The National Parks Association of NSW today released a comprehensive research paper that found all of the claimed benefits of the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro storage project to be overstated or false. In releasing the Paper, the Executive Officer of NPA, Gary Dunnett, stated that “for the past 3 years since the March 2017 announcement of Snowy 2.0 there has been a steady stream of alarming information revealing from every angle Snowy 2.0 doesn’t stack up.”

For example, it is claimed that “Snowy 2.0 provides low emission energy”.
“But Snowy 2.0 will incur 50 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from its construction and first 10 years of operation – hardly providing ‘low emission energy’” Mr Dunnett said.

He added “even when Snowy 2.0 only pumps with renewable energy it will always lose 40% of the energy stored – far greater than other storage options.  Simply, 100 units in, only 60 units out”.
Another claim is that “Snowy 2.0 is ideally located between Sydney and Melbourne”.

“Snowy 2.0 is actually in the worst possible location, requiring major transmission upgrades, incurring far greater network losses than other storage and is vulnerable to transmission outages and constraints, as evidenced during the recent bushfires.  The best location for storage is at a load centre, not 500 kilometres away” Mr Dunnett said.

Further, Snowy Hydro and the Commonwealth Government have claimed “Snowy 2.0 will reduce electricity prices”. Mr Dunnett countered that “a report issued by Snowy Hydro shows that prices will increase, not decrease, as a result of Snowy 2.0”.

“Snowy 2.0 should not have been contemplated in the first place, due to its substantial, permanent environmental damage to Kosciuszko National Park.”

“There are many viable alternatives for energy storage, including other pumped hydro sites, batteries, demand response etc – but Snowy 2.0 is the most environmentally destructive, polluting, inefficient and expensive.  And Snowy 2.0 runs counter to the trend away from large power stations towards a decentralised National Electricity Market of multiple generation sources and storages, particularly at consumer premises.”

“The fact that Snowy 2.0 has been approved, contracts awarded ($5.1 billion) and construction commenced well before the environmental impacts have been assessed defies belief and the law of the land” Mr Dunnett said.  “And this is even more reprehensible as the project will substantially and permanently damage Kosciuszko – one of Australia’s iconic and unique natural places”.

“The Commonwealth Shareholding Ministers should revoke the approval of the Business Case on the grounds of inadequate estimation of the costs and projected returns of the project to the Australian public.  And the NSW Minister for Planning should refuse approval of the EIS on the grounds of inconsistency between the enormous scale and diminished benefits of the project against the National Park status of the development site” Mr Dunnett said.

“It is now manifestly clear that Snowy 2.0 is not as it has been portrayed.  It is time to pause and undertake a comprehensive review by independent experts, something that is standard practice for $multi-billion projects, particularly for a Government Corporation where it is the Australian community that bears the risks.”

“It would be tragic if Snowy 2.0 was constructed on the premise of claims that were never tested and later proven to be false.  At stake are $billions of taxpayers’ money, tens of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and thousands of hectares of Kosciuszko National Park” Mr Dunnett concluded.

ENDS