Leaderboard

That is a bold claim to make without evidence. The short answer is no. There is no credible estimate that connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers requires $1 trillion in grid upgrades. Here's where the claim appears to come from. What Snowy Hydro 2.0 actually costs The project has experienced enormous cost overruns: Original estimate (2017): $2 billion Revised estimate (2023): $12 billion Snowy Hydro now acknowledges the final cost will be higher than $12 billion. Some independent analysts (Bruce Mountain and Ted Woodley) estimate the total economic cost could reach around $42 billion, but this includes: construction, financing (interest), and Snowy 2.0's share of major transmission projects such as HumeLink and VNI West. Even critics of the project are talking about tens of billions, not hundreds of billions. Where does the "$1 trillion" come from? There are a couple of possibilities. 1. Confusing Snowy 2.0 with the entire energy transition Some opinion pieces have argued that Australia's entire electricity transition—generation, transmission, storage, distribution upgrades and financing over decades—could approach very large figures. For example, one recent opinion article claimed: about $450 billion for transition infrastructure plus around $600 billion in financing costs and rounded this to roughly $1 trillion. It was not referring solely to connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers. That estimate is controversial and is not an official government, AEMO or CSIRO estimate. 2. Simple exaggeration Sometimes numbers grow in online debates. Someone may have taken: "$42 billion for Snowy" plus "Australia's grid will need hundreds of billions of investment" and turned it into "Snowy needs a trillion dollars of transmission." There is no evidence for that statement. What do official bodies estimate for transmission? Australia does need significant transmission investment regardless of Snowy 2.0. AEMO's Integrated System Plan includes projects like: HumeLink VNI West Marinus Link EnergyConnect These collectively amount to tens of billions of dollars, not hundreds of billions for Snowy alone. The purpose is to connect new renewable generation across the National Electricity Market, not just Snowy Hydro. Is Snowy 2.0 competitive? That's a separate question. There are legitimate criticisms: huge cost blowouts years behind schedule uncertainty over final cost batteries have become much cheaper since Snowy 2.0 was conceived Many energy economists now question whether Snowy 2.0 would be approved if starting from scratch today. Others argue its enormous storage capacity and expected operating life (many decades) still make it valuable for grid reliability. The "$1 trillion to connect Snowy 2.0" claim isn't supported by any credible estimate. Even critics of the project put Snowy 2.0's total cost at around $40–42 billion, including construction, financing and associated transmission. The "$1 trillion" figure comes from some opinion pieces estimating the possible cost of Australia's entire long-term energy transition—not the cost of connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers. They're two completely different claims. So I'd rate the original statement as: "Connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 costs $1 trillion" → False "Snowy Hydro 2.0 has become extremely expensive" → True "Australia will need major transmission investment during the energy transition" → True "Those transmission costs are all because of Snowy Hydro 2.0" → False

It gave me a better Insight into Elon Musk that I had before. It's on Netflix. An amazing effort by all involved. I highly recommend it. Nev

American life expectancy is not that high and is getting worse. Nev

Heart attack on a stick, like so much American-style food.

GON, the U.S. Military forces leave Australia after a 6 month deployment. There are approximately 2000 Marines based in the Territory from March to October, then they go home. There are no U.S. Military force bases in Australia with permanently-based personnel, unlike Japan, Sth Korea, Germany, Italy, etc. The Australian military facilities used by the Americans are used on a Joint Rotational basis, or are Joint Defence Facilities with some American personnel based here permanently. Marine Rotational Force: - Darwin: Approximately 2,000 U.S. Marines and sailors deploy to northern Australia every year. They arrive in March to conduct several joint drills, such as Exercise Pitch Black and Southern Jackaroo, before returning to the U.S. in October. Aircraft and Bomber Rotations: The U.S. routinely sends aircraft (like B-52 bombers stationed temporarily at RAAF Base Tindal) for operations, and stores aerial troop carriers in the country, but the personnel are continually cycled in and out. Joint Defence Facilities: Bases like the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap operate as cooperatively managed Australian and U.S. intelligence sites with permanently stationed administrative and intelligence personnel. A number of the overseas American military bases are treated as "Sovereign territory" by the Americans. I cannot see that being allowed here. In the U.K., the bases are leased to the Americans, the British Govt retains sovereignty over the land. In Spain, the U.S. bases are jointly owned by the Spanish and the Americans.

Update your data, GON. The Yanks want to create a massive arsenal storage in the middle of Victoria, and they are servicing their subs in W.A. Don't forget Tindall and Pine Gap. What's going on around Townsville?