By Andrew Blakers, Harry Armstrong-Thawley & Timothy Weber*
When Snowy 2.0 is in the news, it’s usually about money. The cost of the huge project has gone well beyond the initial A$6 billion estimate and will now cost more than $12 billion.
But cost overruns don’t affect the real value of this pumped hydro project. When it comes online – likely in 2028 – Snowy 2.0 will bring something fundamentally new to the Australian electricity system: energy storage at a scale far beyond anything else.
It will have five times more storage than all of Australia’s other pumped hydro and grid batteries combined, its capital cost is five times lower than batteries per unit of energy storage, and its lifetime is ten times longer than batteries. Our calculations show Snowy 2.0 will cost about one cent per day per Australian over its 150-year lifetime, assuming the final cost is between $15 billion and $18 billion.
Australia is aiming to have 82% of its electricity supplied by solar, wind and hydro in five years’ time, while coal generation declines rapidly. Storing variable renewable energy for later use will keep electricity supply reliable.
That’s where Snowy 2.0 and other planned large pumped hydro projects come in. Coupled with grid-scale batteries, these energy storage methods will allow us to wean ourselves off gas power.
How will Snowy 2.0 work?
Snowy 2.0 is an expansion of the original postwar Snowy Hydro Scheme. It links two existing reservoirs with a 27-kilometre tunnel and underground hydropower station. When power is cheap, water will be pumped uphill to the top reservoir. When power is expensive, water will run back downhill through the hydro station to produce electricity.
The project will be able to store 350 gigawatt-hours of energy – the equivalent of 7 million electric vehicle batteries, or 350 large grid batteries.
There has been scepticism over whether Snowy 2.0 will be able to perform as intended due to constraints in how much water can be moved around the system.
In fact, the Tumut River system, around which Snowy 2.0 is constructed, has plenty of flexibility, including five interconnected reservoirs with a total capacity 30 times larger than required for Snowy 2.0, and six hydropower stations.
Pumped hydro and batteries solve the energy storage problem
For years, Australia’s grid operators have relied on gas-fired power stations to meet sudden demand. Unlike coal, gas can fire up within minutes. The problem is, gas is no longer cheap, and now generates only 5% of east coast electricity. East coast gas prices have tripled since LNG exports began in 2015, inflating household power bills.
Gas has been a necessary evil to keep the grid reliable. But it’s now possible to begin displacing it using a combination of short-term storage in batteries and long-duration storage in large pumped hydro such as Snowy 2.0.
Batteries and pumped hydro are already replacing gas and coal generators in stabilising the grid. Energy storage now keeps Australians powered during increasingly common sudden failures of ageing coal power stations, or when transmission lines are damaged.
On sunny and windy days, Australia now regularly produces more electricity than it can use. As a result, wholesale electricity prices can become negative. This means energy storage companies are being paid to take and store excess electricity.
It’s hard for coal stations to shut down and restart quickly. As a result, they now scale back as far as possible when prices are low or negative. Their inability to shut off entirely means some cheap, clean wind and solar can’t be used. Coal is still dominant in overnight generation.
Grid batteries do a superb job of discharging stored electricity at high power to cover regular peak-demand periods in mornings and evenings when solar energy isn’t flowing and energy prices are high. These periods are usually brief, meaning the amount of battery energy needed is relatively small.
But batteries are an expensive way to store enough energy to cover electricity demand for longer periods. That’s because very large quantities of battery chemicals and metals are required. At these times, fossil fuel generators make a lot of money as there’s currently no alternative.
This is where large-scale pumped hydro comes in. Snowy 2.0 and other pumped hydro projects can help meet regular morning and evening peak demand and can also provide much of the electricity required overnight. Pumped hydro uses stored water, which is extremely cheap.
Snowy 2.0 is large enough to generate flat-out for a whole week if needed. This means it can do two useful things at once: meet demand from the grid, and help recharge grid batteries when solar and wind are scarce.
Pumped hydro can act as insurance against high prices. A third of Snowy 2.0’s revenue is expected to come from long-term contracts with retailers, renewable generators and large industrial users.
Snowy 2.0 could snatch a substantial portion of the energy market currently occupied by coal and gas. Building several more large pumped hydro systems would make it possible to get rid of coal and gas altogether.
Fewer new transmission lines
Interstate transmission lines are essential. If one state is wet and windless, power can be imported along transmission lines from neighbouring states with better weather. But many planned transmission lines have run into issues with rural pushback and slow construction speeds.
Large pumped hydro systems make it possible to avoid building some expensive and politically fraught new transmission lines.
If each state or territory had one large pumped hydro scheme, it would reduce the need for more transmission lines by using low- or negative-cost electricity on sunny and windy days to pump water uphill. This would reduce import requirements.
Australia has 23,000 potential pumped hydro sites, far more than we would ever need. Of these, we have identified 315 as premium sites in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. South Australia and Western Australia also have good options, albeit at higher cost.

A good option for energy storage is to build pumped hydro in hilly country and grid batteries near cities to reduce grid congestion and avoid the need for more transmission lines.
For example, Tasmania’s pumped hydro allows the state’s wind energy to be exported to Victoria continuously, maximising the usage of expensive undersea cables. Used in conjunction with batteries near Melbourne, Tasmanian wind can meet high-value morning and evening peak loads in Victoria.
Big project – but big benefit
When Snowy 2.0 comes online, it won’t be long before it proves its worth. Operating alongside grid batteries, it will help push expensive gas generation out of the grid.![]()
*Andrew Blakers, Professor of Engineering, Australian National University; Harry Armstrong-Thawley, Research Officer, Australian National University, and Timothy Weber, Research Officer, School of Engineering, Australian National University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
19 Comments
You can wipe out debt.
