{
  "txid": "c616d3aa20f264b426edc7da2fd0c90a6e46cfb2b5fc9e9df8b77d8e714fefe2",
  "block_height": 957666,
  "time": null,
  "app": "treechat",
  "type": "reply",
  "map_content": "@Sunnie \r\nIs 43 billion australian dollars a large amount for snowy 2.0 electricity project . Please help me work out was malcom turnbull really so bad.\r\nHeres some data\r\nUh, you've been predicting these problems for many years and we've spoken to you about them before and everything you've suggested seems to have come to fruition so far. Some of us are old enough to remember when Malcolm Turnbull was Prime Minister 2018 I think it was maybe late 2017 when he when he announced the project have a look. I am a nation building Prime Minister believe me and this is a nation building project. These are big dreams in these [music] mountains. Real courage. A belief in the future. A confidence. In Australia. Now Bruce when you see that sort of political rhetoric around a project and and political impetus put into it without a proper costing are you suggesting that over time as you just mentioned unions and and and and contractors have essentially just taken advantage of that knowing that they're they're on a winner here? Yes, I think that's exactly what happened. Um, you know, real courage with other people's money. Not real courage in my money. But yeah, the government made this announcement and then way before they even finalized the financial decision to proceed we said get an independent assessment. Of course Snowy Hydro is pushing things and if you don't independently assess it you'll continue to have yourself painted in a corner which is exactly what they did. And subsequent governments one after the next have come promising to have a transparent costing of it and to tell the public what's going on none of them have. It's carried on it's got worse and worse and worse and the latest announcement from the government is we couldn't possibly stop now. This is a a nation building game changing project the same old rhetoric we've had now for for almost a decade. In fact here's the most recent comment we've got from Chris Bowen this is back in February. Snowy 2.0 one of the biggest construction programs in the world. 27 kilometers of tunnels 4,000 workers. In 2022 this project was way off track. We got it back on track. It's now 70% complete. Bruce you mentioned one of all commission but is it too late to pull out of the project does it have to be completed now and does this massive expenditure and the servicing the debt on it for years to come is that going to put up continue to put upward pressure on power prices in the national electricity grid? So let me take the second question first unless government imposes almost all of this on taxpayers I almost all of it on taxpayers electricity prices will have to go up. Snowy 2 is a horribly inefficient storage unit it loses at least a third a quarter to a third of the electricity that it produces in in in losses in the pipes and in the motors. So it can't compete against other storage devices. It's inflexible. It's slow to adapt. It'll be take months and months if not years to cost effectively fill the top reservoir. So it'll be it'll be unprofitable from day one. So unless they put it on taxpayers almost all of it on taxpayers it will simply sit as an enormous dead weight on electricity consumers. Is it too late to stop? We've long said get an independent assessment figure out whether that's doable and possible and worthwhile. I'm afraid we just can't know. We don't know the details of the contracts the details of the closure clauses and the hydrology and the rock conditions and so on. But um Bruce thanks so much thanks so much for your assessment I appreciate it. Bruce Mountain there just a just an incredible disaster this boondoggle. He's with the Victoria Energy Policy Centre.\r\nThought for 5s\r\nYes, $43 billion AUD (or the ~$42 billion independent estimate) is an extraordinarily large amount for Snowy 2.0\u2014it's a massive cost overrun that makes it one of Australia's biggest infrastructure boondoggles.\u2060Sky News\r\nCost History and Scale\r\nOriginal announcement (2017 under Malcolm Turnbull): ~$2 billion, with power expected by around 2021. This was presented as a bold \"nation-building\" pumped hydro storage project to add ~2,000 MW capacity and significant storage using existing reservoirs (Tantangara and Talbingo) via ~27 km of tunnels.\u2060Sky News\r\nSubsequent official revisions: Rose to ~$4-5 billion after feasibility, then ~$6 billion, then ~$12 billion by 2023 (plus separate transmission costs).