$8 billion and counting… Is Snowy 2.0 a testament to Australia's ambition or a disaster in the making? What do you think? And let's be honest, across the world we have examples of megaprojects going wrong. Check this one from the UK: studio.ua-cam.com/users/videoJQIdmlWNA9A/edit
just to clarify the statement that the geological surveys weren't adequate is not completely true the project managers were told to use the correct TBM head for less solid soil by Snowy's engineering team, this advise was ignored and the current project managers have been replaced due to this failure. there is no issue with the concept or what it will provide even though there are issues with water security. but when a project manager who wasn't involved in any of the original projects was put in charge most likely due to political interference was the issue. now to the original pricing at 1.5 billion this figure would have only included the mechanical parts not the work to complete which should have never been quoted publicly but due to again political reasons it was used to promote government success this project should have been left in the hands of the original teams but wasn't.
snowy 2.0 is definitely a disaster!!! $8 billion Could’ve have been easily better spent towards other multiple renewable energy projects or much needed infrastructure across the country that is needed far & wide .Just reforming refilling or rehabilitating the two mining or abandoned quarries
@@rickhowell5192 Not always typical. Once upon a time Australian Governments were very effective at building things. Privatization and outsourcing destroyed their ability to oversee projects or control costs. The taxpayer is now at the the mercy of private foreign corporations.
@@amraceway Usually to get a contract a private company will minimize cost too look more financial pleasing . In reality they stipulate down the contract other cost in case unpredictable situations occur . Then is "important" who is the company that wins it , for some politicians.
Australia in a nutshell! This won't be finished until 2030 and will most likely end up costing $25Billion, meaning that the cost of cooking a piece of toast in your home will equate to roughly $1.75. Two executives getting pissed at the local pub seems like a great way to start ANY multi Billion dollar project - in Australia!
Mbas and politicians are the problem. Google the original scheme. They got their tunnelling up to 1 metre per hour back in the 1950s and built 150km of them Not gonna help wa much but do able
@@davefoord1259 except that the rain does not fall where the evaporation occurred. You would have seen the damage to the environment caused by government lack of control over water harvesting from rivers, so don't suggest that government ineptitude and farm production lobbying won't displace the use of its energy utilisation.
Snowy 2.0 is a MASSSIVE success. It's real purpose is to divert vast sums of tax-payer money into the pockets of a select few (as are all of the renewable energy projects). By this metric, it is a huge success.
The same with Duddon's nuclear policy, remember that they couldn't even build railway station carparks & you think that they can build a dozen nuclear power stations in 10 years?????
@@ettaxi1082 They WONT be building the plants, those companies which specialize in them will. It is not necessary to build that many nuclear installations in ten years. Simply keep the existing station going, and build NEW high quality COAL FIRED power plants instead.
There's enough coal worldwide to last thousands of years. Which is why the China has built dozens of new coal based generators. The green nature worshipping religion is responsible for the Snowy 2.0 debacle and similar wasteful alternatives to cheap coal power generation.
They fixed a pothole? Woah 😮 Quick take a photo of it and frame it, because it will be a pothole again in 2 weeks. They can't even fix friggin potholes properly!
@@trevormiller1366 of course the lot of them have,. Taxpayer is the loser. Dont get me wrong, the project is a no brainer - its just corrupt people in the private and public sector have fleeced taxpayers
Any bets on if it is finished it will be sold off to some 'Prominent Political Donor' for a fraction of its cost to the taxpayer, and all the profits will be directed offshore like the gas from fracking?
@brucelee3388 LNP is bold with taxpayers money. French submarines Snowy 2's wet battery in the land of decades long droughts. $2BILLION Snowy 2's exploding $15 BILLION budget. Private investors in government guaranteed monopoly. Private investors who can not make a profit to pay tax on over capitalised projects. Natural gas not available.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 What sort of stream of consciousness do you have for you to be able to dump that? If it made more sense I'd say it was AI but I think that's au natural
Never give a project to lowest tender , especially if it’s lowest tender by 3 billion dollars ! Project has been a shit show from day 1 for that reason !
@@beauzo9965 It was set up by the LNP, they always claim "get it earlier, cheaper" but only plan the sell-off, not the making it work. No need to protect the Australian people as the corporations will do the right thing... EG, modded the NBN, Tony thought that Telstra, sold off by the LNP, would just give back the bits that were needed, making it cheaper, Telstra didn't, higher prices, old wiring broke down, meaning it had to redo to the same, taking longer, Now has to be redone, again to get it to what was needed by 1999, instead of building for 2099.
@@alanhilder1883 Typical corporation policies for immediate profits. Long term projects can be done only supervised and managed by governments control or government bodies that expands more the 4 political terms . Unfortunately government changes every 3-4 years , projects like these can take 16 years.
You kept saying unexpected geology? WHY was it unexpected when 150 million $'s were spent on geological surveys of the sites????? $150,000,000 pissed against the wall for SFA.
My information is that they did not look at the previous survey data undertaken for the original Snowy Scheme. The geology of the area includes limestone and hidden caves. One cave was exposed when the snowy mountains highway started to collapse.
It was rushed and lacked due diligence and more extensive test drilling and geosurvey work as then PM Malcolm Turbull wanted a signature project on his record, and expanding the Snowy Scheme was the only scheme he could get the Liberal-National coalition to agree to. They were vociferously against a network of smaller dams/batteries
In their rush, the Turnbull govt ignored the findings of their environmental scientists who said Snowy 2.0 would drive native species to extinction, pollute the river system and requires too much clearing of habitat to build the transmission lines. 1000s of off-river PHES sites had been identified & would have been cheaper & quicker to build, & closer to power users so without such extensive & habitat wrecking transmission lines, needed through the national park for this most energy inefficient project with its 27km of pumping. Turnbull chose it for his ego, probably talked into it by those who saw it as a top way to slow the transition to renewable energy. @@C0wCakes
There was a programme on the Abc that said they were warned of the geology, and it was suggested that more investigation should be taken....obviously ignored.
Just an idea, when you show an article that you are referring to don’t keep moving it around the screen then we can quickly read it while listening to the commentary
Amateurs. In Argentina, a $2 billion nuclear reactor (Atucha II) costs near $15 billion and took more than 20 years to complete. Added just 700 MWh to the national grid.
Don't you worry about that! Our opposition has a plan to build 6 small modular nuclear reactors which they say will cost a couple of billion but experts quote numbers closer to 30. They expect it to take 6 years to build but no one has managed to build one of these things yet so I bet we get a bigger bill, less power in a longer time. No way will Australian politicians let Argentinians beat them for stupidity!!
The problem lies not in the idea of the project. The problem lies in how construction companies conduct their projects. 1. They promise something in a time line they can not deliver. Doomed from the start, just to get the project. 2. They plow in too early, too quick, and without due diligence. 3. They think that the risk is worth the possible profit, which is why they seem to go bankrupt all the time. The problems are not the projects themselves, but the culture of the companies that run them.
Whooo, you have totally misrepresented much of the engineering of this project and what you say it can replace. For example, SH2.0 will not in essence add to the generating capacity of the Snowy scheme. It is only to act as a battery. SH1.0 depends upon water flowing into dams from snow melting. SH2.0 depends upon power generated elsewhere. You quote coal fired generation as an average of 600MW, whilst showing an image of a power station which is typically made up of at least 4 units totalling over 2000MW. That power station can run almost 24/7. SH2.0 you quote as a capacity of 2200MW, but that is not running 24/7 . It has to purchase power to pump water up the hill and only when excess power is available. There is much much more to the engineering. But bear in mind that even SH1.0 was only ever considered as a peak load backup, never a main source of power.
The snowy hydro 2.0 will purchase energy to pump up the top of the hill when prices are low, then sell it back when prices are high. From what I know about how much money wind farms generate, I wouldn't be surprised if whoever operates the hydro battery will end up rolling in cash.
Thankyou for setting the Story STRAIGHT, see, the Government lies to you Every Day, They move the "Goal posts" to fit their Story. Also will never accept that they got it Wrong somehow, just blame it on the Media crew.
We have a similarly cost increasing project here in the UK. An old freight railway line was to be turned into a passenger line. The almost 200 year old branch line runs over old deep coal mine workings. The project is literally run and overseen by youngsters fresh out of university and who live behind a laptop screen. They honestly have no idea how the real world works, nor understand just how problematic old coal mine workings can be. Literature from their project claims that any mining subsidence has ended. That claim has bitten their backsides on many occasions. Bridges have sunk, the newly laid track has been relaid 3 times already and still isn't carrying passengers. Costs have tripled and stations delayed by years. Sounds to me like this hydro project is also ran by youngsters fresh out of university and who are buried behind their laptop screens. People with absolutely no experience of how the real world works...
Clearly they should have done far more in researching the ground where the project were to be bored. The excessive over-costs are more than unfair to the taxpayers.
_Clearly they should have done far more in researching the ground where the project were to be bored._ Here in Australia, we say, _she'll be right, mate,_ and then charge blindly in. Meticulously doing one's due diligence and carefully planning is very un-Australian.
@@pindapoy1596 _Not sufficient research_ This is Australia, the land of, _she'll be all-right, mate._ Who needs research, planning, and preparation? Just go for it. She'll be all-right, mate.
@@grasonicus It is actually true what you say but not being Australian myself I would rather stay away from giving opinions regarding your country. What I can say though is that being a rather old man, I am always astonished by the modern superficiality that you well describe as "just go for it".And this superficiality and lack of foresight is plaguing our world and gets us into trouble in many aspects of our lives, from buying things not knowing if we can afford them to getting involved in wars not knowing what we want to achieve and if at all possible.
This is true but the reality is that they give us an upfront discount when quoting in order to win the job. Once anything unexpected comes up, they claim that it's not their fault and they charge variations at full price with zero discount. To make matters worse, we even have special clauses for them to meet deadlines where we give them huge bonuses that they rely on to make it profitable. The contractors then build sub-standard infrastructure full of defects in order to get that money as we don't hire independent certifiers. We trust them to do it all until they prove us wrong and then we hire our own engineers like the Metro after discovering $5B of defects.
Realistically no contractor would take on this job without assurances on the risk items. And if they did, they would just go bust when the first issue occured, as has happened before. The onus is on the client (the lib scomo government) to have done their due diligence and obtained sufficient design efforts to know what the job was going to be. It was never a $1.5B project if they had done their homework. It's on us.
@robertcampbell6521 I would not say that without knowing in detail what the bid documents were requiring the contractors to actually do. Were the contractors supposed to analyze the soil or were they given all the pertinent data which later became invalid and insufficient (and maybe inaccurate)?
@@pindapoy1596 Apparently there was bore logs which showed the geology and rock strengths and depths,No company would take on that sort of job without that information. Variations on large construction jobs always occur especially where you are tunnelling or piling as rock strengths can fluctuate between bore holes but you can't continue to go back to the client and keep on extending completion dates and wanting more money,that company should pay liquidated damages to us as the completion date keeps on blowing out . They are the supposed experts they set completion date and cost and its up to them to make good on their contractual obligations otherwise they pay LD's
@@robertcampbell6521 I have worked on the Eurotunnel project (railroad tunnel between France and England) but as an electrical engineer, However I am famliar with such problems from having been "in that working environment". One should look at the tunneling company contract in order to establish what were the responsibilies of the parties and if the tunneling company is entitled to compensation if soil conditions change from what the initial boring samples had shown. Obviously I am not familiar with the contract and I have almost no knowledge about soil mechanics and geological studies. What I know is that a well written contract will clarifyall liabilities.
The LNP were already told by their scientists that the environmental impacts of Snowy 2.0 would be devastating to the delicate mountain ecosystem. The head scientist resigned in protest due to their findings being ignored. The project would drive native species to extinction, pollute the rivers, & require hundreds of hectares to be cleared for the transmission lines. Not surprising to hear Snowy 2 was planned on the back of a beer coaster...should have stayed just that..a lame idea thought up in the pub. How many off-river pumped hydro energy projects could have been built & be in service already, in any of the 1000s of sites identified as suitable, & closer to where the power is needed..therefore not requiring transmission lines through one of most iconic national parks? And with much shorter pumping distances of usually only 500m or so, they would have done the job way more efficiently than the 27km pumping distance energy losses involved in Snowy 2! The anti-renewable energy LNP knew this project would slow the transition to RE. That has always been their aim.
