Snowy 2.0 critic argues for batteries and a construction pause

Energy economist Bruce Mountain says Australia should reassess the pumped-hydro project rather than let money already spent dictate its future.

Channel: 7NEWS Australia ·

AustraliaStory of October 27, 2026Trari Newsroom

Why this story? One of 7NEWS Australia's most watched videos since yesterday, with 71,819 views.

7NEWS Australia: The news service of Australia's Seven Network, owned by Seven West Media. 2.3M subscribers and 1.7B views.

Time to walk away? Australia's boldest energy project in trouble again | 7NEWS

Things we can learn from the video

Press to jump

0:10Mountain condemns the revised budget, saying costs doubled only three years after earlier assurances.
2:14He disputes long-term benefit claims, arguing the storage design is inflexible and difficult to refill.
3:45Mountain argues that batteries and flexible gas generation offer cheaper, more responsive alternatives.
7:40Lester asks whether extensive excavation and money already spent make abandoning the project impractical.
8:04Mountain recommends pausing construction, seeking private-sector interest and stopping if independent analysis finds the project uneconomic.
11:24He argues that political accountability spans both Coalition and Labor administrations.

Batteries backed by flexible generation could balance Australia's renewable-energy grid more economically than Snowy 2.0, Professor Bruce Mountain argues in an interview with Australian broadcaster 7NEWS Australia.

Speaking to reporter Tim Lester, the director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre calls for work to pause while independent analysis tests whether the enormous pumped-hydro project is worth completing. The interview puts its cost at A$25 billion, with A$12 billion already spent on tunnels and underground infrastructure.

Snowy 2.0 expands the original Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme in New South Wales. It connects existing reservoirs through tunnels and an underground power station, storing electricity by pumping water uphill and releasing it through turbines when power is needed.

The central disagreement is about what kind of storage Australia's grid needs. Supporters emphasize pumped hydro's ability to store energy for long periods and provide reliable service over decades. Mountain disputes the promised benefits, arguing that Snowy 2.0's storage is inflexible and would require enormous amounts of electricity and time to refill.

His alternative combines batteries with backup thermal generation. He argues that shorter-duration batteries and flexible gas generation can respond more readily, cost less and cause less environmental damage. These are Mountain's assessments, not conclusions established by the interview.

Lester presses the practical objection: with major excavation completed and billions committed, should Australia really walk away? Mountain proposes inviting private investors to assess taking over the asset, alongside an independent economic review. If that review finds the project uneconomic, he says, "Then you pull the plug."

The conversation also addresses Energy Minister Chris Bowen's comparison with Britain's Hinkley Point C nuclear project, which Mountain rejects. His closing argument extends across both Coalition and Labor governments: political leaders should acknowledge mistakes rather than continue a project to protect its reputation.