\u2060Macrobusiness\r\nCurrent situation (2026): Independent estimates from Bruce Mountain (Victoria Energy Policy Centre) and Ted Woodley put the total effective cost at ~$42 billion. This breaks down roughly as ~$20 billion direct construction, ~$12 billion attributable transmission infrastructure (e.g., Humelink, VNI West), and ~$8 billion in interest/financing over a long build. The project is ~70% complete but years behind schedule (full operation possibly 2029\u20132032).\u2060Macrobusiness\r\nContext on scale: Australia's GDP is roughly A$2.5\u20133 trillion annually. $42\u201343 billion is comparable to major national projects or repeated big-ticket items (e.g., equivalent to building multiple hospitals, roads, or defence capabilities). For energy storage, critics note it's inefficient: round-trip losses of 20\u201333%+, slow to refill (months), inflexible compared to batteries, and likely unprofitable without heavy taxpayer/consumer subsidies, which could push up electricity prices.\u2060Theconversation\r\nPumped hydro can make sense in principle for long-duration storage, but this project's geology, scale, tunnelling challenges (e.g., TBM issues, variable rock), environmental impacts in Kosciuszko National Park, and procurement have driven enormous overruns. Similar issues have hit other pumped hydro efforts (e.g., Queensland's Borumba).\u2060Macrobusiness\r\nOn Malcolm Turnbull and Political Responsibility\r\nTurnbull's government announced the project in 2017 with very lowball figures and strong political rhetoric (\"nation building,\" \"big dreams,\" \"real courage\") before a full independent feasibility study or proper costing. Early warnings about underestimation existed, but it was pushed forward.\u2060Sky News\r\nThis fits a classic megaproject pattern: political impetus creates momentum, locking in successors (subsequent Coalition and Labor governments), with contractors/unions benefiting amid weak oversight. Promises of \"transparent costing\" from multiple governments went unfulfilled. Bruce Mountain and others have criticised this for years, arguing it was flawed from the conceptual stage.\u2060Hancockenergy\r\nWas Turnbull \"really so bad\"?\r\nYes on this project: Announcing a $2B price tag prematurely was poor governance. It set up a sunk-cost trap. Megaprojects routinely overrun (optimism bias + political incentives), but this scale of failure (20x initial) reflects inadequate due diligence. Turnbull has defended it by noting the ambition and later cost pressures, but the initial framing was misleading.\u2060Afr\r\nNot the whole story: Cost blowouts continued and worsened under later governments (including Labor under Bowen, who also faced criticism for lack of transparency). Snowy Hydro (government-owned) bears operational responsibility, and issues like COVID, supply chains, and technical challenges played roles. Broader energy policy pressures (renewables integration, coal exit) created haste. Many politicians across parties supported it as \"green\" infrastructure.\r\nSuccessive governments' reluctance to pause for a proper independent review (despite calls) amplified the problem. \"Too big to fail\" logic now dominates.\r\nBottom Line\r\n$43 billion for this specific storage outcome is very large and poor value relative to alternatives like distributed batteries, smaller pumped hydro, or other firming options\u2014especially given efficiency losses and recharge limitations. It was sold on unrealistic premises.\u2060Theconversation\r\nThis doesn't mean all nation-building or pumped storage is bad, but it highlights risks of politically driven megaprojects without rigorous, independent scrutiny upfront. A full transparent audit or Royal Commission-style review (as called for by critics) would clarify lessons for future projects. The transcript you shared aligns closely with expert critiques like Mountain's.",
  "media_type": "text/markdown",
  "filename": "|",
  "author": "14aqJ2hMtENYJVCJaekcrqi12fiZJzoWGK",
  "display_name": "MarkKordusic",
  "channel": null,
  "parent_txid": "467e5c8888672f42fe90a8ff491e4a4f7f193cbf3fbb2207cb8cb4a8cf9e0d21",
  "ref_txid": null,
  "tags": null,
  "reply_count": 0,
  "like_count": 0,
  "timestamp": "2026-07-13T10:20:30.000Z",
  "media_url": null,
  "aip_verified": false,
  "thread_root_tx": null,
  "engagement_score": 0,
  "token_ref": null,
  "token_type": null,
  "kind": null,
  "lat": null,
  "lng": null,
  "category": null,
  "locked_sats": "0",
  "pow_bits": 0,
  "has_access": true,
  "attachments": [],
  "ui_name": "MarkKordusic",
  "ui_display_name": "MarkKordusic",
  "ui_handle": "MarkKordusic",
  "ui_display_raw": "MarkKordusic",
  "ui_signer": "14aqJ2\u2026oWGK",
  "ref_ui_name": "unknown",
  "ref_ui_signer": "unknown"
}