At 02:45, this is absolutely incorrect. Australia's largest power station - Eraring near Newcastle, NSW - generates 720MW of electricity per generating unit, giving a total of 2,880MW. There isn't a hydro-electric power station anywhere in Australia that comes close to it. I'm not against hydro, in fact I am for it, but Australia is short on water resources suitable for it, which is why the Snowy scheme already has pumped hydro in place at some of the stations there. Maintenance and breakdowns aside, Eraring can generate electricity all the time and we are going to need more than an additional 2,200MW of hydro to back up the wind-solar folly being fed to us by the Minister for Blackouts, Chris Bowen.
Thanks for watching! Our script was referring to the average capacity of a typical coal-fired power plant. Snowy 2.0's unique strength lies in its ability to store vast amounts of energy and then release it on demand, acting as a giant battery for the grid. This makes it a valuable asset for balancing the increasing share of renewable sources like wind and solar, which can be intermittent.
This person knows what there talking about--"black-out Bowen"--& ''Don Quixote"-will destroy this country with "Gross-Stupitity"--& with "Wrong-Way-Turnbull"-formally in charge,-"that is the "KISS-OF-Death"-for ANY engineering Project
@@heretodaygonetomaui3567 There would be multiple levels of redundant systems to reduce the likelyhood of things like that happening. Just like Nuclear or coal it isn't perfect, flawless or foolproof. But systems would be in place. What you are saying is basically the equivalent of "why step outside, you've got a 1 in 3 million chance of being run over while going to check your letterbox.
Given that hydro electricity generation is around 70% efficient, and pumping that water back up the hill is around 130% inefficient, only to get back 70%of efficiency, that 8 billion dollars would have gone a long way into subsidising home batteries for virtual power plants in the suburbs where it's produced and consumed, and it would have been working already. Nice presentation by the way.
Are you for real? Like really? I put it to you that you have utterly no idea what you're talking about. In fact that comment is so naïve I'm shocked. I could tell you how it works but with that level of ignorance you won't understand because it's already pre worked out in your mind that you're so vastly superior to the engineers that designed the project that any information to the contrary will likely be viewed by you as a lie. Now I know how flat earthers think. It is true the world is going to hell.
Or they could have put community scale batteries in every postcode & kept them publicly owned. Or could have chosen any of the 1000s of off-river pumped hydro sites identified which at least would be much more efficient than Snowy 2's further energy loss due to the 27km pumping distance. The endless cost & time blowouts suit the LNPs aim to slow the transition to RE.
@@annabel5200 wouldn't that be great if our suburbs were self powered, only requiring topups in gloomy conditions. Problem is, who's going to pay for the near obsolete poles and wires? Monkeys are more intuitive than the AEMO Feds.
I recall from the very first mention of this by Turnbull and the Libs that Hydro Engineers said "It won't work.", "It's not financially viable." "The rock is so hard that they will take years to drill through." etc etc etc. The LNP had been in Government for 4 years and came in with a promise of "building reliable power stations." Up to this point they had done NOTHING. So Turnbull came up with this disaster after HIS NBN Disaster that cost 3 times more than the gold plated ALP system would have cost. Morrison re-announced this after his party rolled Turnbull so he OWNS it now. Again Morrison promised: "If private enterprise won't build power stations then we will!" So here we are 11 years since their promise of new power and what we have is a white elephant that won't produce power but will store excess for use later. IF they ever get it finished. To think what they COULD have built in this time. And they want us to believe they can build Nuclear........
100% right, Libs are always pushing power prices up, higher prices and more GST cash .... NBN cost blow out means higher cost to the average aussie and more money the Governments gets back in GST.... this blame game both sides of government play on tax and who is better at running the economy is rubbish give me a Government who can be accountable for their actions.
What type of rock is that? The Swiss drilled the Gotthard tunnels through granite and gneiss, within time and below budget, with TBMs which afaik are from the same company. It's normally the faults and very soft rock that are causing problems.
@@ralfbaechle snowy 2.0 was a bit of a vanity project for PM Turnbull. Bit of a rush job. Apparently one of the times TBM got stuck it was huge miscalculation in change if direction. Don't quote be but trying to make a 800m turn in 8m ....
You may be right because 2025 gang will go bash lone China, Extreme naval battles World depression & wars they fo hand in hand No import nor exports Conscription of young angry people So it may even be put on hold... & may even be worse later many many years then 2032
I call it Dutton pulls the plug on it and uses the money to build a piece of energy infrastructure that is actually useful, 24/7 reliable and far cheaper.
The original Snowy Project was finished ahead of schedule and under budget. This was when there wasn't all the environmental and OHS bs and red tape and people just went to work and worked.
and the workers then went on to build farms, bakeries, houses, roads... learnt the language, embraced the lifestyle... building the australia we enjoyed up until the "noughties"... and what was the original snowy FOR? AGRICULTURE. the hydro power was a nice "added bonus"...
My Great Gand children will stilll be paying for this collosal waste of taxpayer dollars. The only viable, zero emmission, 24/7 base load power, is Nuclear. Australia is quite happy to put reactors on our new submarines, yet we cannot have power generation from it. And we cannot have an adult conversation about it becase of government missinformation of costs and risks. AND because laws will need to be changed before investors will actually look at the projects and give us true costings and timelines.
Even Peter Dutton is beginning now to realise how stupid this ideas is. If it was done 30 years ago it would have been great - and I blame greens and others on the left for it not hapenning, plus conservatives not really giving a shit. Now it's way too late, and the politics of where to put them too difficult. it will take 15 years, and if you think Snowy 2.0 was a waste of money, it's nothing compared to nuclear if we tried it now. But the insurmountable problem is that a whole bunch of old, expensive coal fired power stations have to close way before the nuclear could be started. If we stop building renewables, what would replace them? More coal? All of this would massively push up the cost of electricity. Renewables with grid scale battery storage are far cheaper and much, much, much, faster to install. Please go and do some proper research and stop mouthing coalition propaganda.
As an Australian myself, I wasn't asked about whether I was okay with nuclear powered submarines! Because they certainly wouldn't have got my vote! I saw this as a sneaky way to introduce nuclear energy into Australia! And I'm not having any of it! And no amount of talking is going to convince me to allow that poison into this country! Yeah yeah it's safe until it isn't and then it's my problem! No! It's a machine, like all machines can break down and when it does, not if but when, it poisons everything! Over my dead body! For those who prefer nuclear energy, I heard there's cheap land for sale in Fukushima prefecture Japan. You are more than welcome to test your assumption at your earliest convenience....
At least the subs will be here before snowy 2.0 is finished.....oh wait , 2040 for the subs... bugger I'll be dead before I see any of my tax dollars back...😂😅😊🇦🇺
600 mega watts for a coal fired power station?You jest ,sire.Loy Yang has an output of over 2,200 MW'sThe power station Hazelwood,destroyed by the stupid Labor /Green parties was 1600 MW's and that is for 24 hours a day every day for 12 months of the year.Politicians should stay away from things that they know nothing about,leave it to competent people.Turnbull, who made this decision was the worst prime minister the Liberal party ever had.8 $ billion would have built a nice nuclear power station,and probably would be near completion by now, pumping power into the grid all year long with greater output,and no pollution or environmental degradation,allowing it takes Japan 5 years to build nuclear power stations,
Hazelwood HAD to go - it was the filthiest power station in the developed world and saw us routinely criticised by the rest of the world as a result (and rightly so).
@@gregorymatthies5297 Hazelwood didn't burn coal, it burned the freeways and towns around it, there is tons of asbestos there with the resulting mesothelioma cases in workers, and the private owners were the ones who shut it down because it started to cost them money in maintenance. Granted, it had a good run given it was built to last 40 years and made it past that, but still. France and Japan shut it down because private companies didn't find it to be worth running anymore. Blaming Greens and Labor misses the critical point that Victoria doesn't own the power stations anymore and doesn't get a say in whether or not they stay open.
The concept is a good one but only works where the geology is compatible. There is no such thing as too many soil sample test borings. That's a management problem. At what point would a nuclear power plant have been more cost effective?
I worked on Perisher Skiitube in the 80s. Despite an absolute stack of core samples, the TBM never made daily target even once. Final price was rumoured to be more than double.
Nuclear power plants are estimated to be at $9B for 1MW. Since this is a 2.2MW project, you're probably looking at $20M for an equivalent nuclear power plant. This should definitely come out cheaper, cleaner and better for the environment. No risk of a nuclear meltdown with this project.
Look up Gambler's ruin. Had proper risk assessment been completed up front - things might be different. Simply trying to spend you way out of trouble (and not understand/manage the risks that are still not fully defined) is not how to do it. What makes you think the overrun is "only" 8Bn ???
This cannot replace coal power plants, bc this isn’t a power plant. It’s a power bank as you stated several times. By themselves, storage banks always have a net loss of energy. If it was connected to renewable energy power plants such as wind and solar, those could replace coal power plants, and this power bank could store that energy for use when those power plants aren’t producing energy, but this power bank cannot produce net gains in energy.
Thanks for watching and sharing your insightful comment! You're absolutely right. Snowy 2.0 is indeed an energy storage solution, not a power plant itself. It relies on renewable sources like wind and solar to generate the electricity it stores.
Whooo, you have totally misrepresented much of the engineering of this project and what you say it can replace. For example, SH2.0 will not in essence add to the generating capacity of the Snowy scheme. It is only to act as a battery. SH1.0 depends upon water flowing into dams from snow melting. SH2.0 depends upon power generated elsewhere. You quote coal fired generation as an average of 600MW, whilst showing an image of a power station which is typically made up of at least 4 units totalling over 2000MW. That power station can run almost 24/7. SH2.0 you quote as a capacity of 2200MW, but that is not running 24/7 . It has to purchase power to pump water up the hill and only when excess power is available. There is much much more to the engineering. But bear in mind that even SH1.0 was only ever considered as a peak load backup, never a main source of power.
Once in operation, Snowy 2.0 will store the excess renewable on the grid during solar and wind peaks. NEM shows the graphs where energy prices go negative almost every day, and wind farms are regularly shut down when production exceeds demand. It is widely understood that we need 200% renewable generation, but without storage we remain coal dependent as solar doesn't generate at night. It is both a battery and a generation plant, it performs both functions depending on its mode of operation. It is expensive and whether it represents value to the tax payer is yet to be seen, Snowy 1 was costly at the time, but look at its worth now
This focus on guesswork and media bias is BS. The concept has strong engineering substance. Playing with amatuerish cost figures without explaining what was included in that price at that timeframe. IE when the full extensive value is priced guess what the expense or costs rose. When the electrical output distribution is included it has become a surprise extra cost. Who would believe it? Its amazing how many billions are added so quickly, with no breakdown or explanations of what those extras are or how the timeline or inflation has contributed to these figures. Has no-one noticed by design this is very long term infrastructure that has national power and water benefits. Forgettable ABC and political negative feedback and focus is not helpful. The original Snowy project has proved very worthwhile and a great investment. It was not a profit centre but a resource. When completed the Snowy 2 infrastructure will be a durable supporting infrastructure not designed to compete with commercial interests. When times conspire it will prevent runnaway price gauging. By reuse of water storage to create more power generation in times of need the country will get value. The value over the next 100 years will be immense. The value in water resource terms can be extended by reducing evaporation losses by placing floating solar power systems. Why has there been no push on the electrical distribution network and design? Floods and droughts storms and uncertainty are Australian facts of life. Get real and get it done. Thanks for the efforts of the many skilled workers involved.
All good points but is it going to be publicly or privately owned? What assurances have we it won't be sold off or change hands several times during its lifespan?
