I am strongly opposed to the Snowy 2.0 project as described in the Main Works Environmental Impact Statement.
The scale and intensity of the environmental impact is unacceptable for a sensitive sub-alpine region such as Kosciuszko National Park (KNP). In addition to the catastrophic environmental impact, the cost is excessive, the claims about energy storage potential are dubious, and there is no credible consideration of less expensive, lower impact alternatives. Consequently, in my view the Snowy 2.0 project does not meet the standards required of Environmentally Sustainable Development and therefore the Minister for Planning should refuse the project.
Details of my concerns are in the attached document.

I object to this project for the following reasons:
the cost is much greater than alternatives for accumulation of power.
The long term loss of jobs will be much greater than any shot term employment gains.
The concentration of power accumulation will make the power system vulnerable to natural attack ( fire, storm drought etc ) and terrorist and foreign sabotage.
The collateral damage during construction will cause permanent loss of natural heritage,( fauna, flora, and scenic ), as well tourism.
The clearing of vegetation will lower the rainfall ( snowfall ) threatening the future of snow sports in the Snowy Mountains.

The better alternatives to Snowy 2 are to manage the power usage in a multi faceted manner.
Utilizing both old and new technologies power accumulation can be managed more cheaply and providing greater security than Snowy 2
( Snowy 2 only contributes only accumulation capacity, and actually will have a reduced original power contribution due to dumping spoil in a dam )
Batteries are more efficient than hydro mechanical means of power storage.( Lead acid batteries although they are heavy can be used in static situations to advantage, will be cheaper than lithium batteries, and can be completely recycled.)
The use of "Smart Meters" enables the charging for energy at different rates at different times, ie high rates at peak demand times and cheaper rates for off peak
The use of domestic batteries has increased, and should be , as it can reduce the peak demand considerably.
Industrial users and also hospitals and other essential services should be encouraged to use batteries rather than diesel generator sets to provide power security, as batteries can provide cheaper power if power is charged for at different rates.
One other initiative that should be introduced is a lower charge for power used subject to remote switching, (as hot water and storage heaters were using ripple switching) so the compressor of an air conditioner can be switched off for 10 or 15 minutes at a time making little difference to the room temperature at the time but can be used to remove surges in usage.
The big advantage of using multiple battery storage is that the distribution more localized, and so is more secure and efficient.
If we were to build a hydro electric storage it should be north of Sydney, Armidale , Toowomba , closer to growth centers.
We should learn from the South Australian blackout of September 2016, that large and lengthy transmission lines are vulnerable to natural extremes (wind, fire, water, and earthquake ) as well as could be targets for terrorists or foreign powers.
Other technical advances are proceeding, such as thermal storage in solar thermal power generation plants.
It would be better to put more resourced into encouraging development of multiple ways and places of energy accumulation that make one vulnerable expensive inefficient project in the wrong place.

In brief:
▪︎1. The proposed project is a third of Kosciusko National Park, twice the size of Greater Sydney, in an internationally renowned conservation area. This is a vast scale. Monstrous!
▪︎2. This subalpine area has some of the rarest habitat in Australia. We have already destroyed other areas. Let us protect this region.
▪︎3. The EIS acknowledges that the construction footprint will disturb 1680 hectares of native vegetation and destroy 992 ha of threatened species habitat (fauna, flora, ecological communities) PLUS 109kms of new roads, 10km of transmission lines with 120m wide easement, dpleted groundwater above tunnels, construction camps and work areas. Massive destruction!
▪︎4. How can 14 million cubic metres of spoil, some of which is heavily contaminated by asbestos, be disposed of in Kosciusko National Park without further catastrophic environmental impacts? Dumping in Talbingo and Tantangarra Reservoirs will deplete their capacities.
▪︎5. There us a total disregard for the protection if water dependant ecosystems. Not acceptable.
▪︎6. Noxious pest species, particularly redfin perch, will make their way downstream to the Murrumbudgee River, Lake Eucumbene, Snowy River, Murray River. A catastrophe!
▪︎7. Wilderness and solitude are absolutely necessary in our lives and here we have that provided by nature. Destruction!
▪︎8. I have also read financial details and deem that this proposed project is totally uneconomic.
▪︎9. Snowy Hydro us owned by the Australian Government, therefore the Australian Community. Why should we bear these huge risks and suffer the consequences of a project which is uneconomic, staggeringly huge and will severely impact the environment. This is not reversible!
CW

From many positions the plan is defective and not the best way to use this ‘increasingly rare’ resource, water.

1. Water is likely to decline substantially making the whole exercise short lived.
2. It is hugely costly when all the associated changes are included and given the extent of the scheme
2. These, and other bodies of water in the area could be contaminated by all the associated works, which are extensive - not just a couple of entry points..
3. The pipe will be huge - up to 1 km below ground and in the order of 100 km long! (96 km to drive btw the 2 lakes). The reach of this is mind boggling..
The amount of water needed to be in this pipe to make the system viable has to impact on the respective reservoirs.

Basically it is a nightmare- eg giant reversible turbines pushing water to and fro providing substantial electricity will involve immense weight and pressures and pipe cracking would seem highly likely. Repair of this would be interesting. Presumably that’s the reason for all the entry points???

The arguments seem to be multiplying indicating the absurdity of this scheme. One factor is the extraordinary drought associated with the Murray-Darling, eastern reaches of which include the area of the proposed system. https://www.mdba.gov.au/discover-basin/landscape/geography

Using this precious resource for electricity given other current options, particularly viable in Australia, is complete idiocy.

Objection letter as attached.

I wish to indicate my strong opposition to the Snowy 2.0 project as described in the Main Works Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

I realize that work has already been done, and that contracts have already been signed, and that it seems a “done deal”.
However, when a project of this size clearly will cause such permanent and disastrous damage within a National Park, we must and can call a halt before it is too late. The size and scale of this project within a sensitive area should not proceed if we want to maintain and protect our bio-diversity and future proof the livability for us all.
I am no scientist, and lack the detail to make my own considered expertise, but I am very concerned with human causes to the continued destruction to our environment, causing significant loss of bio-diversity, and ultimately our own well-being.
I am always surprised how many roofs in our big cities still have no solar panels. We have some on our small city terrace, with a battery, and have more than enough to power all our needs, for no cost, after installation. And we feed into the grid, even though we are paid a pittance for doing so. If the government would incentivise installing solar panels on all existing roofs, and make it mandatory for all new homes and offices/factories to install maximum possible panels, then we would not need to degregate our valuable environment so, and it would be far more economic too.
Also, our worshiping the god of “expansion” needs careful looking at. That is clearly not possible forever, so let us work out a way to make our economy work without adding more population and the consequent need for more power.
I am all for using only renewable, but a more clever way, rather than trashing our environment. Certainly leave all fossil fuels in the ground. However, I digress….

The following is clearly taken directly from a submission form…I make no apologies. It says all I can possibly say much better than I could, and I fully concur.