Ed,

Its design was flawed; its cost is already 10X the original estimate, from $2B to $20B, ($20,000,000,000.00), and still rising; Ditto for its construction schedule (from 4 to 12 years and is still extending.) And who is going to pay for all this mis-design and mismanagement? The consumer and our environment.

It will damage Kosciuszko NP by the clearing, and tunnelling, which will dump 20,000,000 tonnes of spoil (that is 1,333,000 15 tonne 10-wheel truck loads!), into the park. But even worse it will pump redfin perch, and other declared pests, between the Talbingo and Tantangara Reservoirs. From Tantangara they will spread into the Murray, Snowy, Murrumbidgee and Tumut headwaters. An ecological disaster.

But the most damming aspect of the project is that it won’t work. It takes more power to pump water uphill, than the power, which is generated when it goes downhill. In the case for Snowy 2, the estimate a an optimistic 4:3 ratio. That is ok if there is cheap excess power available to pump the water Up, compared to the inflated price that can be charged at peak times when the water goes Down.

The reason why pump storage worked in days-gone-by is that there were coal fired power stations, which “had to” operate 24/7. Hence, in the middle of the night they sold their excess power at “Off Peak Rates”. Of course, with our new green power, solar doesn’t produce any power for most of the day, and wind is often out of puff.
Definitely, not a reliable, cheap supply of lift-power.

There is another factor, which doesn’t seem to be addressed: The Tantangara Reservoir also sends water down a pipeline to Lake Eucumbene. From there it is used by other power stations and the western irrigation systems. So, what is the best use for its water?

And why is it that the greenies, who have had the Reflex paper manufacturer closedown because of the birdies, who had lived in harmony with the company for 35 years, are not marching to the Alps to have Snowy 2 cancelled?

John Ibbotson, Lawrence