Well it does make good maths, when the 1.4GW is Surplus to needs. i.e has no purpose and would be wasted, and can be used to store potential energy. A lot of day time solar energy goes to waste, this causes strain on the grid and dilutes feedbacks for rooftop solar owners. Providing a use for this surplus energy is a good thing.
It depends. In current decay state of Australian network electricity price can vary from negative to $1.5/kwh (when they tie AEMO robot with rope to the anchor to prevent it from fly to the sky) in one day, so the very idea to buy energy for 2c and sell it for 30c is not so bad. Only its conversion to reality.
@@evil17 Yes, we could. We should stop throwing more money at this bottomless pit of a project and redirect it somewhere usual. Nuclear reactors would be an excellent choice.
@@evil17 That's not true as a nuclear reactor is $9B/MW. This project adds 2.2MW which means you can only get 1 nuclear reactor if things go well. Since it's our first one ever, odds are it'll take 15 years to build at a cost of $30B. Plus, nobody would want to live near a nuclear reactor but everyone's more than happy to live near this project.
@@elitechampion Yes the price is going up generally, 2.2MW of hydro is only good for less than half that as it has to pump up hill at some time to replenish, it wont take 30 years if we get our act together, China are building another 11 reactors in 5 years and a lot of people are happy to live near/ next to reactors with 430 reactors in 32 countries there are a lot of people with one in their area.
Florence got stuck in a geologic unit called Kellys Plain Volcanics. Volcanics are notoriously unstable. You can see that without even digging a hole, just by looking at the lidar. Foreseeable.
No surprises here: The costs of not going nuclear 30 years ago for a country with their own uranium reserves. Now it is too late, just ask Elon to ship more batteries so existing solar panels can be put to proper use.
30 or more years ago nuclear "may" have been viable as there wasn't practical renewable energy generation. But it's always been very expensive and very highly subsidised by governments all over the world so people could actually afford to buy electricity. If you ignore how much general taxation feeds it.
@@C0wCakes Now of course it is way too late for nuclear. The future is batteries in all forms, shapes and technologies. SM2 was a good idea put into the wrong hands. On a global scale this is more and more the case. I talked to the right people who built Nordstream II. They knew from the start that the project was doomed so no surprise to the sort of unusual outcome.
If we can blow $368 billion on nuclear submarines that we don't need and will never receive, then we can spend $8 billion on something as useful as this.
Thanks for watching and for your insightful comment! While Snowy 2.0 offers impressive storage capacity and duration, the escalating costs and delays are certainly cause for concern. Grid-scale batteries like the Tesla Megapacks have a higher cost per MWh at the moment. However, battery technology is advancing rapidly, and costs are expected to continue to fall. If we consider the potential for future cost reductions and the speed and flexibility of battery deployment, it's possible that a network of grid-scale batteries could offer a more cost-effective and adaptable solution in the long run.
@@mike_w-tw6jdinterested that you say its 80% efficient. Is that returning 80% of the power required to pump the water up the hill when it returns back down the hill under gravity? Or is it returning 80% of the cost of the power purchased to pump the water up the hill on its return trip? Pumping water up a hill is very energy intensive to overcome gravity and friction loss, and water running down hill losses a lot of energy through friction loss. What about the lost water through evaporation and seepage once pumped to the top dam? It is not possible to recover all the water pumped.
I just cannot believe this makes any sense whatsoever . I spent years on major projects and when they mentioned the original budget I thought it very unlikely . the very thought of using electricity to pump water uphill only to let it come down again just seems absurd . What it really means is there is a negative energy from the beginning along with the debt that will last for years . Absolute nuts.
Whilst I'm no fan of the transition to renewables (unnecessary, IMO), it is still important to clarify one important advantage this project has over batteries: storage capacity: Snowy 2.0 boasts 2,200 MW / 350,000 MWh. Batteries can not do that. Not even close. The largest battery storage system worldwide is the Edwards & Sanborn Solar Plus Storage Project in California, USA with a 875 MW / 3,287 MWh capacity across 4,600 acres. If you compare their capacity and cost, Snowy 2.0 will provide 106x more storage capacity than the largest battery installation, yet the battery costs approx. $1.8 billion, making it 21x more expensive $$ per MWh, even with Snowy 2.0 costing $8 billion. The biggest battery in the world is 21x more expensive but can only provide 1/100th of the storage of Snowy 2.0. Batteries technology is just not suitable for mass grid-scale storage. Batteries are great for frequency stabilisation, but not for storage.
_Batteries technology is just not suitable for mass grid-scale storage._ Amen. When will the morons ever learn that? Wind, solar and batteries have been in vogue since the 80s, yet there's not one town in the world with a population of 3000 plus relying solely on them. But nuclear...
Our country is good a blowing mega bucks on stupid projects 🙄 they are so hell bent spending money on Renewable energy solutions that simply dont work and distroy environments and views to set up such as wind farms and solar farms, the foot print that it uses is huge so lets cut down trees that supply oxygen and clean carbon dioxide for projects that are not up for the task at powering Australia so still need coal powered plants to supply demand and coal we have heaps but our government sells it to overseas buyers and we the people are paying stupid money for electricity and gas and yes we have plenty of gas and again our government sells it off to again overseas so they benefit while we are suffering legitimately choosing to put food on the table or pay the bills....this country is pathetic our government is woke and basically wont even look at nuclear power to give the people relief they are hard and fast stuck and stubborn with this silly renewables energy plans...and the snowy project has blown out big time the idea is good but implementation of the plan they have royally screwed this up...
Thanks for watching and sharing your perspective! You're right, megaprojects like Snowy 2.0 are incredibly complex. Our focus was on highlighting some key challenges it's facing, but there's always more to the story.
An Australian here, yes it is a balanced report. Although others may not agree. It is indeed more complex, it is extremely political. The project was initiated by a conservative government who have been long opposed to any renewable energy, or doing anything to combat global warming such as a "Carbon Tax". Yes pumped Hydro is green and renewable, but it is a project for an incumbent energy provider and it has been suggested that Snowy 2.0 is being built to prevent development of other renewable solutions like battery storage or sources like solar or wind. With the costs rising, there is some doubt it will ever pay for itself. The same political party, now in opposition has a policy of preventing all renewable energy development and going with Nuclear power and as Australia has a lot of very old Coal and Gas generators, the plan is to keep them going until Nuclear arrives. Thus some of said that the Nuclear option is merely a Trojan Horse for the coal industry. The cost blow-out of Snowy 2.0 is a major issue for Australia, but Nuclear is orders of magnitude more costly. The there is the water problem. There is not very much of it in Australia.
Lived here in the 60s and 70s. My father, a £10 Scotsman, helped build the original scheme. I now live just up the road. And yes the 2.0 scheme is a clusterfuck of gigantic proportions. There is no other story. 🤷
@@alcampbell5831 always makes me laugh when I read some clown thinking you can "combat climate change". Looks like you're the mirth bringer today! You conspiracy theorists are hilarious.
It's not a disaster, it is a Nation Building Project whose costs and lifespan needs to be spread over 100 years. The problem is that Politicians need to stop lying about the costs. No one complained when the Sydney Harbour Bridge was built as a 6 lane highway when there was only 60 cars in the city, because the Citizen Tax Payers knew it was a project that would employ people for 10 years, and would last for 200 years, so no one worried about the 60 year loan. Why did no one worry? Because they were told exactly what it was for, exactly how long it would last, exactly who would benefit, and exactly what it would cost. The same can be said for the Train Networks with 70 year loans, The Postal Service with multiple large loans and expenditures over many decades, The Phone and Telecommunications Network - right up it was Privatised and we were lied to. Why did Foreign Governments find value in out Phone Infrastructure that our own Government was too incompetent to operate, even though it was making massive profits.? No one complained about the Bicentennial Road Project where Highway 1 was upgraded the whole way around the country, and every road that carried more than 1 car per week was asphalted, and singe lane roads were widen into at least 2 lanes, with regular overtaking lanes. No one complains about Hospitals, Schools, Airports, Ports, Water and Sewerage. Why does everyone only ever complain about upgrades to the Electrical Infrastructure???
The drawings of the Snowy 2.0, proudly displayed by The Moronson Govt, were dated in the mid 90's. So certainly not their idea but a idea rejected 20 years before.
Thanks for watching and sharing your perspective! You're right, the concept of linking those reservoirs has been around for a while, but the scale and ambition of Snowy 2.0 make it a whole new ballgame. Early studies might have hinted at the idea, but it wasn't until recently that technology and circumstances aligned to make it a reality (or at least, attempt to make it one).
The main reason for this project was to delay the transition to renewables. In this regard it is a big success. Nuclear power is proposed for the same reason by the way.
So the end result is more solar and wind capacity that we need to pump water up a hill for a very short term increase in generating capacity. Somebody needs to document the numbers of power required to pump the water and the power returned, as well as the water lost in evaporation and seepage once pumped.
Don't be dissuaded by SH2.0 - it is an instance of pumped hydro being done badly, but otherwise pumped hydro is a very viable answer for energy storage. Look up the 'duck's back' to see why it makes sense. At least in principle.
The long and the short of it: If you pull the plug, you have wasted all the previous work and money, plus the added cost of withdrawing all the equipment.
Even after the cost blow out Snowy Hydro 2 with 350GWhr of storage (ie over 300 big batteries) is still far more cost effective as an energy storage system than big batteries, typically thirty five times more. The issues the builders encountered here are run of the mill for large scale engineering projects and as engineers do, will be fixed. The Australian landscape can probably support four more such pumped storage projects. To meet GHG emmissions targets, we just need to get on and build them asap. The only alternative is a large scale nuclear energy program
Two aspect, do nothing and you go nowhere. But when you do something, do the science and engineering properly. Keep politicians out of the operational issues, but also choose your project engineers carefully. Quality not rushed overconfidence.
Nothing to do with unions, this time. All the blame is on rushed process skipping extensive geo surveys. So you can quite union bashing & go do an 60-80 week without weekends, holidays, sick leave or a pension at the end of it.
The orginal geological survey data still exists and I understand it was never requested. Shortly after the Snowy Mountains highway was completed, the near Yarrangobilly River the road surface began to sink. There was a cave under the road. Driving along the road, limestone out crops can be seen. I actually spoke to a geologist about the caves and they were not even aware of their existance.
Maybe they should get a second opinion on the project from China. No-one builds more mega projects than they do and are looking to improve relations with just about anyone. That way the project might actually finish in a timely maner and on budget. It also gives businesses like Italian Webuild and Dutch Clough opportunity learn from their expertise increasing the likelihood of success on future projects.
Nobody needs China's tofu dreg construction, as for improving relations between countries, they have a border dispute with every one of their neighbours so no thanks.
You could have installed solar systems and batteries on every house in Australia by the time this project is complete and still saved billions. Malcom Turnbull was explicitly told at the time that the project was underdeveloped and more due diligence was needed prior to sign off. In an election year he ignored the experts...
Nice summary, but this sort of thing will always happen when politicians are given the opportunity to make grand announcements. Realities become someone else's problems, they want the glory right now.
To go fully wind/solar and solve the problem of intermittency, we need a lot of storage. Equivalent of 70 Snowy2 projects. Let that inspire you for a moment.
A "typical", power station produces 600 MW??? Where did that figure come from? Of the 8 power stations scheduled for closure by 2037, only one, produces less than 600 MW, Collie (WA) at 300 MW. The next lowest is Muja (WA) at 850MW. The total generating capacity loss (if they stay on schedule), will be 13,486MW, of continuous electricity supply.
In reality there is no such thing as a cheap renewal power source. The major problem with renewable power is the fact that they all depend on the weather. You can understand the disaster that is Snowy River2, it was dreamed up in a pub where it should have stayed.
Recent reports are now expecting costs to blow out to over $15 billion. A great example of Australia. Unable to do anything without massive delays and cost blowouts.
It seems like they should have drilled core samples to determine exactly what the geology was throughout the entire route and used seismic ground penetrating scans too. All before the time and cost were estimated. It's hard to imagine a blunder this big could happen if so.
