24 December 2024

HumeLink gets the green light, work to begin in 2025

| Chris Roe
Join the conversation
43
Opponents of the HumeLink overhead lines claim the technology is outdated and dangerous.

Opponents of the HumeLink overhead lines claim the technology is outdated and dangerous. Photo: Supplied.

The controversial $4.8 billion HumeLink transmission line project has been given final approval following a thumbs up from the Federal Government.

The renewable energy transmission lines will span 365 kilometres in southern NSW, connecting Wagga Wagga, Bannaby and Maragle and tapping into the beleaguered Snowy Hydro Scheme expansion.

The project is considered critical to the Federal Government’s renewable energy transition and work is expected to begin in early 2025, with completion in late 2027.

Minister for the Environment and Water Tanya Plibersek said the project would provide an additional 2200 megawatts of on-demand energy into the grid and was a milestone on the road to making Australia a “renewable energy superpower”.

“The renewable energy transition is real, it’s happening right now. And it’s the only plan supported by experts and businesses to deliver clean, affordable and reliable power for homes,” she said, taking a swipe at the Coalition’s nuclear ambitions.

“I’ve approved almost 70 renewable energy projects – enough to power more than 7 million Australian homes. Peter Dutton’s risky nuclear scheme puts every single one of these projects and thousands of jobs at risk, including 1600 in this project.”

READ ALSO Volunteer emergency services take pride of place in new Mitchell home

HumeLink has encountered stiff opposition from many affected communities, who are concerned about the plan to build 76-metre towers that they claim will impact farms and forests and pose an increased fire risk.

In November, The NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) rejected calls for the project to be taken underground, concluding that it would be “significantly more expensive than what current regulatory frameworks allow for consumers to pay in transmission project costs”.

Wagga MP Dr Joe McGirr has been outspoken in his support for the alternative approach and said he was disappointed with this week’s decision.

“Five years after the Dunns Road bushfires, this is a real blow for this news to be announced now. But this is not over,” he said.

“A couple of weeks ago I was in Batlow and people are really worried about what the impact of this project will be on the community.

“We are talking about massive towers, tons and tons of concrete and huge trucks over a two-year construction period. There will be risks around biosecurity on farms. Farmers are going to be impacted. The community is going to be impacted. And we need to make sure that the council and the community have the capacity to monitor that.”

Wagga MP Dr Joe McGirr described the decision to keep HumeLink above ground as "very disappointing".

Wagga MP Dr Joe McGirr described the decision to keep HumeLink above ground as “very disappointing”. Photo: Chris Roe.

As part of the agreement with the NSW Government, Transgrid will be required to engage with landowners and will put up a $502.3 million security bond to make sure biodiversity offsets are implemented.

Transgrid Group CEO Brett Redman applauded the Commonwealth’s approval and said the project would deliver $1 billion in benefits to communities.

“Bringing this energy online will benefit millions of Australians on the eastern seaboard by providing consumers with access to cheaper renewable energy,” he said.

“HumeLink and VNI West are essential to the delivery of Australia’s energy transition, the Australian and NSW governments’ net zero targets and providing consumers with access to more affordable renewable energy.

“We will continue to prioritise local employment, training and skills development to provide lasting community benefits, including investing more than $11 million directly into the community to provide enduring social legacy outcomes.”

READ ALSO ACT bids for federal money to advance major precinct proposals

Dr McGirr said he would be paying close attention over the next two years to make sure they delivered.

“We’ve been promised community benefits, and we have heard hardly anything on that,” he said.

“Now’s the time the committee want to start hearing – OK, you’ve got the go-ahead. You’re going to put it overhead, not underground. What are going to be the benefits?”

Mr Redman acknowledged the importance of engaging with local communities in the planning and delivery of major projects but said it was a balancing act.

“Our aim has always been to balance community needs and benefits with the long-term interests of all energy consumers, which comes with decarbonisation and more affordable energy in the longer term,” he said.

“This includes the choice of the most beneficial route that appropriately balances cost to consumers, environmental impacts and amenity for local communities.”

Original Article published by Chris Roe on Region Riverina.

Join the conversation

43
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
John Pedestrian9:27 pm 24 Dec 24

Snowy hydro is many years behind schedule well over budget and god only knows if it can even be finished full stop-
it was commenced without first doing proper geo tec survey’s of the tunnel routes and the geology of the western side of the snowy mountains is ,complex.
Our energy policies have been a total mess for years.

That is a good base case for considering the unrealism of building a more expensive, inadequate and uneconomic nuclear power plant in a dozen years.

Senator Canavan has said their government/tax-funded policy is a cost failure, existing only so they have something to say while doing nothing (& building more coal-fired stations in his dreams). The private sector understands the true investment case so they are building manageable renewable packages which are usually delivered on time and budget.