But you cannot get by without energy.
And sometimes you need to store; to have capacitance in the system.
Here, that was Labour 1, Coalition nil.
Dropped through blind neoliberal ideology.
I would be great if Dr Earl Bardsley could write another pumped hydro article, to explain the various updates in this space.
Raising Pukaki has become another discussed pumped hydro option.
Mike Roan the CEO of Meridan discusses it, here.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201900667…
And there is the private consortium looking at the Onslow project.
Dr Bardsley has written about some of this.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/10/17/the-lake-onslow-pumped-hydro-is-dead-…
I have just been informed that the consortium behind a private bid to build the Onslow pumped hydro scheme became a registered company last Friday, with former Transpower chair Keith Turner, former Environment Minister David Parker, former Meridian renewable energy generation manager Ken Smales and senior environmental and commercial lawyer John Hardie as directors.
All shares are owned by Pumped Hydro Holdings, whose shareholders include the four directors of the consortium and a company owned by businessman and former merchant banker Rodger Finlay.
Finlay is the current acting chair of the Reserve Bank and a former chair of NZ Oil and Gas - now Echelon Resources. The remaining 2 per cent is held by Oscar Francis of Dunedin.
Hardie, Parker and Turner are all directors of the holding company.
So this is a consortium that wants to build it, who will pay for and own it. Maybe if some of National's rich mates stand to benefit the state might be allowed to fund our own pumped hydro project.
I think the worst result would be a public + private partnership where the govt paid for the construction, privatised the final infrastructure and we end up with the same electricity rip off artists charging high off peak prices because they own the means of reducing price spikes.
I'm so cynical but perhaps this gravy train maneuvering is what held up progress with the previous govt.
I look at the cost of this project and the further projections and wonder how and why Onslow had a cost estimate of 20 billion (plus)?
I would like to know how much of that is consenting, council, Iwi etc, ie mostly dead money.
I understand Snowy 2.0 is not for a dry year. It's an "active" scheme providing energy daily. Not comparable with Onslow.
Onslow would do both - generally fill on a multi-year basis, but also interact with the market on a day-to-day basis. The day-to-day is how it can cover its costs, while also supporting a huge increase in intermittent generation.
Onslow could also firm seasonal solar supply. It could buy excess summer solar power at low prices to store for winter when it could supply the market at higher prices.
This could be a very profitable trade for Onslow because no one else in the market would have the storage capacity to do this.
My understanding is only very occasionally day to day during winter when unreliables are well unreliable. Not supplying when the situation is "normal", ie unreliables operating and no shortage of water for hydro for the foreseeable future.
The Pumped Hydro Holding company could attract thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of household and business customers who have solar panels by offering more attractive rates than the other gentailers for buying-back excess solar power. This could have a very beneficial competitive disruptive effect on the electricity market. Maybe it wouldn't have this effect, but it could and the electricity market should be regulated so that competitive disruption is possible.
The question is: Can the grid be maintained during the perio of inexorable de-growth.
And the answer to THAT - is probably not. Look at the last 24 hours - and imagine the fixing back up ex fossil energy.
Ain't gonna happen.
And 2 of the 3 lines from Waipori to Dunedin went down. Which ain't far from Onslow.... We are headed for more of that, more often.
On a hilarious note - David Parker once said "I can't believe we can't run society on lignite". I know; I was there. So he and Profile, from my POV, as as cranially-curtailed as each other. Except one peddles on-behalf, while the other peddles in belief.
It always gets back to your certainty that your pessimistic malthusian worldview is correct PDK.
Excepting that Malthus did not consider energy.
Nor technological change, genetics etc. Given he was born 50 years before Mendel his basic theory was on a hiding to nothing - yet people, post Borlaug even, still cling to it.
Not a cent of public money should be spent on Onslow given the dry year issue can be solved with a big pile of coal at Huntly, on Tekapo-Pukaki with a bit of leadership.
"What does all the work conducted in the Upper Waitaki in 1977 and before, mean for New
Zealand’s energy future today? It means that, if there is a scope or need for pumped hydro storage
in New Zealand, it has already largely been built and tested on the Tekapo canal. All that is
technically required to make use of this existing asset is to buy pumps and install them in their prebuilt
locations at Tekapo A and B power stations. This could be accomplished in less than two years
at an estimated cost of less than NZ$100 million, and, assuming the completed pumped hydro
scheme would be operated coordinated with other adjacent generation assets, could provide backup,
firming and energy storage capacity for several hundred MW of new and future wind or solar
generaon development. There are no technical barriers preventing the completion of the pumped
hydro scheme at the Tekapo canal and the comparatively small financial outlay required, would
make it one of the most cost-effective pumped hydro schemes realizable anywhere in the world."
Pumped_Hydro_its_already_built__An_Open_Letter_from_SEF_2nd_August_2023.pdf
I think they have spent $10mil+ on the lake Onslow investigation. Another few million seems worth it to me to bring this up to speed. I'm just wondering if this new Onslow group which has Keith Turner, ex Meridian CEO and Smales also an ex-Meridian executive as directors have other fish to fry now rather than trying to resuscitate something they must be aware of.
Better to spend the money on gen 4 nuclear or geothermal, and generate some process heat and electricity in the right end of the country. The region has high evaporation, requiring continual pumping to top up, and history of monumental construction delays a la Clyde dam.
“I won’t comment on what we think it will cost to build,” says Turner. “But I will comment on what was announced when MBIE produced its interim business case, and it was costed to be $15 billion – but that number is not the cost to build. That number included a life cycle of operating and maintenance, and it is not comparable with the cost to build.”
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/10/24/smallest-company-looks-to-build-bigge…
Good on them for the attempt but we again risk funnelling profit offshore unnecessarily.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.