I think one of the most important subjects not covered by this video is the community impact. It was promised that the project would be a nett positive for the communities local to the project, yet like many large projects, the community impact study and statement has been poorly done
forgot to mention that the original snowy was on time, on budget, and was primarily intended for irrigation, in a time when teh government knew that FARMING was crucial, and actually supported the PRODUCTION OF FOOD. the electricity aspect was a nice side effect, the "icing on the cake"...
If they hope to recoup costs by passing it onto consumers then canning it now is the best option. Otherwise it will be another case of a big corporation having its cake and eating it too.
Huge Pumps and pipes are not known for their efficiency and will loose enormous amounts of expensive energy. What are the project energy losses for pumping vast quantities of water up hill ? What is the on going maintenance of all these pumps and pipes ( underground tunnels) ? I still hope the project will work ( even partially) but have doubts.
The pumping is/will be powered by excess generation when renewables are producing more than the grid requires. So apart from transmission and regular maintenance costs its free electricity, and cheaper and more efficient than restricting production. It's basic economics of power systems and generation.
@@C0wCakes This is a sound theory but I didn't think we had any excess generation in NSW/Victoria. Especially if the battery incentives take off in November, there will be a lot less solar during the day.
Love❤ it, What a brilliant project. All semi free energy projects the require geotechnical effort to invoke power, are subject to immense cost expansions. We in New Zealand had the same issues with FDi in Te Anau, where the rock was Neiss, and really hard. And the Clyde dam, subject to huge Lakeshore effective stress improvements, only achievable vua upstream dewatering and stress relieving rock removal after huge expense of extra seismic surveys and drilling.
The Fourth Briridge was started in 1882. It took eight years and a list of impressive statistics. The main thing it set off was development skill, continued through to the sixties and who knows onwards...... The Burg Khalifa project was a period in history between 2003 and 2012. The infra structure contracts are still being extended outward. Next generations need to build, plan, and .......develop. The final cost is not a cost but part of Australia's economy. Dubai's economy is attracting investment because it has completed the Burg Khalifa.
The government is not the government we had in this country back in the 50s, where they can actually get something done probably on time and on budget, that would be almost impossible today
Looks like they started florence off straight into top soil. Ive seen other tunnel boring projects where they tunnel conventionally into the hill till they get to relatively stable rock before getting the tbm started. Still serms better to me to do it with small hole drilling and blasting like they did in the original scheme
The ecological impact worries me. Such a beautiful part of Australia and a gorgeous place to camp. I always drive an hour out of my way to camp (brilliant free campground near by) there when driving interstate. Hopefully the ecosystem doesn’t suffer but even if it’s fine, I may not be able to camp there anymore… highly sensitive to noise and frequencies. Even gas pipes can create a sound that many can’t hear but that will drive people like myself insane… but we won’t know till it’s done I guess.
The original scheme has had massive negative impacts on the Lower Snowy River which are only now being partially and inadequately rectified by allowing more water to flow in it.
@@C0wCakes and it was all probably put into action due to lobbyists and politicians trying to scratch their friends backs with a large gov contract while pretending it’ll be good for us and the environment 🙄 Thanks for the confirmation. Best to know but utterly heartbreaking when those spots out in nature are the best places in our country.
The UK opened a power station exactly like this 40 years ago in 1984, the idea is nothing new. The UK one, construction started in 1974 and took ten years to build. At the time it was the largest engineering project in Europe. The final cost was just shy of Half a Billion UK £ 40 years back so, scale that up for inflation etc. Anyone interested, just google Dinorwig Power Station, Wales. It has 6x 300 MW turbines and can go from zero to maximum output in 12 sceonds. Maximum output is 1724 MW, and the stored capacity (size of the top reservoir) is 9.1 GWh.
What do I think? I think the first parts of the constructions will be redundant by the time it is finished (if it ever is). I know that what was once an almost pristine spot for camping and fishing has been destroyed forever. I've camped recently at the top end of Tantangara and the noise and light from the worksite is an assault on the senses 24/7. It is noise pollution at its worst! The Fishery will suffer from the constant rise and fall of water levels much like Joumana Pondage. Added to that it is all but guaranteed to "relocate" Redfin Perch from Talbingo to Tantangara. I think that there could have been quite a few Nuclear generators built for the cost up to date and they would all be running at full capacity NOW!
Apart from unexpected geology issues, any projects being managed under a Labor government will ALWAYS go way over budget because of unions pushing for higher wages and other benefits that were not considered in feasibility studies and cost estimates.
everything Australia does on this scale is awfully managed. Personally, as a former Defence member, I think it's down to very badly written contracts and the erosion of the public sector. It's an unpopular opinion, but I believe the public sector needs an overhaul of their pay and conditions. 1. There shouldn't be locked pay scales for roles and ranks- there needs to be more pay bonuses for skill sets, responsibilities and ability of the applicant- IE it needs to be like the private sector, otherwise you get high performers leaving for significantly more pay. 2. it needs to be easier to fire underperformers. At the moment it's almost impossible, and most APS managers won't take the effort to fire someone as it's so onerous. As a result the APS is filled with people who turn up and do sweet Fck all. As a former defence member, I worked with a number of these people and they are oxygen thieves that make the good APS (of which there are many) work twice as hard. 3. Contracts need to be written MUCH better, and contractors need to be held to their contract without horrendous cost overruns. If they can't do it as promised, maybe it's time we bought back government works departments- With the above changes, making them more efficient.
Arfter working on this project I’m not surprised,never seen such bad management,worst experience in my life, I have been in this industry for 35 years,absolutely the worst project I have ever worked on
The boring machine got stuck! So which engineers and project planners responsible for the geological testing along the track of the tunnel ? Who collected the money for core tests that weren’t done, or fabricated?
Finlands Olkilouto Nuclear power plant took 23 years to complete, was supposed to cost about 5 billion AUD and cost 15 Billion and is only good until 2038. Beat that Snowy Hydro 2.0!
Once completed it will be great... at the moment its bad. Although the money spent goes back into the Australian economy. Still 100% better then a nuclear power station
Clearly these projects should not be decided by politicians especially the operations of construction demands experienced engineers with proven construction knowledge otherwise problems arise that cause millions of dollars to rectify.
This has been on the list of possible upgrades for Snowy since the '60s and perhaps earlier, along with other possibles. The invention at the pub is a myth, it, along with the other possible enhancements were reviewed every 10 years or so. This option never added up, compounded by the challenging geology which is/was well known. Eventually it will work as advertised, but the cost benefit is never going to add up. Borderline at $2b, and now likely to all up be close to $30b. A major clusterfuck.
You can do the same thing using a weight and gravity. A gravity battery. Gravity batteries have the great advantage of having a very high overall efficiency, theoretically as high as 80-85%, which is even higher than the already high efficiency of pumped hydro. This means that the percentage of energy that's lost during the whole process is very low.
Liberal/National parties would have none of that, or smaller dams, adding hydro to existing dams or batteries. After all none of its gas or coal. So Snowy 2.0 was only proposal they'd accept in government.
yeah the numbers for gravity batteries' efficiency look good on paper but the real-world cost-benefit ratio once you factor in energy density and practicality of building gravity battery facilities doesn't make them as competitive or commercially viable. I can't remember all the real world metrics off hand, but not very many exist for valid reasons.
@@hypervious8878 Indeed, the first battery with this technology was connected to the power grid in the Chinese county of Rudong, near Shanghai, in late 2023 by the company Energy Vault. The energy storage systems company is based in the US, but it developed and tested its prototype in Switzerland. Sadly, I could not find any statistics about its efficiency. You can find some clips on UA-cam: Energy Vault: Gravity Energy Storage
$8 billion and counting… Is Snowy 2.0 a testament to Australia's ambition or a disaster in the making? What do you think? And let's be honest, across the world we have examples of megaprojects going wrong. Check this one from the UK: studio.ua-cam.com/users/videoJQIdmlWNA9A/edit
Total Disaster! Typical of Governments, rushed in without doing adequate geological surveys. Money down the drain!
just to clarify the statement that the geological surveys weren't adequate is not completely true the project managers were told to use the correct TBM head for less solid soil by Snowy's engineering team, this advise was ignored and the current project managers have been replaced due to this failure. there is no issue with the concept or what it will provide even though there are issues with water security. but when a project manager who wasn't involved in any of the original projects was put in charge most likely due to political interference was the issue. now to the original pricing at 1.5 billion this figure would have only included the mechanical parts not the work to complete which should have never been quoted publicly but due to again political reasons it was used to promote government success this project should have been left in the hands of the original teams but wasn't.
snowy 2.0 is definitely a disaster!!! $8 billion Could’ve have been easily better spent towards other multiple renewable energy projects or much needed infrastructure across the country that is needed far & wide .Just reforming refilling or rehabilitating the two mining or abandoned quarries
@@rickhowell5192 Not always typical. Once upon a time Australian Governments were very effective at building things. Privatization and outsourcing destroyed their ability to oversee projects or control costs. The taxpayer is now at the the mercy of private foreign corporations.
@@amraceway Usually to get a contract a private company will minimize cost too look more financial pleasing . In reality they stipulate down the contract other cost in case unpredictable situations occur . Then is "important" who is the company that wins it , for some politicians.
Australia in a nutshell! This won't be finished until 2030 and will most likely end up costing $25Billion, meaning that the cost of cooking a piece of toast in your home will equate to roughly $1.75. Two executives getting pissed at the local pub seems like a great way to start ANY multi Billion dollar project - in Australia!
And by 2030 environment changes will challenge the availability of water for the reservoirs.
Mbas and politicians are the problem.
Google the original scheme. They got their tunnelling up to 1 metre per hour back in the 1950s and built 150km of them
Not gonna help wa much but do able
@@michaelreid2329 thats bs. Remember flannery saying dams will never be full again?
Warmer = more evaporation = more rain. Like the tropics.
@@davefoord1259 except that the rain does not fall where the evaporation occurred. You would have seen the damage to the environment caused by government lack of control over water harvesting from rivers, so don't suggest that government ineptitude and farm production lobbying won't displace the use of its energy utilisation.
@@michaelreid2329 do you know much about the snowy mountains scheme and meteorology in general?
Snowy 2.0 is a MASSSIVE success. It's real purpose is to divert vast sums of tax-payer money into the pockets of a select few (as are all of the renewable energy projects). By this metric, it is a huge success.
Yes, you are so right on this. No accountability what so ever for our leaders.
The same with Duddon's nuclear policy, remember that they couldn't even build railway station carparks & you think that they can build a dozen nuclear power stations in 10 years?????
@@ettaxi1082 They WONT be building the plants, those companies which specialize in them will.
It is not necessary to build that many nuclear installations in ten years.
Simply keep the existing station going, and build NEW high quality COAL FIRED power plants instead.
There's enough coal worldwide to last thousands of years. Which is why the China has built dozens of new coal based generators. The green nature worshipping religion is responsible for the Snowy 2.0 debacle and similar wasteful alternatives to cheap coal power generation.
You're an absolute cooker.
once completed..lol
This is Australia.. It takes years to fix a pothole.
Bridge across Manly lagoon - 2 years, 50 metres. China - overnight, 100 metres
and that pothole gets washed away with the next decent rainstorm
They fixed a pothole? Woah 😮 Quick take a photo of it and frame it, because it will be a pothole again in 2 weeks.
They can't even fix friggin potholes properly!
Or, 3 Land Rate Increases.
Absolutely, and This is ONE GIGANTIC Pothole.
Follow the money. Someone has made a fortune on this.
Nah they're buddy buddies and all making money out of it, not just one person.
@@trevormiller1366 of course the lot of them have,. Taxpayer is the loser. Dont get me wrong, the project is a no brainer - its just corrupt people in the private and public sector have fleeced taxpayers
The same private school old boys every, single , time
Any engineer worth their salt would tell you it was a dumb idea, just burn coal and gas and get on with living.
Any bets on if it is finished it will be sold off to some 'Prominent Political Donor' for a fraction of its cost to the taxpayer, and all the profits will be directed offshore like the gas from fracking?
Did the gov. do the fracking? AFAIK it has always been a private venture.
