Snowy Mark 2 is not viable

Dear Sir,
I am a civil engineer who had a senior role with a major contractor while working for some six years on the Snowy Mountains Scheme, and who afterwards worked as an executive engineer on many major resources projects in Australia and overseas.

This is a copy of a letter I have written to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull with copies to Josh Frydenberg, Barnaby Joyce, Mat Canavan, Jan Prentice, Deb Frecklington, Christian Rowan and Michael Hart:

“…..It is with this background, that I would seriously question your widely reported assertion that Snowy Mk 2 is economically viable.

“By what measure would it be viable? I would suggest only by the measure of doing the arithmetic based on adjusting energy costs upwards far enough to pay for its construction and operation.

“It will certainly not be economically viable if the energy costs fed into the equation are those costs that we had in the early 2000s when our electricity basically came from coal-fired power stations. That’s the target at which we should be aiming.

“The project will not increase Australia’s available water supply or generate any new electricity.

“It certainly will not provide enough power for 500,000 homes as you claim. That power will come from prime generating sources and just be inefficiently cycled through Snowy Mk 2.

“This whole project of which you are so proud is no more than window dressing to cover up your scheme to impose an unviable renewable energy policy on Australia that will bring rivers of gold to the big energy players.

“It is well known that last year AGL made $1bn profit, paid for by consumers, and that in 2009 Goldman Sachs announced it would spend $150 billion on green energy by 2020.

“Where do your real interests lie, Prime Minister?”