Including transmission and other costs.
3+ times the life of a coal fired power plant, and a fraction of the run cost.
It will put significant downward pressure on energy costs.
We need more of these.
Cheers,
Peter
The original budget for the project was $2 billion.
The latest estimate is $42 billion.
I think the govt should stop it, cut its losses and use it for studies in incompetence.
When the government comes calling the lads in the private enterprise boardrooms raise a glass or two, of the 18yr old Macallan, to the windfall that is on the way. It has forever been so.
__________________
"Some days you are the Dog and some days you are the tree."
Like the first big battery in South Australia. They filled it with energy that was almost free and sold it to compete with the highest prices. That has the effect of reducing the highest prices.
In the case of the SA battery, the Victorians paid for it for us very quickly.
I used to work for the Snowy and SMEC (the consultant offshoot from the original Snowy scheme). There are still a few people around town who used to work for the Snowy and SMEC. We meet regularly, and often speak about Snowy 2.0.
When Malcolm Turnbull announced Snowy 2.0, he said that it would cost $2 Billion, and be complete by 2024. This was back in 2018. We all laughed. We all knew where he had obtained the information from. We all knew the geology (the worst is yet to come) and the complications of building the scheme. Some of us had even worked years before on possible Hydro sites and this site was easily rejected. Interestingly, none of this group of ex Snowy/SMEC people (including me) were invited to work on the new scheme.
Snowy 2.0 CAN be built. It will cost a lot. A lot more than similar possible schemes elsewhere in Australia, but it CAN be built. It will deliver much needed power to the grid - not as much as they are claiming, but it will provide for significant base load and peak power to the grid, and in conjunction with the ever-increasing renewables, will make a significant stabilising influence on the Qld/NSW/ACT/Vic/Tas/SA grid. It will further enhance grid stability in times of crisis. It will not reduce the cost of elecrticity to the consumer.
BUT - Snowy 2.0 will be the modern equivalent of the original Snowy scheme, except for water diversion to the West, which was the main purpose of the original Snowy scheme. The Hydro-Electric part was the means to pay for the water diversion for subsequent irrigation in the west. It will provide a significant stabilising effect to the ever-changing Electrical demands of modern Australia. The Electrical and Mechanical equipment will be world-class standard. There will be problems with this, because it will be ground breaking, but I hope (am quietly confident) that the Snowy Hydro people will be able to handle the problems, in conjunction with the Electrical and Mechanical Contractor supplying and installing the equipment. This will be the best in the world, no doubt.
Am I upset about the cost? Yes. Am I upset about the delays? Yes, but we all expected some delays. BUT - at least someone is doing something about future electrical demands in Australia instead of blindly closing down the existing infrastructure and even more blindly hoping that the renewables will take up the difference. It is a bit like telling everyone to switch to electric cars to get rid of fossil fuels. Even that will happen, but not within my lifetime. Spare me - my soapbox has gotten so high that I cannot get down now...
So at this stage, its only an extra $40 billion.
Thats ok, the next budget will address the inter generational equity disparity. In other words, us oldies are both gonna get slugged and lose benefits.
Our nation debt is currently around $996 billion as in close to a trillion dollars. And growing.
The current govt inherited a budget surplus. They kissed that on the ass on the way out the door (country).
If there are any mathematicians/statisticians on here, have a crack at working out how much extra we will pay for fuel/fertiliser for the duration of the Middle East conflicts. What would it have cost to have been prepared for it in self sufficiency?
Where would you cut spending? Social welfare? Defense? Cheers, Peter
Cutting government jobs by reducing red tape would be a huge start. Cutting government jobs provides more availability of workforce for the private sector currently having difficulty finding employees and reduces the pressure on wages growth. Reduced red tape gives businesses incentive to expand and hire more.
Government jobs cost the country. Private sector jobs grow the country.
