Snowy 2.0 Doesn’t Stack Up

Snowy 2.0, the 2,000 megawatt pumped hydro battery, was announced on 15 March 2017.

It was to be built by 2021, for $2 billion, fully funded by Snowy Hydro Ltd at no cost to the taxpayer, have minimal environmental impact, provide renewable energy and reduce electricity prices. None of those claims has eventuated. 

The case for Snowy 2.0 doesn’t stack up economically, technically or environmentally. Simply, it is the wrong project in the wrong location. There are better alternatives, ones that avoid catastrophic impacts on Kosciusko National Park. 

While NPA strongly supports a rapid shift to renewable energy to decarbonise the electricity sector and supports pumped hydro as a component of this shift, it opposes Snowy 2.0. 

NPA webinar: Snowy 2.0 vs Kosci: NPA court case

Presented by Gary Dunnett (NPA CEO), Ted Woodley (NPA Executive) and Bruce Donald AM (senior environmental lawyer) The case for Snowy 2.0 doesn’t stack up economically, technically or environmentally. Simply, it is the wrong project in the wrong location. There are better alternatives, ones that avoid catastrophic impacts on Kosciusko National Park. Our campaigning to prevent one of the most damaging elements, the construction of overhead transmission lines as part of the Snowy 2.0 project, has reached the point where we have no alternative but to take the government to court! We have no choice now but to heavily invest in ensuring that the government is held to account and will do the right thing for our natural environments and supposedly protected areas. Our first hearing date was 3 August, with further hearing adjourned until 11 September. Listen to this webinar to hear more about the background to the campaign, what we hope to achieve by going to court, and how you can help.

Webinar Presentation slides

230822-NPA-Snowy-2.0-Webinar-presentationDownload

Open Letters

Letter of support from NSW Independents

Open letters to the Prime Minister and NSW Premier, and the NSW Planning Minister and NSW Environment and Energy Minister from groups of eminent experts in the energy and environment sectors opposing Snowy 2.0. 

18 Jan 2021 Letter to NSW Planning Minister and Environment and Energy Minister, with Background Paper and Addendum, from two dozen environmental groups and 50 experts, titled “Snowy 2.0 transmission must be underground” 

6 Apr 2020 Letter to NSW Planning Minister and Environment and Energy Minister, from 17 environmental organisations and nine experts, titled “Approving the Snowy 2.0 EIS would have unprecedented environmental ramifications” 

24 Mar 2020 Letter to Prime Minister and NSW Premier from 30 experts, titled “Expensive, damaging and unnecessary Snowy 2.0 must be publicly reviewed before proceeding” 

17 Sep 2020 Letter to Prime Minister and NSW Premier, from 37 experts titled “Adverse revelations continue – Snowy 2.0 folly demands urgent review”Shape 

Research Papers

NPA Review of Snowy 2.0 environmental performance April 2024

NPA Paper: Snowy 2.0 claims don’t stack up, 26 Feb 2020 

NPA Paper: Snowy 2.0 Doesn’t Stack Up, 15 Oct 2019 

Fact sheet: Snowy 2.0 Doesn’t Stack Up, 15 Oct 2019 

Submissions

NPA Submission on HumeLink EIS 10 October 2023

NPA Submission Snowy 2.0 Main Works modification – Remediation of sinkhole and ground consolidation works to facilitate the progression of TBM Florence at Tantangara 19 Sep 2023

NPA Submission to Inquiry into the feasibility of undergrounding the transmission infrastructure for renewable energy projects

HumeLink Stage 1 Contingent Project Application (to AER), 30 May 2022, submitting that the AER’s processing of TransGrid’s CPA should be placed on hold until the PACR and its preferred Option 3C are comprehensively assessed 

NPA Paper on Snowy 2.0 Transmission Connection RTS/PIR, 31 Mar 2022, submitting that the RTS/PIR does not provide any basis for concluding that overhead transmission is the best option for connecting the Snowy 2.0 power station to the grid. Approval should be denied and a fresh set of SEARS issued for an underground connection. 

Snowy 2.0 Main Works Modification, 6 Nov 2021, opposing the project but offering conditional support for the proposed Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) between Lobs Hole and Marica as it involves less environmental impact than the alternate overhead lines 

Snowy 2.0 Transmission Connection Project EIS, 2 Apr 2021, opposing overhead line transmission 

KNP Plan Of Management proposed amendment, 22 Mar 2021, strenuously opposing the proposed amendment to Section 12.6 of the Kosciuszko National Park Plan of Management to exempt the Snowy 2.0 Project from the requirement that ‘all additional telecommunication and transmission lines (are) to be located underground’ 

Snowy 2.0 Main Works EIS, 6 Nov 2019, opposing the project 

Exploratory Works EIS Modification 2, 21 Nov 2019, opposing the modification 

Exploratory Works EIS Modification 1, 8 Jul 2019, opposing the fragmented approach to approving segments of the project 