John Pedestrian7:05 am 27 Dec 24

Problem is renewables need some kind of stabiliser,and pumped hydro or nuclear are the two main options for the stabiliser. Both options are very expensive and controversial. Nuclear looks a bit more achievable in practice , but either way it will cost a lot.

Your assertions are wrong. There is ample data about for that without needing me to quote some.

John Pedestrian6:57 am 28 Dec 24

So if renewables don’t need backup to stabilise the grid, why are we spending billions on pumped hydro (and batteries)?

Who said that?

Stop flailing about.

John Pedestrian2:14 pm 28 Dec 24

To clarify:
Renewables need backup stabilisers, yes no?
Batteries at the scale needed are not a practical option, yes no ?
Pumped hydro is expensive, yes no? And it is proving to be a challenge to actually build,yes no ?

Nuclear power is also expensive to build ,yes? Around the world there are plenty of new nuclear plants being built, yes no?
( am told that typical build times are around eight years, yes no ?)
And the attraction of both pumped hydro and nuclear is that once built they

Stabilisation and storage are different things in an electricity grid. Your first premise betrays a lack of understanding. Batteries are already stabilising our grid.

“practical option” for what? You fail to define your terms or scenario (e.g. scale). This betrays a lack of understanding. The most reasonable answer is that battery storage is a highly practical option being implemented widely. It will be in the mix.

No and no. If you refer specifically to “Snowy 2” then yes and no more than ought to be in risk plans for such a project. Have you studied the scale mix for pumped hydro or whether tunnels are ordinarily required? For costs, I refer you to Section 5.3.14 of the current GenCost draft, and related sections.

Yes, expensive. Not many. While starts are projected these are not much above recent starts which have declined massively. China, for example, accounts for most current construction yet added capacity there is overwhelmed by new renewables, as would happen here. There are also abandonments and closures to take into account.

Construction time is not equal to planning and commissioning duration. Smearing them together betrays a lack of understanding. Current gold standard is considered to be South Korea, where construction stands at 8-10 years, hence CSIRO’s estimate no operating plant before 2040 (and which would then cost people more for its power). Compare countries with prior experience of building nuclear, like Britain. Australia has negligible such experience or resources so CSIRO is probably optimistic.

Completing and correcting your final sentence, once hydro is built it is truly emissions free with recyclable components after maintenance and a remediable site if decommissioned. Nuclear generates nuclear waste not limited to uranium derivatives.

Capital Retro9:07 pm 28 Dec 24

Yes, there are plenty of nuclear power plants around the world and another 20 soon to be built about as close to Australia as you can get: https://reccessary.com/en/news/id-market/indonesia-first-nuclear-power-project-thorcon

John Pedestrian9:29 pm 28 Dec 24

I do understand the difference between maintaining the AC oscillation stability and the rest of it,
please don’t bore me….

Pragmatically I doubt if either pumped hydro or nuclear can be built in time.or on the case of snowy hydro even be built at all.
Either way we will be paying a lot more for power.
It’s ‘ spilt milk ‘ but god! If only we had simply, and only,put a price on carbon!

John Pedestrian9:30 am 29 Dec 24

Do understand the difference between stability of the AC oscillation and stability of reliable supply.
Do realise the the planing approval process particularly in Australia can be hard work.
As best as I know snowy hydro still has many many ks of tunneling to go. And the whole project was announced without first doing proper geo tec survey’s of the geology ( geology which is particularly complex)
As for costs from what I’ve read both the coalition’s and Labor’s proposals involve a large spend , which will have to be paid for.
And after years of being told that renewables are ‘ cheap as’ who can blame the general public for not believing the ‘ experts?

Capital Retro11:09 am 29 Dec 24

The carbon footprint for Snowy 2.0 must be enormous.
Anyone who has driven past the huge concrete batch plant on Polo Flat Road at Cooma next to about 10 hectares odd of stacked cast-concrete tunnel segments must wonder if the project is financially viable.
If the carbon footprint was equated in dollars like the WEF does to fossil fuel projects it would be billions of dollars more.

Capital Retro,
You do know that various proposals for nuclear power in Indonesia have been made for over 20 years with every single one being shelved or delayed for decades.

LOL, thanks for giving a perfect example of the expected delays and cost blow-outs that would be expected in Australia if we ever decided to go down the Nuclear path.

John Pedestrian,
We don’t need generators to provide “Stabilisation”, we need “Dispatchable” power generators that can be switched on quickly to fill the gaps when renewable supply drops or varies during the day.

Nuclear is not an option for that function, it doesn’t perform well for ramping up or down in the shorter time frames required and is far more expensive than other options. Economically it isn’t remotely feasible.

