arr, guess its just ANOTHER one of Turnbulls little stuff-up
in which his friend will make a nice heap of dollars from
__________________________________________
Time to melt the Snowy 2.0 myths
Ted Wooley The Australian February 25, 2020
After the recent bushfires, the stark realisation that our climate is changing more rapidly than anyone had envisaged has spurred numerous kneejerk “solutions” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and revived interest in the Snowy 2.0 pumped-hydro storage project. But rather than generate low-emission energy, Snowy 2.0 will incur tens of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and will have a devastating impact on Kosciuszko National Park.
Snowy 2.0 is a very inefficient storage and runs against the trend of power system decentralisation. It will push up prices and its cost will far exceed its benefits.
It will be a net consumer of energy. Unlike hydro power stations that simply generate electricity as water flows downhill, pumped-hydro stations must first pump water uphill, consuming much more energy than they generate. After accounting for losses in the pumping/generation cycle (about 25 per cent) and the network (about 10 per cent each way for pumping and generating), Snowy 2.0 will lose about 40 per cent of the energy it stores: 100 units in, 60 units delivered.
It will be the most inefficient energy storage on the National Electricity Market. Because of Snowy 2.0’s 27km tunnel connecting its two reservoirs — far longer than any pumped-hydro station in the world — it will have high water friction losses.
While water is the medium for storing and generating energy, it is the energy used for pumping that water uphill that powers the storage process. For the next decade or so, it will be coal-fired generators, increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Independent analysis estimates Snowy 2.0 will incur 50 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent for its construction and first decade of operation. By comparison, 440,000 vehicles emit one million tonnes in a year.
Also, at such a distance from the two major load centres of Sydney and Melbourne, network losses will be higher than practically all other energy storages.
Also, Snowy 2.0 is vulnerable to transmission outages and constraints, as was demonstrated by the recent bushfire-triggered outages of Snowy substations and transmission links to Sydney and between NSW and Victoria.
Snowy 2.0 runs against the trend of a decentralised National Electricity Market. The overall trend of electricity supply is away from large power stations and storages towards a dispersed system of multiple generation sources and storages, particularly at consumer premises (for example, rooftop solar cells with battery storage). This leads to greater efficiency, lower network losses and less expenditure on network additions, and it shields consumers from system outages and faults. It also provides for gradual additions to the electricity market rather than lumpy additions such as Snowy 2.0.
Contrary to public statements, wholesale electricity prices are predicted to increase, not decrease, as a result of Snowy 2.0, according to Snowy Hydro’s own modelling. When announced in March 2017, Snowy 2.0 was to be completed in four years at a cost of $2bn. Completion now is estimated to be in 2025 at a cost of $3.8bn to $4.5bn, even though an eight-year contract recently has been let for $5.1bn.
Industry experts predict the total cost will be about $10bn when other components (financing, transmission and so on) are added, warning that even this may be exceeded as large infrastructure projects very rarely come in on budget. The final cost is almost certain to be substantially more than Snowy 2.0’s estimated market benefit of $4.3bn to $6.6bn (which industry experts consider to be optimistic).
Why build a project whose cost exceeds its benefit, potentially by double, and that will also increase electricity prices?
And let’s not forget Snowy 2.0’s construction “project area” of 250,000ha encompasses one-third of the Kosciuszko National Park, much of which has been razed by the recent bushfires.
Snowy 2.0’s legacy on the park will include 14 million cubic metres of excavated soil, some contaminated by naturally occurring asbestos and potentially acid-forming rock, with more than half to be dumped in Snowy reservoirs; four high-voltage transmission circuits on twin towers with a 120m-wide easement for 10km; more than 100km of new or widened roads and tracks; the destruction of 1000ha of habitat for 14 threatened species; the spread of pest fish throughout the Snowy Scheme and downstream rivers; and the visual blight of infrastructure and scars across the alpine landscape.
“Biodiversity offset payments” from the damage are mooted to be about $250m — an unprecedented amount, reflecting the scale of destruction.
How can an industrial project incurring such damage even be contemplated in a national park?
There are numerous pumped-hydro alternatives to Snowy 2.0 that would cause minimal environmental damage and be more efficient. The latest forecasts by the Australian Energy Market Operator indicate that Snowy 2.0, or its equivalent, is not required until 2029. There is no need to proceed hastily on the pretext that Snowy 2.0 is urgently required and is the only available option for energy storage.
It would be tragic if Snowy 2.0 were constructed on the basis of overstated claims that were never tested and later proven to be false. At stake are billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, tens of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and thousands of hectares of Kosciuszko National Park.
Ted Woodley is a former chief executive of EnergyAustralia, PowerNet, GasNet and CLP Power Systems (Hong Kong). He is honorary treasurer of the National Parks Association of NSW.
Expand