Snowy 2.0 Main Works Preferred Infrastructure Report, 20 Mar 2020, remaining firmly of the view that the environmental impacts of the proposal are entirely inappropriate in a protected area and that the Minister should deny project approval 

NPA Judicial Review Summons, 17 Aug 2020, seeking orders to quash the approval of the Snowy 2.0

TV Segments

Snowy 2.0 tunnel-boring machine grinds to halt and hole appears on surface, ABC 7.30, 13 Feb 2023

Snowy 2.0 is massively over budget and running way behind schedule, ABC 7.30 Report, 17 June 2022 

Critics of Snowy Hydro 2.0 say project could be a costly mistake, ABC 7.30 Report, 15 Oct 2019 

Snowy Hydro 2.0 a costly white elephant that won’t deliver, says energy expert, ABC, 14 Oct 2019 

Snowy Mountains Scheme, Utopia, 29 Aug 2014 

Inside the engineering megaproject that went horribly wrong | Four Corners

Articles & Media Releases

NPA media releases

External Media

It’s Snowy 2.0’s seventh birthday. Few will be celebrating

The Australian Snowy ‘reset’ can’t hide profligate waste of taxpayer money

EPIC Cup favourites from the Snowy stable. Again.

Snowy 2 Much: How can a 2.2GW water battery be worth more than $12 billion?

Stop pumping cash down Snowy 2.0 drain, The Australian

$5.9bn and rising: Snowy 2.0 wrestles with delays and budget blowouts, The Guardian 18 Jun 2023

Major Snowy 2.0 tunnelling operation on hold after NSW government intervenes

The Australia: Why its time to cut our losses and forget Snowy shambles says Ted-Woodley 23 May 2023

The Australian: Six years of bungled billions time to cut losses on Snowy 2.0 23 Feb 2023

Disastrous tunnelling delays underline folly of Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro scheme, RenewEconomy, 12 Feb 2023

Snowy Hydro finally fesses up on delays to Snowy 2.0, and for Kurri Kurri too

Former energy boss sounds $10b warning on Snowy 2.0, AFR 15 Oct 2019 

Snowy 2.0 power lines clearing ‘will despoil’ long swathe of Kosciuszko national park, wildlife groups say 

Five years on, Snowy 2.0 emerges as a $10 billion white elephant, SMH 15 Mar 2022 

Snowy 2.0 Impacts

The potential impacts of Snowy 2.0 are staggering:

  • 14 million cubic metres of excavated spoil, some of which contains asbestos and/or is acidic, will be dumped in Kosciuszko National Park.
  • Major infrastructure, including the widening and construction of more than 100 km of roads and tracks are proposed throughout the project area. Some of which will destroy sensitive environmental and geological significant areas. Under normal circumstances these would not be allowed within a National Park, so why under Snowy 2.0?
  • Two side-by-side high voltage transmission lines for 8 km through the Park, together with access tracks.  Towers 70m tall, 52 wires, an easement swathe 120-140m wide, visible over 200 square kilometres.
  • Snowy 2.0 requires a massive 10m diameter, water tunnel for 27 kms, plus another 20 kms of access tunnels. The tunnels will depress the water table in some sections by more than 50 m and have an impact for up to 2 kms either side of the tunnel. This will lead to montane streams and water dependant alpine bogs drying up, further impacting upon vulnerable habitats and native species. It will also lead to a reduction of inflows to Snowy reservoirs and downstream rivers. These river systems are already under threat from feral animals and global heating. Any works that threaten water quality and quantity must be avoided. 
  • Noxious pests, pathogens and weeds will be spread throughout the Snowy Scheme and downstream, including Redfin Perch (a Class One Noxious Pest) and aquatic weeds.  These pests and weeds will be transported from Talbingo Reservoir up to pest-free Tantangara, the Upper Murrumbidgee catchment, and then to Eucumbene Dam and throughout the Snowy Scheme and into the downstream rivers – Murray, Snowy and Tumut.  They will devastate native fish (and trout).
  • The last remaining colony of critically endangered Stock Galaxias in Tantangara Creek will likely be extinguished by the Climbing Galaxias transferred up from Talbingo.
  • Snowy Hydro claims that Snowy 2.0 is a renewable energy generator.  It’s not.  It’s simply a battery.
  • Snowy 2.0 will be a net consumer of electricity, not a generator, with ‘round-trip’ losses of 30%, plus another 10% for transmission (two-ways).
  • Snowy 2.0 is in the worst possible location, hundreds of kilometres from the major load centres of Sydney and Melbourne, and hundreds of kilometres from the generators powering the Snowy 2.0 pumps. This adds costs, $10 billion for 1,000km of 500kV double circuit transmission lines, and transmission losses.
  • Not only is Snowy 2.0 environmental vandalism, it isn’t economic.  The original $2 billion cost estimate is now expected to be over $10 billion, plus another $10 billion for transmission.
  • The total cost of Snowy 2.0 will be paid for by Australian taxpayers and NSW electricity consumers.
  • Snowy 2.0 is the worst project in the worst location

Please donate to support this campaign and our advocacy work protecting nature through community action. Thank you.