Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 7:34:48 to 7:38:17
Discussion turns to the costs of terminating the project versus completion, the project's role as a storage facility rather than a generator, and the impact on the construction workforce.
Topics: Renewable energy, Energy storage, Employment
Speakers: Malcolm Roberts, Dennis Barnes, Unknown Speaker
>> And how much more would be incurred if the project was terminated? right now
>> uh we would obviously have uh I mean I we've not done that uh analysis for public consumption because obviously we
>> have you done the analysis at all
>> we have done the analysis of uh what would we do if we were to change contractor as have been reported in the press but we have not done the analysis on what it would cost to terminate the project given the importance of the
Okay, we'll get back to that at the end. Um, Robert Godlipsson um in the Australian Hy headline says snowy hydro 2 has destroyed voters faith in mega renewable energy projects. It's a laughing stock. So that was in the Australian last week. He made the comment in his story about the cost blowout quote worse still there is no certainty that the project will actually work. What confidence level? That's the end of the quote. What confidence level, Mr. Barnes, do you have that the project will generate the 375,000 megawatt hours of power each year? And more generally, is there anything in this report to support Robert's
>> Uh, the project will absolutely work. Uh, it doesn't generate 375 megawatt hours a year. It acts as a storage facility. Our modeling shows that it will actually uh absorb six gawatt hours of 6,000 gwatt hours of electricity and produce 5,000 gwatt hours of electricity. So it will absolutely work.
>> So that's the inefficiencies of
>> about 20%.
>> So you get less less power out of it than you put into it.
that's as as any battery.
>> Right. So what were you going to say? I
was going to say to say it produces 375,000 megawatt hours is not the characterization of its role. Its role is to absorb excess renewables, store those for the time when the grid needs it the most, and it will absolutely do
>> Okay. Well, we could we'll go into the details at a later date. I note in your release you say closure of the project would cost 5,000 jobs. Those are construction jobs, correct? Not permanent jobs. >> That's correct. Thank you. Um, is there no other project in Australia that people could get those construction workers could get to work on? For example, Brisbane Olympics or Queensland Olympics or Australian Olympics? Housing is desperate for workers. They're really desperate because the government's bringing in unskilled people. There are dams to build, power stations to build. Have you done any work on how your workforce could transition away from Snowy, too? Taxpayers are subsidizing an employment scheme. That's basically what Snowy 2 is With subsidies, productivity decreases. We're decreasing the wealth of You can employ them on projects that will actually increase productivity of Australia. That would be wonderful for improving people's cost of living, would be wonderful for higher pay rises. That will be non-inflationary. But instead, you're doing the reverse. You're decreasing productivity and when you could be re rearming these people out, releasing them and getting on with higher productivity projects for the