30 years ago, it would have made sense, now it doesn’t come close to competing.

John Pedestrian8:47 pm 29 Dec 24

Honestly
If we had , simply put a price on carbon emissions, nothing else no other government interventions!
we would not be in the mess we are in.

John Pedestrian9:07 pm 29 Dec 24

St hackett the story is that the PM wanted to announce…
Doing proper geo tech would take to long..
So snowy hydro was born.
Pure Utopia…
As P Keating observed of that PM ” no judgement.,”
However the same can be said of the whole sorry of last nearly twenty years of BS re energy eyc

It’s not going to happen in Australia champ.

Dutton’s costings are beyond dodgy they rely on Australia with no nuclear energy industry building nuclear reactors faster than anywhere in the developed world, they rely on SMRs that have not been commercialised anywhere in the West, and the only two functioning SMRs are in Russia & China and are hugely expensive and government subsidised, SMRs also don’t/won’t produce anywhere near enough power for the costs involved…most importantly the states, energy retailers and generators have already said no.

Nuclear power in Australia is not economically viable or sensible and will not happen. It’s a distraction for people who don’t understand the Australian energy market, culture warriors, and dummies, although, to be fair, the last two are often one in the same.

So, again you advertise and argue the absurdity of the nuclear path. Site condition is one of four primary contributors to cost and schedule overruns on major projects, and is already a factor for supposed siting of nuclear at coal plant sites. You can add to that the factor of regulatory uncertainty (with politics involved) and a high likelihood of inadequate planning and control. The only probable disaster I have omitted is ill-defined scope, but give it a chance.

If you recognise that a carbon price fifteen years ago might have led to efficient market-based solutions then why try to impose government-managed taxpayer-funded inadequacies over already progressing market solutions now?

Yeah, so stuff the farmers and the destruction of land, cutting down trees, and the destruction of animal habitats. Destroying the environment to save it—fantastic!

LOL,
Yes, the one thing that isn’t done around farming areas is destruction of land, cutting down trees or Destruction of animal habitat.

Did you even think for a second before posting?

“Oh, snap!”….so building coal and nuclear power plants have no environmental impact?

Have you ever lived near a coal mine, coal train, coal trucks or coal-fired power?

Nuclear uses huge amounts of water. And it’s not just the taking it from the water table it’s the potential harms of returning heated water to the local environment, not to mention the risks of contamination.

It’s magical thinking to believe other forms of energy have no environmental impacts or the even more absurd nonsense that renewables are more harmful to the environment than coal or nuclear.

Bowen’s renewables madness.

Gina Rinehart and Twiggy Forrest have invested in renewables.

They’re not doing that out of “madness” they’re doing it because it’s economically sensible/profitable to do so and that’s because renewables are cheap, low maintenance, quick to build, quick to market, dispatchable…AND low emissions.

Having an ideological position on energy is just dumb (as it is with climate change), it’s not a left v right issue, it’s an issue of economics.

Yes economics, and science, neither of which is understood by Dutton or his followers.

True. But Dutton isn’t about good policy. He knows his nuclear plan won’t happen because it doesn’t make sense. Dutton is about distraction and division in the name of power for the sake of power. Dutton offers us literally nothing as a leader.

Capital Retro3:23 pm 31 Dec 24

You are very much out of step with the polls, Seano.

Capital Retro5:14 pm 01 Jan 25

So, he will be a good leader for you too!

As ever your comment makes no sense.

Even if Dutton beats the odds of no appeal to the middle, no personality, a nonsensical culture wars policy platform and a first-term government that wouldn’t make him a good leader.

Capital Retro4:03 pm 24 Dec 24

“milestone on the road”?
They certainly are not a renewable item. They stopped making them in 1966.
Doesn’t stop inept politicians referring to them.

Yep, renewables don’t work because “milestone” is an antiquated term. Nailed it.

“additional 2200 megawatts of on-demand energy”

I thought it was storage, so taking existing power and storing it. If they want additional power they’re going to need a generator

It’s transmission

Capital Retro5:38 pm 24 Dec 24

I think that would be hydro generated power from stored water in Tangaratta Reservoir Henry, provided there is water there to release. That depends on there being enough coal generated power to pump it it full first.
Tangaratta isn’t vey large so it probably won’t be any better than a big-battery.

they pump water up when there is excess electricity and let it out to generate electricity during peak times creating 2200 megawatts when required. Makes sense to me

Capital Retro,
They don’t typically pump using excess electricity provided by coal because it’s more expensive than the renewable alternatives. Particularly during sunny periods.

Also, you think 70+ Gigalitres is small?

That’s not additional power?

Who is using all the coal power at night. Sure there is some peak during the day.

It would be far cheaper and more productive to use flywheel storage for the short term and nuclear.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.