Snowy 2.0 shambles a ‘disturbing’ reminder of surging energy costs

Snowy 2.0 shambles a ‘disturbing’ reminder of surging energy costs

The cost blowout on Snowy 2.0 is certainly disturbing. No doubt the initial cost estimate quoted was unrealistic. But the key surprise – and the resulting cause of the cost blowout – has to be the ground condition that bogged the tunnel borer. Events like this happen, with a parallel in the Kanden tunnel associated with the Kurobe dam and power station in Honshu, Japan.

However, before the lid is closed on the coffin of Snowy 2.0, we should first recall that there was a furore with the cost of the original project. I remember reading a news bulletin suggesting that, notwithstanding its immense cost, future generations may appreciate that the venture was undertaken. We also need to fully cost just how the new electricity supply network will be kept safe and stable when it is supplied essentially from intermittent sources.

Life cycle costings may show that other sources of stored energy are more expensive again in terms of cost per kilowatt-hour. Costs and timings for many parts of the future network are all remarkably optimistic.

Ken Dredge, Camp Hill, Qld

It is not unusual for big projects to run into trouble. And the hyenas gather. Years later, when they become icons, all is forgotten. The Opera House springs to mind.

Among the criticisms of Snowy 2.0 are that it will consume more energy than it uses. Of course, that is true for any energy storage system. Snowy 2.0 will have a much greater capacity than South Australia’s Big Battery, and we will need the equivalent of four Snowy 2.0s to get anywhere near the 100 per cent renewable target. More and more wind and solar is being installed, but unless we can store the energy, we will not be able to turn off coal and gas. Whoever wants to flush the money already invested in Snowy down the tube had better first come up with a plan to supply Australia’s future energy needs.

Frank Szanto, Newtown, NSW

The ongoing news about Snowy Hydro 2.0 and the increasing time and cost blowouts is interesting. I know times and the world are very different these days, but find some historical perspective is also of interest. My first engineering job was in 1953 as a student engineer on the original Snowy Mountains Scheme.

At the time the overall budget was about £400m. The world-renowned scheme took the planned 25 years to build and included numerous dams, power stations, aqueducts, tunnels and other infrastructure. Many of those who worked on the scheme were migrants. On successful completion, the final cost was about $800m (ie, £400m). The project matters.

Bob Morrison, Cottesloe, WA

Any relief for high electricity bills will be welcome, particularly for low-income households. But it won’t stop more people joining the thousands of customers currently on hardship plans, with an average debt of $1846.

On the Australian Energy Regulator’s current projections NSW bills will rise by up to 23.7 per cent from July 1. For many households this $564 increase results in a two-year surge of $933. The argument that the renewables revolution will bring cheaper power is starting to look as credible as Snowy 2.0 being in operation before the end of the decade.

Jennie George, Mollymook, NSW

Debating the voice

The Australian Olympic Committee has announced that its official position is to support the proposal for an Indigenous voice to parliament (“Australian Olympic Committee ‘firmly committed’ to backing voice”, 6-7/5). An individual can announce an opinion about anything, but organisations should restrict commentary to matters that relate to their purpose. After all, the organisation itself does not have an opinion; it is the people within an organisation that have opinions. The proposal for an Indigenous voice does not address the purposes outlined in the constitution of the AOC. Indeed, the constitution explicitly commits the organisation to political neutrality. The AOC directors are welcome to their personal opinions. They do not have a licence to invoke the reputation and status of their organisation to promote their personal views.

Graeme Suthers, Woodforde, SA

The Labor-Greens-dominated commission examining the voice referendum will complete its report this week. The voters will continue to be denied the opportunity to vote on the popular issue of simple recognition as a separate question to the poorly understood and confusing concept of the voice. There should be two questions, the first of which would be to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia. That’s long overdue and simple. The second should be the voice. If the second question is not supported then of course that issue would be dealt with by our parliament but without the overhang of powerful constitutional privilege. Surely, the opposition can support this approach?

David Burt, Quindalup, WA