I see that you know who these things work.
@brucelee3388 LNP is bold with taxpayers money.
French submarines
Snowy 2's wet battery in the land of decades long droughts. $2BILLION
Snowy 2's exploding $15 BILLION budget.
Private investors in government guaranteed monopoly.
Private investors who can not make a profit to pay tax on over capitalised projects.
Natural gas not available.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 What sort of stream of consciousness do you have for you to be able to dump that? If it made more sense I'd say it was AI but I think that's au natural
@argumentative2532 useless and gutless to hide your name.
Never give a project to lowest tender , especially if it’s lowest tender by 3 billion dollars ! Project has been a shit show from day 1 for that reason !
Why isn't there penalties for late delivery
@@beauzo9965 It was set up by the LNP, they always claim "get it earlier, cheaper" but only plan the sell-off, not the making it work. No need to protect the Australian people as the corporations will do the right thing...
EG, modded the NBN, Tony thought that Telstra, sold off by the LNP, would just give back the bits that were needed, making it cheaper, Telstra didn't, higher prices, old wiring broke down, meaning it had to redo to the same, taking longer, Now has to be redone, again to get it to what was needed by 1999, instead of building for 2099.
@@alanhilder1883 Typical corporation policies for immediate profits. Long term projects can be done only supervised and managed by governments control or government bodies that expands more the 4 political terms . Unfortunately government changes every 3-4 years , projects like these can take 16 years.
The LNP has never been able to do any thing well. The only thing they do is take good ideas a stuff them up. Or try to.
Poor Bruz.
You kept saying unexpected geology? WHY was it unexpected when 150 million $'s were spent on geological surveys of the sites????? $150,000,000 pissed against the wall for SFA.
My information is that they did not look at the previous survey data undertaken for the original Snowy Scheme. The geology of the area includes limestone and hidden caves. One cave was exposed when the snowy mountains highway started to collapse.
It was rushed and lacked due diligence and more extensive test drilling and geosurvey work as then PM Malcolm Turbull wanted a signature project on his record, and expanding the Snowy Scheme was the only scheme he could get the Liberal-National coalition to agree to. They were vociferously against a network of smaller dams/batteries
In their rush, the Turnbull govt ignored the findings of their environmental scientists who said Snowy 2.0 would drive native species to extinction, pollute the river system and requires too much clearing of habitat to build the transmission lines.
1000s of off-river PHES sites had been identified & would have been cheaper & quicker to build, & closer to power users so without such extensive & habitat wrecking transmission lines, needed through the national park for this most energy inefficient project with its 27km of pumping.
Turnbull chose it for his ego, probably talked into it by those who saw it as a top way to slow the transition to renewable energy. @@C0wCakes
@@C0wCakes I understand that the tunnel entrance at Tantangara is in the wrong place.
There was a programme on the Abc that said they were warned of the geology, and it was suggested that more investigation should be taken....obviously ignored.
It costs about a million dollars to build a sandcastle in Australia, so the cost blowout does not surprise me.
Just an idea, when you show an article that you are referring to don’t keep moving it around the screen then we can quickly read it while listening to the commentary
Thanks for watching it and for your feedback!
Pause button ?
@jackreacher8858
Not if youtube has its way.
Plans are in place for playing ads when you press the pause button on youtube videos.
I'm not a fan of the virtual camera shake either.
It's quite irritating. Must be trying to be arty or something.
Amateurs. In Argentina, a $2 billion nuclear reactor (Atucha II) costs near $15 billion and took more than 20 years to complete. Added just 700 MWh to the national grid.
Don't you worry about that!
Our opposition has a plan to build 6 small modular nuclear reactors which they say will cost a couple of billion but experts quote numbers closer to 30. They expect it to take 6 years to build but no one has managed to build one of these things yet so I bet we get a bigger bill, less power in a longer time.
No way will Australian politicians let Argentinians beat them for stupidity!!
Chinese style ultra corruption all the way!
The problem lies not in the idea of the project.
The problem lies in how construction companies conduct their projects.
1. They promise something in a time line they can not deliver. Doomed from the start, just to get the project.
2. They plow in too early, too quick, and without due diligence.
3. They think that the risk is worth the possible profit, which is why they seem to go bankrupt all the time.
The problems are not the projects themselves, but the culture of the companies that run them.
Met the CIO of Snow Hydro over beers once at random. He was the seediest man I have ever met.
Whooo, you have totally misrepresented much of the engineering of this project and what you say it can replace.
For example, SH2.0 will not in essence add to the generating capacity of the Snowy scheme. It is only to act as a battery. SH1.0 depends upon water flowing into dams from snow melting. SH2.0 depends upon power generated elsewhere.
You quote coal fired generation as an average of 600MW, whilst showing an image of a power station which is typically made up of at least 4 units totalling over 2000MW. That power station can run almost 24/7. SH2.0 you quote as a capacity of 2200MW, but that is not running 24/7 . It has to purchase power to pump water up the hill and only when excess power is available.
There is much much more to the engineering. But bear in mind that even SH1.0 was only ever considered as a peak load backup, never a main source of power.
Ah yes, but we don't let facts get in the way of the green narrative any more. That's so last century.
The snowy hydro 2.0 will purchase energy to pump up the top of the hill when prices are low, then sell it back when prices are high.
From what I know about how much money wind farms generate, I wouldn't be surprised if whoever operates the hydro battery will end up rolling in cash.
Exactly ! It’s one big fuck up from the start. Giant money pit that should have been canned years ago
Your comment shows this video is not worth watching.
Thankyou for setting the Story STRAIGHT, see, the Government lies to you Every Day, They move the "Goal posts" to fit their Story. Also will never accept that they got it Wrong somehow, just blame it on the Media crew.
We have a similarly cost increasing project here in the UK. An old freight railway line was to be turned into a passenger line. The almost 200 year old branch line runs over old deep coal mine workings.
The project is literally run and overseen by youngsters fresh out of university and who live behind a laptop screen. They honestly have no idea how the real world works, nor understand just how problematic old coal mine workings can be. Literature from their project claims that any mining subsidence has ended. That claim has bitten their backsides on many occasions. Bridges have sunk, the newly laid track has been relaid 3 times already and still isn't carrying passengers. Costs have tripled and stations delayed by years.
Sounds to me like this hydro project is also ran by youngsters fresh out of university and who are buried behind their laptop screens. People with absolutely no experience of how the real world works...
Clearly they should have done far more in researching the ground where the project were to be bored. The excessive over-costs are more than unfair to the taxpayers.
Over $100,000,000 was payed out for geologic surveys before the shit show even kicked off.
_Clearly they should have done far more in researching the ground where the project were to be bored._ Here in Australia, we say, _she'll be right, mate,_ and then charge blindly in.
Meticulously doing one's due diligence and carefully planning is very un-Australian.
@danondler8808 Indeed. Not sufficient research, mostly in the soil mechanics and geo;ogy areas, before the work started.
@@pindapoy1596 _Not sufficient research_
This is Australia, the land of, _she'll be all-right, mate._ Who needs research, planning, and preparation? Just go for it. She'll be all-right, mate.
@@grasonicus It is actually true what you say but not being Australian myself I would rather stay away from giving opinions regarding your country.
What I can say though is that being a rather old man, I am always astonished by the modern superficiality that you well describe as "just go for it".And this superficiality and lack of foresight is plaguing our world and gets us into trouble in many aspects of our lives, from buying things not knowing if we can afford them to getting involved in wars not knowing what we want to achieve and if at all possible.
Australian taxpayers shouldn't be paying for the contractors lack of due diligence when pricing the project
This is true but the reality is that they give us an upfront discount when quoting in order to win the job. Once anything unexpected comes up, they claim that it's not their fault and they charge variations at full price with zero discount. To make matters worse, we even have special clauses for them to meet deadlines where we give them huge bonuses that they rely on to make it profitable. The contractors then build sub-standard infrastructure full of defects in order to get that money as we don't hire independent certifiers. We trust them to do it all until they prove us wrong and then we hire our own engineers like the Metro after discovering $5B of defects.
Realistically no contractor would take on this job without assurances on the risk items. And if they did, they would just go bust when the first issue occured, as has happened before.
The onus is on the client (the lib scomo government) to have done their due diligence and obtained sufficient design efforts to know what the job was going to be. It was never a $1.5B project if they had done their homework. It's on us.
@robertcampbell6521 I would not say that without knowing in detail what the bid documents were requiring the contractors to actually do. Were the contractors supposed to analyze the soil or were they given all the pertinent data which later became invalid and insufficient (and maybe inaccurate)?
@@pindapoy1596 Apparently there was bore logs which showed the geology and rock strengths and depths,No company would take on that sort of job without that information. Variations on large construction jobs always occur especially where you are tunnelling or piling as rock strengths can fluctuate between bore holes but you can't continue to go back to the client and keep on extending completion dates and wanting more money,that company should pay liquidated damages to us as the completion date keeps on blowing out . They are the supposed experts they set completion date and cost and its up to them to make good on their contractual obligations otherwise they pay LD's
@@robertcampbell6521 I have worked on the Eurotunnel project (railroad tunnel between France and England) but as an electrical engineer, However I am famliar with such problems from having been "in that working environment".
One should look at the tunneling company contract in order to establish what were the responsibilies of the parties and if the tunneling company is entitled to compensation if soil conditions change from what the initial boring samples had shown. Obviously I am not familiar with the contract and I have almost no knowledge about soil mechanics and geological studies. What I know is that a well written contract will clarifyall liabilities.
Inadequate research leading to billions wasted and negative environmental consequences...
Hope and prayers don't belong in engineering
The LNP were already told by their scientists that the environmental impacts of Snowy 2.0 would be devastating to the delicate mountain ecosystem.
The head scientist resigned in protest due to their findings being ignored. The project would drive native species to extinction, pollute the rivers, & require hundreds of hectares to be cleared for the transmission lines.
Not surprising to hear Snowy 2 was planned on the back of a beer coaster...should have stayed just that..a lame idea thought up in the pub.
How many off-river pumped hydro energy projects could have been built & be in service already, in any of the 1000s of sites identified as suitable, & closer to where the power is needed..therefore not requiring transmission lines through one of most iconic national parks?
And with much shorter pumping distances of usually only 500m or so, they would have done the job way more efficiently than the 27km pumping distance energy losses involved in Snowy 2!
The anti-renewable energy LNP knew this project would slow the transition to RE. That has always been their aim.
Scott Morriscum has a lot to answer for.
At 02:45, this is absolutely incorrect. Australia's largest power station - Eraring near Newcastle, NSW - generates 720MW of electricity per generating unit, giving a total of 2,880MW. There isn't a hydro-electric power station anywhere in Australia that comes close to it. I'm not against hydro, in fact I am for it, but Australia is short on water resources suitable for it, which is why the Snowy scheme already has pumped hydro in place at some of the stations there. Maintenance and breakdowns aside, Eraring can generate electricity all the time and we are going to need more than an additional 2,200MW of hydro to back up the wind-solar folly being fed to us by the Minister for Blackouts, Chris Bowen.
Thanks for watching! Our script was referring to the average capacity of a typical coal-fired power plant. Snowy 2.0's unique strength lies in its ability to store vast amounts of energy and then release it on demand, acting as a giant battery for the grid. This makes it a valuable asset for balancing the increasing share of renewable sources like wind and solar, which can be intermittent.
This person knows what there talking about--"black-out Bowen"--& ''Don Quixote"-will destroy this country with "Gross-Stupitity"--& with "Wrong-Way-Turnbull"-formally in charge,-"that is the "KISS-OF-Death"-for ANY engineering Project
@@MegaBuilds5280 What happens if the giant battery schema has a malfunction / meltdown besides a national environmental disaster ?
@@heretodaygonetomaui3567 There would be multiple levels of redundant systems to reduce the likelyhood of things like that happening. Just like Nuclear or coal it isn't perfect, flawless or foolproof. But systems would be in place. What you are saying is basically the equivalent of "why step outside, you've got a 1 in 3 million chance of being run over while going to check your letterbox.
