Snowy 2.0’s long-term value

Andrew Blakers, Professor of Engineering at ANU, has published an opinion piece arguing that Snowy 2.0 will be valuable to Australia's renewable energy transition despite cost overruns. The article does not provide specific figures for those overruns, nor does it detail Blakers' argument for long-term value, but frames the pumped-hydro scheme as critical to the transition.

Where this fits

Snowy 2.0 is a direct answer to the core reliability problem in a renewables-heavy grid: weather dependency. It is also an admission that solar and wind alone cannot deliver firm power. The scheme bears on cost (the overruns are material enough to merit mention) and on reliability (pumped storage is dispatchable, but it is not generation; it stores and returns energy already produced, and only when there is surplus to pump). Snowy 2.0 is the firming infrastructure the renewables-only path requires, yet it is expensive, requires years to build, and displaces the firm, low-carbon alternative: nuclear power, which remains banned under Australian law.

What it means

A renewables-heavy grid cannot run without massive storage or firm backup. Snowy 2.0 is Australia's chosen vehicle for that storage. It will cost billions and take years. In that same time, a nuclear plant would deliver firm, dispatchable, low-lifecycle-emission power with a smaller material footprint and lower China dependence. Instead, Australia is building the storage system the renewable transition demands, accepting the cost and timeline, while the lower-cost firm alternative remains off the table.