How much will it really cost?
Initial estimates pegged the project at around $12 billion. However, these figures have already doubled to over $24 billion—all without a feasibility study or a business case, and before any investigative work has been completed. The Liberal National Party (LNP) has expressed deep concerns about the escalating costs and the lack of transparency from the Queensland Government. The LNP has stated that if they win the upcoming October state election, they will scrap the project altogether.
The Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro Project, originally announced by former Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, is now being fast-tracked by Queensland Premier Steven Miles and the government-owned business, Queensland Hydro. The project is being rushed without sufficient planning and consultation as the government is eager to push the project to the next phase to meet farcical goals like achieving 70% renewable energy by 2032 and 80% by 2035. While the project is touted as one of the largest hydro storage initiatives in the world, the Queensland Government seem to be ignoring the significant uncertainty regarding its final cost.
Pumped Hydro is expensive and inefficient
The cost projections for the Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro project are nothing short of alarming when stacked against other comparable initiatives. Snowy 2.0, which provides just 350,000 MWh of storage, is five times smaller than Pioneer-Burdekin yet has seen its costs balloon from $2 billion to $12 billion. Similarly, the Borumba project, offering a meager 50,000 MWh of storage—30 times less than Pioneer-Burdekin—is expected to cost a staggering $14.2 billion.
Given these alarming precedents, the Pioneer-Burdekin project’s already-doubled estimate of $24 billion is likely just the tip of the iceberg. Considering the cost blowouts of Snowy 2.0 and Borumba, it wouldn't be surprising if Pioneer-Burdekin’s final price tag escalates to an eye-watering $120 billion or more. Unlike Snowy 2.0 and Borumba, which involve upgrading existing reservoirs, Pioneer-Burdekin requires the creation of three entirely new reservoirs, adding yet another layer of financial risk to a project that already seems poised to surpass even the wildest estimates.
A report from the National Parks Association of NSW highlights how the Snowy 2.0 project loses around 40% of the energy it stores, making it a far less efficient option compared to modern batteries.
The battery that loses 40% of its energy - $billions down the drain
Snowy Hydro and Queensland Hydro often refer to CSIRO figures to justify pumped hydro projects, presenting bar graphs that seemingly rank energy generation and storage technologies. However, the CSIRO's GenCost report has been a subject of controversy and criticism, particularly due to the assumptions and variables it uses.
CSIRO report does not accurately represent cost of renewables
The report attempts to provide a one-size-fits-all comparison of energy technologies, but this approach is flawed. Experts have pointed out that the GenCost data relies on a multitude of assumptions that can vary widely depending on specific circumstances, such as the need for new transmission infrastructure, the local environment, and the operational realities of different energy sources​.
Moreover, the report does not adequately account for the integration costs of renewables into the grid, nor does it factor in the real-world inefficiencies and cost overruns associated with projects like pumped hydro.
With initial cost estimates for projects like Snowy 2.0 proving to be 500% lower than the final expected costs, and with a decreased efficiency of nearly 40% compared to original estimates, pumped hydro quickly reveals itself to be a costly and inefficient method of storing and generating power. This inefficiency, coupled with the underestimated costs, ultimately leads to higher power prices for consumers​​.
Ultimately leads to higher power prices for consumers​​
The Queensland government’s push towards renewable energy is often presented as a cost-effective and environmentally friendly solution. However, the reality is more complex. While the cost of generating electricity from wind and solar has decreased, the integration of these intermittent sources into the grid requires significant investment in backup systems like gas or batteries, which drives up costs. These additional infrastructure requirements, along with the need for stable supply alternatives, are contributing to higher electricity prices for consumers.
Queenslanders are seeing significant increases in their power bills as a result of the energy transition
Moreover, the unreliability of renewables—dependent on weather conditions—means that traditional energy sources must remain online to prevent blackouts, further undermining the claimed cost benefits. As the government continues to shut down reliable coal-fired power stations in favour of renewables, Queenslanders are seeing the financial burden of this transition reflected in their rising power bills.
Comments