LNP sload.
Given that hydro electricity generation is around 70% efficient, and pumping that water back up the hill is around 130% inefficient, only to get back 70%of efficiency, that 8 billion dollars would have gone a long way into subsidising home batteries for virtual power plants in the suburbs where it's produced and consumed, and it would have been working already. Nice presentation by the way.
They have a short life span though.
Are you for real? Like really?
I put it to you that you have utterly no idea what you're talking about. In fact that comment is so naïve I'm shocked.
I could tell you how it works but with that level of ignorance you won't understand because it's already pre worked out in your mind that you're so vastly superior to the engineers that designed the project that any information to the contrary will likely be viewed by you as a lie. Now I know how flat earthers think.
It is true the world is going to hell.
You're not the brightest light globe out the front of the fish and chip shop are you sport?
Or they could have put community scale batteries in every postcode & kept them publicly owned.
Or could have chosen any of the 1000s of off-river pumped hydro sites identified which at least would be much more efficient than Snowy 2's further energy loss due to the 27km pumping distance.
The endless cost & time blowouts suit the LNPs aim to slow the transition to RE.
@@annabel5200 wouldn't that be great if our suburbs were self powered, only requiring topups in gloomy conditions. Problem is, who's going to pay for the near obsolete poles and wires? Monkeys are more intuitive than the AEMO Feds.
I recall from the very first mention of this by Turnbull and the Libs that Hydro Engineers said "It won't work.", "It's not financially viable." "The rock is so hard that they will take years to drill through." etc etc etc. The LNP had been in Government for 4 years and came in with a promise of "building reliable power stations." Up to this point they had done NOTHING. So Turnbull came up with this disaster after HIS NBN Disaster that cost 3 times more than the gold plated ALP system would have cost. Morrison re-announced this after his party rolled Turnbull so he OWNS it now. Again Morrison promised: "If private enterprise won't build power stations then we will!" So here we are 11 years since their promise of new power and what we have is a white elephant that won't produce power but will store excess for use later. IF they ever get it finished. To think what they COULD have built in this time. And they want us to believe they can build Nuclear........
100% right, Libs are always pushing power prices up, higher prices and more GST cash .... NBN cost blow out means higher cost to the average aussie and more money the Governments gets back in GST....
this blame game both sides of government play on tax and who is better at running the economy is rubbish give me a Government who can be accountable for their actions.
Yep. All this because the Lieberal party are in the pockets of big mining and would do anything not to invest in solar or wind.
And these clowns are also the architects of AUKUS and that will cost us well over 400,000,000,000 dollars !!!
What type of rock is that?
The Swiss drilled the Gotthard tunnels through granite and gneiss, within time and below budget, with TBMs which afaik are from the same company. It's normally the faults and very soft rock that are causing problems.
@@ralfbaechle snowy 2.0 was a bit of a vanity project for PM Turnbull. Bit of a rush job. Apparently one of the times TBM got stuck it was huge miscalculation in change if direction. Don't quote be but trying to make a 800m turn in 8m ....
I knew a few of the engineers that worked on this. Corruption, waste, incompetence and indifference were huge on this project.
I'll call it, 30 Billion in cost completed by 2032
You may be right because 2025 gang will go bash lone China, Extreme naval battles
World depression & wars they fo hand in hand
No import nor exports
Conscription of young angry people
So it may even be put on hold... & may even be worse later many many years then 2032
Even if completed, it will made 100% utterly redundant by nuclear energy.
I’ll raise you 20 Billion and add 5years
I call it Dutton pulls the plug on it and uses the money to build a piece of energy infrastructure that is actually useful, 24/7 reliable and far cheaper.
@@connorduke4619Redirect the machinery and equipment to build the much more promising New Bradfield scheme instead..
The original Snowy Project was finished ahead of schedule and under budget. This was when there wasn't all the environmental and OHS bs and red tape and people just went to work and worked.
And contractors weren't in the business of endless contract variations and did not commit to political donations/legal bribes.
and the workers then went on to build farms, bakeries, houses, roads... learnt the language, embraced the lifestyle... building the australia we enjoyed up until the "noughties"...
and what was the original snowy FOR? AGRICULTURE.
the hydro power was a nice "added bonus"...
@@paradiselost9946 Exactly.
The official death toll during construction was 121. God rest their souls. WH+S can only be a good thing if the legislation saves lives.
@@paradiselost9946As @johnsmith-ub7vr said - exactly.
Only the government could mismanage a project from $1.5 billion budget to > $8 billion -
@@elastotec173 latest estimates at $27 billion.
My Great Gand children will stilll be paying for this collosal waste of taxpayer dollars. The only viable, zero emmission, 24/7 base load power, is Nuclear. Australia is quite happy to put reactors on our new submarines, yet we cannot have power generation from it. And we cannot have an adult conversation about it becase of government missinformation of costs and risks. AND because laws will need to be changed before investors will actually look at the projects and give us true costings and timelines.
Even Peter Dutton is beginning now to realise how stupid this ideas is. If it was done 30 years ago it would have been great - and I blame greens and others on the left for it not hapenning, plus conservatives not really giving a shit. Now it's way too late, and the politics of where to put them too difficult. it will take 15 years, and if you think Snowy 2.0 was a waste of money, it's nothing compared to nuclear if we tried it now. But the insurmountable problem is that a whole bunch of old, expensive coal fired power stations have to close way before the nuclear could be started. If we stop building renewables, what would replace them? More coal? All of this would massively push up the cost of electricity. Renewables with grid scale battery storage are far cheaper and much, much, much, faster to install. Please go and do some proper research and stop mouthing coalition propaganda.
As an Australian myself, I wasn't asked about whether I was okay with nuclear powered submarines!
Because they certainly wouldn't have got my vote!
I saw this as a sneaky way to introduce nuclear energy into Australia! And I'm not having any of it! And no amount of talking is going to convince me to allow that poison into this country!
Yeah yeah it's safe until it isn't and then it's my problem! No! It's a machine, like all machines can break down and when it does, not if but when, it poisons everything! Over my dead body!
For those who prefer nuclear energy, I heard there's cheap land for sale in Fukushima prefecture Japan. You are more than welcome to test your assumption at your earliest convenience....
92 years later, still paying for the Sydney Harbour Bridge !
Damn straight! Nothing but truth being written in your post.
At least the subs will be here before snowy 2.0 is finished.....oh wait , 2040 for the subs... bugger I'll be dead before I see any of my tax dollars back...😂😅😊🇦🇺
600 mega watts for a coal fired power station?You jest ,sire.Loy Yang has an output of over 2,200 MW'sThe power station Hazelwood,destroyed by the stupid Labor /Green parties was 1600 MW's and that is for 24 hours a day every day for 12 months of the year.Politicians should stay away from things that they know nothing about,leave it to competent people.Turnbull, who made this decision was the worst prime minister the Liberal party ever had.8 $ billion would have built a nice nuclear power station,and probably would be near completion by now, pumping power into the grid all year long with greater output,and no pollution or environmental degradation,allowing it takes Japan 5 years to build nuclear power stations,
Hazelwood HAD to go - it was the filthiest power station in the developed world and saw us routinely criticised by the rest of the world as a result (and rightly so).
Yes, Right on all points, but "They" Won't listen to us.
Oh, By the Way, what MORON would Destroy a Power plant BEFORE the Replacements were ON LINE.
@@alexishart1989personally I care zero about what other people from other countries think. If I want to burn coal I can.
@@gregorymatthies5297
Hazelwood didn't burn coal, it burned the freeways and towns around it, there is tons of asbestos there with the resulting mesothelioma cases in workers, and the private owners were the ones who shut it down because it started to cost them money in maintenance. Granted, it had a good run given it was built to last 40 years and made it past that, but still.
France and Japan shut it down because private companies didn't find it to be worth running anymore.
Blaming Greens and Labor misses the critical point that Victoria doesn't own the power stations anymore and doesn't get a say in whether or not they stay open.
Typical Australian government shambles.Couldnt organize a p... Up in a brewery
Thanks Malcolm..all done to enrich his son , via his investments in wind and solar infrastructure.
The concept is a good one but only works where the geology is compatible. There is no such thing as too many soil sample test borings. That's a management problem.
At what point would a nuclear power plant have been more cost effective?
Nuclear would have cheaper already, given a rational regulation regime. You're right about soil testing though.
It doesn't generate even a kwh of energy.
I worked on Perisher Skiitube in the 80s. Despite an absolute stack of core samples, the TBM never made daily target even once. Final price was rumoured to be more than double.
At no point!
Nuclear power plants are estimated to be at $9B for 1MW. Since this is a 2.2MW project, you're probably looking at $20M for an equivalent nuclear power plant. This should definitely come out cheaper, cleaner and better for the environment. No risk of a nuclear meltdown with this project.
Never a budget when the tax payer is paying... it's a big shit show....
Look up Gambler's ruin. Had proper risk assessment been completed up front - things might be different. Simply trying to spend you way out of trouble (and not understand/manage the risks that are still not fully defined) is not how to do it. What makes you think the overrun is "only" 8Bn ???
This cannot replace coal power plants, bc this isn’t a power plant. It’s a power bank as you stated several times. By themselves, storage banks always have a net loss of energy. If it was connected to renewable energy power plants such as wind and solar, those could replace coal power plants, and this power bank could store that energy for use when those power plants aren’t producing energy, but this power bank cannot produce net gains in energy.
True but missing that wind also blows at night, when everyone is sleeping and demand is low.
So effectively...
Thanks for watching and sharing your insightful comment! You're absolutely right. Snowy 2.0 is indeed an energy storage solution, not a power plant itself. It relies on renewable sources like wind and solar to generate the electricity it stores.
Whooo, you have totally misrepresented much of the engineering of this project and what you say it can replace.
For example, SH2.0 will not in essence add to the generating capacity of the Snowy scheme. It is only to act as a battery. SH1.0 depends upon water flowing into dams from snow melting. SH2.0 depends upon power generated elsewhere.
You quote coal fired generation as an average of 600MW, whilst showing an image of a power station which is typically made up of at least 4 units totalling over 2000MW. That power station can run almost 24/7. SH2.0 you quote as a capacity of 2200MW, but that is not running 24/7 . It has to purchase power to pump water up the hill and only when excess power is available.
There is much much more to the engineering. But bear in mind that even SH1.0 was only ever considered as a peak load backup, never a main source of power.
@@JxH Sometimes, not all the time.
Once in operation, Snowy 2.0 will store the excess renewable on the grid during solar and wind peaks. NEM shows the graphs where energy prices go negative almost every day, and wind farms are regularly shut down when production exceeds demand. It is widely understood that we need 200% renewable generation, but without storage we remain coal dependent as solar doesn't generate at night.
It is both a battery and a generation plant, it performs both functions depending on its mode of operation.
It is expensive and whether it represents value to the tax payer is yet to be seen, Snowy 1 was costly at the time, but look at its worth now
This focus on guesswork and media bias is BS. The concept has strong engineering substance. Playing with amatuerish cost figures without explaining what was included in that price at that timeframe. IE when the full extensive value is priced guess what the expense or costs rose. When the electrical output distribution is included it has become a surprise extra cost. Who would believe it?
Its amazing how many billions are added so quickly, with no breakdown or explanations of what those extras are or how the timeline or inflation has contributed to these figures.
Has no-one noticed by design this is very long term infrastructure that has national power and water benefits. Forgettable ABC and political negative feedback and focus is not helpful. The original Snowy project has proved very worthwhile and a great investment. It was not a profit centre but a resource. When completed the Snowy 2 infrastructure will be a durable supporting infrastructure not designed to compete with commercial interests. When times conspire it will prevent runnaway price gauging. By reuse of water storage to create more power generation in times of need the country will get value. The value over the next 100 years will be immense.
The value in water resource terms can be extended by reducing evaporation losses by placing floating solar power systems. Why has there been no push on the electrical distribution network and design? Floods and droughts storms and uncertainty are Australian facts of life. Get real and get it done.
Thanks for the efforts of the many skilled workers involved.
