Irrigation and Power from Snowy Mountains

Irrigation and Power from Snowy Mountains

By Commissioner Hudson

In the leading article on the Snowy Mountains scheme appearing in the “B.M.M.” on June 3, you refer to cryptic statements made about the electricity aspects of the scheme, chiefly to the effect that the current is to be used for “peak load purposes.”

You also quote, without naming, “a well-known engineer, eminent in his profession and thoroughly familiar with the whole scheme,” as saying that attention would be given in the first instance to supplying water and that electric power would be developed in proportion to the demand for irrigation areas. You also quote him as saying that if heavy rains fell over the reticulated areas and insufficient water was required to keep electricity production up to normal, generation of power would fall perhaps to the point where many towns would have to depend again on electric power generated from coal.

In view of the concern that these statements might cause, I agree with you that a clear explanation of the true position should be given by the authority.

PEAK LOAD POWER

Dealing first with peak load power, let me stress that although the Snowy project is designed as a peak load scheme there would have been no practical difficulty in designing it for meeting either both peak and base loads or solely base loads. There are, however, very good reasons for providing for the production of peak load power.

Under similar circumstances to those obtaining in south-eastern Australia, where we have abundant coal reserves but only limited water power, the greatest overall economy in power supply can be obtained by operating a combined system of thermal and hydro power rather than two independent systems, one for thermal power and one for hydro power.

ECONOMY OF HYDRO-THERMAL PLANT

The gain in economy achieved by operating hydro plant in conjunction with thermal plant, instead of operating each on separate systems, is increased by allotting the peak loads to the hydro stations and base load to the thermal stations. Hence the adoption of this method for the Snowy scheme, which is becoming general practice overseas where similar situations occur, i.e., availability of ample fuel reserves, but limited hydro-electric resources.

In Australia, particularly, whose ultimate development will depend more than anything else on the use it makes of its very limited water resources, it is of the utmost importance that the most economical use possible be made of the water available.

IRRIGATION AS OPPOSED TO POWER

Dealing now with the second point, viz., operation of the scheme to fit in with irrigation requirements rather than power requirements, I am afraid that the eminent person to whom you refer in your leader has been misinformed.

The scheme is so designed to make full use for power production purposes of all the available water resources in the Snowy Mountains area and it will be operated to suit power requirements.

This will not detract in any way from its value as an irrigation project as all of the diverted waters will be made available for irrigation, in such a way that suits best the irrigation requirements. The latter objective will be achieved by providing reservoirs for holding the water discharged from the power stations in storage so that it can be released as and when required by the irrigation authorities. It will be seen, therefore, that both the power and irrigation interests are fully protected.

This brief explanation should clarify the position for readers of the leading article in the “Border Morning Mail.”