Kosciuszko National Park with a cleared easement swath up to 200 metres wide. The statutory plan of management that controls activities in Kosciuszko expressly prohibits the construction of new overhead transmission lines, as is the norm with national parks in Australia and throughout the developed world. Reprehensibly, the NSW government has released a draft amendment to exempt Snowy 2.0 from having to install underground cables.
Despite Snowy 2.0’s abysmal track record over the past five years, the Commonwealth and NSW governments continue to bend over backwards with billion-dollar subsidies (and more to come), electricity price increases and environmental exemptions, despite conclusive evidence that the project is fundamentally flawed and can never pay for itself.
There are many cheaper, more efficient and far less environmentally destructive energy storage alternatives.
Snowy 2.0 is bringing a flurry of activity and much-trumpeted construction jobs to the Monaro. But in another five or so years we will be left with a rarely used, $10 billion-plus Snowy White Elephant, higher electricity prices, a needlessly scarred Kosciuszko National Park, and just a dozen extra Snowy Hydro jobs, according to the Snowy 2.0 environmental impact statement.
There is no cause for celebrating today’s fifth anniversary. With another five or so years to go, it is sobering to take stock and review how we got into this mess and what can be done, even at this advanced stage, to limit the ramifications.