All good points but is it going to be publicly or privately owned? What assurances have we it won't be sold off or change hands several times during its lifespan?
@@douglachman7330 well said Malcolm. You pillock.
Australia's grid, will have power so expensive, nobody will be able to use it.
Using 1.4 GW of electricity to make one gigawatt of renewable electricity doesn’t make good math
It's still much better than hydrogen !
Well it does make good maths, when the 1.4GW is Surplus to needs. i.e has no purpose and would be wasted, and can be used to store potential energy. A lot of day time solar energy goes to waste, this causes strain on the grid and dilutes feedbacks for rooftop solar owners. Providing a use for this surplus energy is a good thing.
@@mopster74I suspect the OP understands that. It’s just anti-renewables shitposting.
@@mopster74if so much surplus to needs why so expensive? Clean energy rip off I say.
It depends. In current decay state of Australian network electricity price can vary from negative to $1.5/kwh (when they tie AEMO robot with rope to the anchor to prevent it from fly to the sky) in one day, so the very idea to buy energy for 2c and sell it for 30c is not so bad. Only its conversion to reality.
It's now over $12bn! Plus, another $10bn in transmission lines to connect it to the grid.
damn
With $22bn we could nearly build three reactors for a heap of clean reliable 24/7 energy.
@@evil17 Yes, we could.
We should stop throwing more money at this bottomless pit of a project and redirect it somewhere usual.
Nuclear reactors would be an excellent choice.
@@evil17 That's not true as a nuclear reactor is $9B/MW. This project adds 2.2MW which means you can only get 1 nuclear reactor if things go well. Since it's our first one ever, odds are it'll take 15 years to build at a cost of $30B. Plus, nobody would want to live near a nuclear reactor but everyone's more than happy to live near this project.
@@elitechampion Yes the price is going up generally, 2.2MW of hydro is only good for less than half that as it has to pump up hill at some time to replenish, it wont take 30 years if we get our act together, China are building another 11 reactors in 5 years and a lot of people are happy to live near/ next to reactors with 430 reactors in 32 countries there are a lot of people with one in their area.
Florence got stuck in a geologic unit called Kellys Plain Volcanics. Volcanics are notoriously unstable. You can see that without even digging a hole, just by looking at the lidar. Foreseeable.
No surprises here: The costs of not going nuclear 30 years ago for a country with their own uranium reserves. Now it is too late, just ask Elon to ship more batteries so existing solar panels can be put to proper use.
30 or more years ago nuclear "may" have been viable as there wasn't practical renewable energy generation. But it's always been very expensive and very highly subsidised by governments all over the world so people could actually afford to buy electricity. If you ignore how much general taxation feeds it.
@@C0wCakes Now of course it is way too late for nuclear. The future is batteries in all forms, shapes and technologies. SM2 was a good idea put into the wrong hands. On a global scale this is more and more the case. I talked to the right people who built Nordstream II. They knew from the start that the project was doomed so no surprise to the sort of unusual outcome.
If we can blow $368 billion on nuclear submarines that we don't need and will never receive, then we can spend $8 billion on something as useful as this.
Plump storage is great if done correctly. Wonder if project will pencil out given the recent growth of grid scale batteries?
what is the efficiency of pumped hydro vs battery storage?
Thanks for watching and for your insightful comment! While Snowy 2.0 offers impressive storage capacity and duration, the escalating costs and delays are certainly cause for concern. Grid-scale batteries like the Tesla Megapacks have a higher cost per MWh at the moment. However, battery technology is advancing rapidly, and costs are expected to continue to fall. If we consider the potential for future cost reductions and the speed and flexibility of battery deployment, it's possible that a network of grid-scale batteries could offer a more cost-effective and adaptable solution in the long run.
Ok, I looked it up myself. Pumped hydro recovers 80% of the energy. Li-ion batteries are above 99% efficiency at moderate charge/discharge rates.
@@mike_w-tw6jdinterested that you say its 80% efficient.
Is that returning 80% of the power required to pump the water up the hill when it returns back down the hill under gravity?
Or is it returning 80% of the cost of the power purchased to pump the water up the hill on its return trip?
Pumping water up a hill is very energy intensive to overcome gravity and friction loss, and water running down hill losses a lot of energy through friction loss.
What about the lost water through evaporation and seepage once pumped to the top dam?
It is not possible to recover all the water pumped.
@@stevenstart8728 energy efficiency, i have no idea which is more cost effective
I just cannot believe this makes any sense whatsoever . I spent years on major projects and when they mentioned the original budget I thought it very unlikely . the very thought of using electricity to pump water uphill only to let it come down again just seems absurd . What it really means is there is a negative energy from the beginning along with the debt that will last for years . Absolute nuts.
Whilst I'm no fan of the transition to renewables (unnecessary, IMO), it is still important to clarify one important advantage this project has over batteries: storage capacity: Snowy 2.0 boasts 2,200 MW / 350,000 MWh.
Batteries can not do that. Not even close. The largest battery storage system worldwide is the Edwards & Sanborn Solar Plus Storage Project in California, USA with a 875 MW / 3,287 MWh capacity across 4,600 acres.
If you compare their capacity and cost, Snowy 2.0 will provide 106x more storage capacity than the largest battery installation, yet the battery costs approx. $1.8 billion, making it 21x more expensive $$ per MWh, even with Snowy 2.0 costing $8 billion.
The biggest battery in the world is 21x more expensive but can only provide 1/100th of the storage of Snowy 2.0.
Batteries technology is just not suitable for mass grid-scale storage. Batteries are great for frequency stabilisation, but not for storage.
350 gigawatt hour of storage is difficult to believe.
@@Philip-hv2kc 2,200 MW x 24 hours x 7 days of storage. The storage is in lakes, it is a reflection of the water catchment area. Yes, it is accurate.
_Batteries technology is just not suitable for mass grid-scale storage._ Amen. When will the morons ever learn that? Wind, solar and batteries have been in vogue since the 80s, yet there's not one town in the world with a population of 3000 plus relying solely on them. But nuclear...
Anticipated completion date is December 2028 (so another 4 years) according to the 2023 Snowy 2.0 Update of 2023.
Our country is good a blowing mega bucks on stupid projects 🙄 they are so hell bent spending money on Renewable energy solutions that simply dont work and distroy environments and views to set up such as wind farms and solar farms, the foot print that it uses is huge so lets cut down trees that supply oxygen and clean carbon dioxide for projects that are not up for the task at powering Australia so still need coal powered plants to supply demand and coal we have heaps but our government sells it to overseas buyers and we the people are paying stupid money for electricity and gas and yes we have plenty of gas and again our government sells it off to again overseas so they benefit while we are suffering legitimately choosing to put food on the table or pay the bills....this country is pathetic our government is woke and basically wont even look at nuclear power to give the people relief they are hard and fast stuck and stubborn with this silly renewables energy plans...and the snowy project has blown out big time the idea is good but implementation of the plan they have royally screwed this up...
Vote 'em out!
@@gregorypenetrante1272 💯
do not need nuclear power that is for countries without natural resources to power themselves Australia population so low we do not need it.
if the project is completed before the inevitable next drought or the following one , who decides whether we have water or power ?
I bet some greens made it to hard to do a proper drilling program
Would you agree that sometimes it’s better to know what you’re talking about before you start talking? No?
Blowouts of investment should be accounted for and expected! Look at the Sydney Opera house!! Also other major projects.
This is just a guess…….but is this report balanced? I would think there is much more to this simplistic story
Thanks for watching and sharing your perspective! You're right, megaprojects like Snowy 2.0 are incredibly complex. Our focus was on highlighting some key challenges it's facing, but there's always more to the story.
An Australian here, yes it is a balanced report. Although others may not agree. It is indeed more complex, it is extremely political. The project was initiated by a conservative government who have been long opposed to any renewable energy, or doing anything to combat global warming such as a "Carbon Tax". Yes pumped Hydro is green and renewable, but it is a project for an incumbent energy provider and it has been suggested that Snowy 2.0 is being built to prevent development of other renewable solutions like battery storage or sources like solar or wind. With the costs rising, there is some doubt it will ever pay for itself. The same political party, now in opposition has a policy of preventing all renewable energy development and going with Nuclear power and as Australia has a lot of very old Coal and Gas generators, the plan is to keep them going until Nuclear arrives. Thus some of said that the Nuclear option is merely a Trojan Horse for the coal industry. The cost blow-out of Snowy 2.0 is a major issue for Australia, but Nuclear is orders of magnitude more costly. The there is the water problem. There is not very much of it in Australia.
Lived here in the 60s and 70s. My father, a £10 Scotsman, helped build the original scheme. I now live just up the road. And yes the 2.0 scheme is a clusterfuck of gigantic proportions. There is no other story. 🤷
This was the only 'green' project Malcolm Turnbull could get approved in the face of his fellow conservatives anti renewable stance.
@@alcampbell5831 always makes me laugh when I read some clown thinking you can "combat climate change".
Looks like you're the mirth bringer today!
You conspiracy theorists are hilarious.
It's not a disaster, it is a Nation Building Project whose costs and lifespan needs to be spread over 100 years.
The problem is that Politicians need to stop lying about the costs.
No one complained when the Sydney Harbour Bridge was built as a 6 lane highway when there was only 60 cars in the city, because the Citizen Tax Payers knew it was a project that would employ people for 10 years, and would last for 200 years, so no one worried about the 60 year loan.
Why did no one worry?
Because they were told exactly what it was for, exactly how long it would last, exactly who would benefit, and exactly what it would cost.
The same can be said for the Train Networks with 70 year loans, The Postal Service with multiple large loans and expenditures over many decades, The Phone and Telecommunications Network - right up it was Privatised and we were lied to.
Why did Foreign Governments find value in out Phone Infrastructure that our own Government was too incompetent to operate, even though it was making massive profits.?
No one complained about the Bicentennial Road Project where Highway 1 was upgraded the whole way around the country, and every road that carried more than 1 car per week was asphalted, and singe lane roads were widen into at least 2 lanes, with regular overtaking lanes.
No one complains about Hospitals, Schools, Airports, Ports, Water and Sewerage.
Why does everyone only ever complain about upgrades to the Electrical Infrastructure???
The drawings of the Snowy 2.0, proudly displayed by The Moronson Govt, were dated in the mid 90's. So certainly not their idea but a idea rejected 20 years before.
do you know why it was rejected?
Thanks for watching and sharing your perspective! You're right, the concept of linking those reservoirs has been around for a while, but the scale and ambition of Snowy 2.0 make it a whole new ballgame. Early studies might have hinted at the idea, but it wasn't until recently that technology and circumstances aligned to make it a reality (or at least, attempt to make it one).
It was Turnbull's government.
@@markthomas8766yes it was. But let’s not let facts get in the way of emotive political dogma.
The main reason for this project was to delay the transition to renewables. In this regard it is a big success. Nuclear power is proposed for the same reason by the way.
So the end result is more solar and wind capacity that we need to pump water up a hill for a very short term increase in generating capacity.
Somebody needs to document the numbers of power required to pump the water and the power returned, as well as the water lost in evaporation and seepage once pumped.
I keep asking the energy ratio but have never got an answer.
No evaporation in pumping through underground sealed pipes. Evaporation is nearly all from dam surface.
@@C0wCakes "evaporation from dam surface". Exactly. Where do you think their pumping it too. Dams also have a lot of seepage.
Don't be dissuaded by SH2.0 - it is an instance of pumped hydro being done badly, but otherwise pumped hydro is a very viable answer for energy storage. Look up the 'duck's back' to see why it makes sense. At least in principle.
@@hypervious8878 there are locations where it's viable. This was never one of them.
The long and the short of it: If you pull the plug, you have wasted all the previous work and money, plus the added cost of withdrawing all the equipment.
Sunk cost fallacy.
@@coniow and that may well still be the best idea.
Even after the cost blow out Snowy Hydro 2 with 350GWhr of storage (ie over 300 big batteries) is still far more cost effective as an energy storage system than big batteries, typically thirty five times more.
The issues the builders encountered here are run of the mill for large scale engineering projects and as engineers do, will be fixed.
The Australian landscape can probably support four more such pumped storage projects. To meet GHG emmissions targets, we just need to get on and build them asap.
The only alternative is a large scale nuclear energy program
@jimgraham6722 Yes on all items.
Two aspect, do nothing and you go nowhere. But when you do something, do the science and engineering properly. Keep politicians out of the operational issues, but also choose your project engineers carefully. Quality not rushed overconfidence.
Only a government project could do "engineering" improperly.
Any company doing engineering "improperly" would be out of business within the year.
Quality entertainment even if you're not interested in engineering!
Well done.
1.5 billion would have been the fuel costs for Adam Bants fly in fly out progress inspections
Wow. Who would have thought that there would be a cost blowout when there is a project that has involvement of the AWU and CMFEU.
Nothing to do with unions, this time. All the blame is on rushed process skipping extensive geo surveys. So you can quite union bashing & go do an 60-80 week without weekends, holidays, sick leave or a pension at the end of it.
@@C0wCakes If employers were honest we wouldn't need unions.
Hopefully not coming: Snowy 3.Oh no! The next magnitude. Liberal National incompetence goes nuclear!
The orginal geological survey data still exists and I understand it was never requested. Shortly after the Snowy Mountains highway was completed, the near Yarrangobilly River the road surface began to sink. There was a cave under the road. Driving along the road, limestone out crops can be seen. I actually spoke to a geologist about the caves and they were not even aware of their existance.
Maybe they should get a second opinion on the project from China. No-one builds more mega projects than they do and are looking to improve relations with just about anyone. That way the project might actually finish in a timely maner and on budget. It also gives businesses like Italian Webuild and Dutch Clough opportunity learn from their expertise increasing the likelihood of success on future projects.
Nobody needs China's tofu dreg construction, as for improving relations between countries, they have a border dispute with every one of their neighbours so no thanks.
You could have installed solar systems and batteries on every house in Australia by the time this project is complete and still saved billions. Malcom Turnbull was explicitly told at the time that the project was underdeveloped and more due diligence was needed prior to sign off. In an election year he ignored the experts...
build a nuclear Power station.
They are more efficient than wind and solar and do not need to be pumped back up
The biggest issue is corruption. All projects such as this one are blown out of budget on purpose so a small few make a lot of money.
Nice summary, but this sort of thing will always happen when politicians are given the opportunity to make grand announcements. Realities become someone else's problems, they want the glory right now.
To go fully wind/solar and solve the problem of intermittency, we need a lot of storage.
Equivalent of 70 Snowy2 projects.
Let that inspire you for a moment.
Thanks for this insightful coverage. As long as it get's completed and delivers what it was designed to do. Too late to turn back now.
A "typical", power station produces 600 MW??? Where did that figure come from? Of the 8 power stations scheduled for closure by 2037, only one, produces less than 600 MW, Collie (WA) at 300 MW. The next lowest is Muja (WA) at 850MW. The total generating capacity loss (if they stay on schedule), will be 13,486MW, of continuous electricity supply.
In reality there is no such thing as a cheap renewal power source. The major problem with renewable power is the fact that they all depend on the weather. You can understand the disaster that is Snowy River2, it was dreamed up in a pub where it should have stayed.
The problem was, Sco Mofo's fingerprints are all over it!...
ScoMo was a disaster all round, but this was Turnbull's pet project
Turbull first, then Somo. Or course the LNP wouldn't accept cheaper alternatives.
What has Labor ever built, on time and on budget ? NOTHING!
Projects such as this always face issues but can you compare the energy storage potential to any amount of batteries?
Recent reports are now expecting costs to blow out to over $15 billion. A great example of Australia. Unable to do anything without massive delays and cost blowouts.
It seems like they should have drilled core samples to determine exactly what the geology was throughout the entire route and used seismic ground penetrating scans too. All before the time and cost were estimated. It's hard to imagine a blunder this big could happen if so.
I think one of the most important subjects not covered by this video is the community impact. It was promised that the project would be a nett positive for the communities local to the project, yet like many large projects, the community impact study and statement has been poorly done
forgot to mention that the original snowy was on time, on budget, and was primarily intended for irrigation, in a time when teh government knew that FARMING was crucial, and actually supported the PRODUCTION OF FOOD.
the electricity aspect was a nice side effect, the "icing on the cake"...
If they hope to recoup costs by passing it onto consumers then canning it now is the best option. Otherwise it will be another case of a big corporation having its cake and eating it too.
Huge Pumps and pipes are not known for their efficiency and will loose enormous amounts of expensive energy. What are the project energy losses for pumping vast quantities of water up hill ? What is the on going maintenance of all these pumps and pipes ( underground tunnels) ? I still hope the project will work ( even partially) but have doubts.
The pumping is/will be powered by excess generation when renewables are producing more than the grid requires. So apart from transmission and regular maintenance costs its free electricity, and cheaper and more efficient than restricting production. It's basic economics of power systems and generation.
@@C0wCakes This is a sound theory but I didn't think we had any excess generation in NSW/Victoria. Especially if the battery incentives take off in November, there will be a lot less solar during the day.
Love❤ it, What a brilliant project. All semi free energy projects the require geotechnical effort to invoke power, are subject to immense cost expansions. We in New Zealand had the same issues with FDi in Te Anau, where the rock was Neiss, and really hard. And the Clyde dam, subject to huge Lakeshore effective stress improvements, only achievable vua upstream dewatering and stress relieving rock removal after huge expense of extra seismic surveys and drilling.
I read the latest budget was 12 bill given all the delays and over runs.
Would've appreciated a deeper dive into Clough's role/abysmal engineering fail.
It should have been a clean and efficient addition to the Australian grid, instead it's what happens when management is by political appointees.
The Fourth Briridge was started in 1882. It took eight years and a list of impressive statistics.
The main thing it set off was development skill, continued through to the sixties and who knows onwards......
The Burg Khalifa project was a period in history between 2003 and 2012. The infra structure contracts are still being extended outward.
Next generations need to build, plan, and .......develop.
The final cost is not a cost but part of Australia's economy.
Dubai's economy is attracting investment because it has completed the Burg Khalifa.
The government is not the government we had in this country back in the 50s, where they can actually get something done probably on time and on budget, that would be almost impossible today
Looks like they started florence off straight into top soil. Ive seen other tunnel boring projects where they tunnel conventionally into the hill till they get to relatively stable rock before getting the tbm started.
Still serms better to me to do it with small hole drilling and blasting like they did in the original scheme
What about housing,doctors,men’s hospital,cost of living,and bloody potholes?
The ecological impact worries me. Such a beautiful part of Australia and a gorgeous place to camp. I always drive an hour out of my way to camp (brilliant free campground near by) there when driving interstate. Hopefully the ecosystem doesn’t suffer but even if it’s fine, I may not be able to camp there anymore… highly sensitive to noise and frequencies. Even gas pipes can create a sound that many can’t hear but that will drive people like myself insane… but we won’t know till it’s done I guess.
The original scheme has had massive negative impacts on the Lower Snowy River which are only now being partially and inadequately rectified by allowing more water to flow in it.
@@C0wCakes and it was all probably put into action due to lobbyists and politicians trying to scratch their friends backs with a large gov contract while pretending it’ll be good for us and the environment 🙄
Thanks for the confirmation. Best to know but utterly heartbreaking when those spots out in nature are the best places in our country.
The UK opened a power station exactly like this 40 years ago in 1984, the idea is nothing new.
The UK one, construction started in 1974 and took ten years to build. At the time it was the largest engineering project in Europe. The final cost was just shy of Half a Billion UK £ 40 years back so, scale that up for inflation etc. Anyone interested, just google Dinorwig Power Station, Wales. It has 6x 300 MW turbines and can go from zero to maximum output in 12 sceonds. Maximum output is 1724 MW, and the stored capacity (size of the top reservoir) is 9.1 GWh.
What do I think? I think the first parts of the constructions will be redundant by the time it is finished (if it ever is). I know that what was once an almost pristine spot for camping and fishing has been destroyed forever. I've camped recently at the top end of Tantangara and the noise and light from the worksite is an assault on the senses 24/7. It is noise pollution at its worst! The Fishery will suffer from the constant rise and fall of water levels much like Joumana Pondage. Added to that it is all but guaranteed to "relocate" Redfin Perch from Talbingo to Tantangara. I think that there could have been quite a few Nuclear generators built for the cost up to date and they would all be running at full capacity NOW!
Apart from unexpected geology issues, any projects being managed under a Labor government will ALWAYS go way over budget because of unions pushing for higher wages and other benefits that were not considered in feasibility studies and cost estimates.
everything Australia does on this scale is awfully managed. Personally, as a former Defence member, I think it's down to very badly written contracts and the erosion of the public sector.
It's an unpopular opinion, but I believe the public sector needs an overhaul of their pay and conditions.
1. There shouldn't be locked pay scales for roles and ranks- there needs to be more pay bonuses for skill sets, responsibilities and ability of the applicant- IE it needs to be like the private sector, otherwise you get high performers leaving for significantly more pay.
2. it needs to be easier to fire underperformers. At the moment it's almost impossible, and most APS managers won't take the effort to fire someone as it's so onerous. As a result the APS is filled with people who turn up and do sweet Fck all. As a former defence member, I worked with a number of these people and they are oxygen thieves that make the good APS (of which there are many) work twice as hard.
3. Contracts need to be written MUCH better, and contractors need to be held to their contract without horrendous cost overruns. If they can't do it as promised, maybe it's time we bought back government works departments- With the above changes, making them more efficient.
Arfter working on this project I’m not surprised,never seen such bad management,worst experience in my life, I have been in this industry for 35 years,absolutely the worst project I have ever worked on
The boring machine got stuck! So which engineers and project planners responsible for the geological testing along the track of the tunnel ? Who collected the money for core tests that weren’t done, or fabricated?
The 'un-interesting' machine got stuck. No need for slander and name-calling.
Finlands Olkilouto Nuclear power plant took 23 years to complete, was supposed to cost about 5 billion AUD and cost 15 Billion and is only good until 2038. Beat that Snowy Hydro 2.0!
Once completed it will be great... at the moment its bad. Although the money spent goes back into the Australian economy. Still 100% better then a nuclear power station
Nice info, thank you :)
Clearly these projects should not be decided by politicians especially the operations of construction demands experienced engineers with proven construction knowledge otherwise problems arise that cause millions of dollars to rectify.
Mega projects hatched in Australian pubs will be a disaster. Mediocre professionals running projects in Australia are very common.
This has been on the list of possible upgrades for Snowy since the '60s and perhaps earlier, along with other possibles. The invention at the pub is a myth, it, along with the other possible enhancements were reviewed every 10 years or so. This option never added up, compounded by the challenging geology which is/was well known. Eventually it will work as advertised, but the cost benefit is never going to add up. Borderline at $2b, and now likely to all up be close to $30b. A major clusterfuck.
You can do the same thing using a weight and gravity. A gravity battery. Gravity batteries have the great advantage of having a very high overall efficiency, theoretically as high as 80-85%, which is even higher than the already high efficiency of pumped hydro. This means that the percentage of energy that's lost during the whole process is very low.
Liberal/National parties would have none of that, or smaller dams, adding hydro to existing dams or batteries. After all none of its gas or coal. So Snowy 2.0 was only proposal they'd accept in government.
yeah the numbers for gravity batteries' efficiency look good on paper but the real-world cost-benefit ratio once you factor in energy density and practicality of building gravity battery facilities doesn't make them as competitive or commercially viable. I can't remember all the real world metrics off hand, but not very many exist for valid reasons.
@@hypervious8878 Indeed, the first battery with this technology was connected to the power grid in the Chinese county of Rudong, near Shanghai, in late 2023 by the company Energy Vault. The energy storage systems company is based in the US, but it developed and tested its prototype in Switzerland. Sadly, I could not find any statistics about its efficiency.
You can find some clips on UA-cam: Energy Vault: Gravity Energy Storage