Baldon Wind Farm

This Baldon Wind Factory must be stopped. No more food producing land must be wasted for these environmental destroyers.

Seven general objections to all RE projects attached to the grid , wind, solar, batteries, pumped hydro, transmission lines.
1 The ABC of intermittent energy.
A. Input to the grid must continuously match the demand.
B. The continuity of RE is broken on nights with little or no wind.
C. There is no feasible or affordable large-scale storage to bridge the gaps.
The ABC explains that the transition to wind and solar power is impossible with current storage technology. Consequently we are approaching a tipping point when coal capacity runs down to the point where there is not be enough dispatchable capacity to meet demand on windless nights.
https://newcatallaxy.blog/2023/07/11/approaching-the-tipping-point/
2 The human and environmental impact through all the stages from mining in remote places overseas to the disposal of toxic junk in local landfill

3 Protecting farmland. See Article 2 from the Paris Agreement in 2015.

This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:
Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;

That means no solar projects, no wind projects, no battery projects on rural land.

4 There is no business case for the unreliable energy providers in the absence of subsidies and mandates.

5 The rising cost of energy has driven many energy-intensive enterprises to the wall or overseas, with more to come.

6 National security is undermined by sourcing most of the expensive and unreliable energy infrastructure from a potentially hostile nation.

7 The opportunity cost, which is hardly ever mentioned. That is not the cost in dollars which just adds to the national debt. We don’t actually see that, it is just a number that gets bigger every month. The opportunity cost is all the useful things that we don’t get to see, things that we could have got for the same amount of money, like hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, disability services, police, military hardware etc.

Instead we spend tens of billions to get more expensive and less reliable energy with a tragic environmental impact from assets that will be stranded as soon as the subsidies and mandates stop.

The risk of BPA pollution is too great to allow this development.
Wind turbine blades are made of fibreglass and includes Bisphenol A (BPA) in their manufacture.
BPA is a dangerous chemical.
As part of the normal operation of a wind turbine, their blades shed BPA.

Whilst there is too much of a grey area as to whom will need to pay for decomissioning these turbines, I do not think this project should go ahead. The contracts are not worth the paper they're written on. The govt both federally and state should take respinsibility in collecting funds off all developers every year to cover future decommissioning!

I am deeply concerned about the impact on our water supply and the food chain. Once BPA gets in, there’s no way to remove it. My small community is concerned about the health implications from these turbine WILL spread all over where they live. As the wind blow no where will be safe from is Neurotoxin.
Bisphenol A is a serious health risk for our children. As a new mother I am very concerned for the future of my children. I don’t want my family exposed to this toxic chemical. I do not consent to being exposed to Bisphenol A . BPA was banned in Australia in 2012. Why do you as a foreign company get the break standards which have BEEN in place for over a decade. BPA is an endocrine disruption. I do not consent to myself or my children being exposed to Bisphenol A.

Toxic junk ruining our farming land & country.

Infrasound is known to cause health problems. I don’t want my family subjected to this for years to come. Nasa it investigated Infrasound for decades the study it indisputably through. The industry so called stand are far higher than is study states.. probably more so now as the turbines are bigger.

Turbines will kill local bird species, some of which are already endangered. The many raptors that call our area home will have their population destroyed by these industrial machines. The wedge-tailed eagle and Square-Tailed kite to name only 2.

How will the elderly in the hostel cope with the constant noise and vibration from the turbines? There will be disruption to the town for a considerable amount of time. We are fortunate to have an elderly hostel in our small town of Moulamein with a population of 300. The risk to the elderly themselves from noise and air from contamination of Bisphenol A. BPA was banned in Australia in 2012. How is it now your company it allow to bring it into the country via turbine blades?? Bisphenal A from Leading edge erosion is a neuro toxin and endocranial disruptor. You will be responsible for the contamination of the town and farmland. Please consider no constructing these so close to our elderly citizens. They deserve no more health incuberment in their later years.

CWO REZist Inc. opposes the Baldon Wind industrial project. Please see attached.

Personal submission Baldon wind farm. SSD 40138508
Reasons for support:
Heatwaves, fires, floods and storms are killing people already in Australia and around the world. These will get worse and more frequent with every increment of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Rapid closure of coal generation is one of the easiest and most achievable steps to prevent dangerous climate change.
Australia should proceed with development of electricity generation from wind as fast as possible, as this allows the most rapid retirement of coal generation which is a major contributor to climate damage and air pollution. While solar photovoltaics deliver the cheapest overall energy, the cheapest night time energy is from wind since storage at the scale required to deliver solar electricity overnight is still too expensive. Wind projects are being made more expensive by planning delays, and it is an embarrassing failure of governance that projects are taking many years to gain approval.
The site between Hay and Balranald is perfect for a wind farm. Perfectly flat grazing country, with good access to transmission lines, and no dwelling closer than 4 Km to a turbine.
Objections to wind farms have been based on false arguments, of which I will address 3.
1. Alterations to landscape views: The assertion that a wind turbine damages a rural view is a matter of opinion. I find them beautiful.
2. Health effects from infrasound: The NHMRC review in 2015 found there was no adverse health effect from wind farm infrasound. This conclusion was strengthened by the research published in 2023 by Marshall reporting a double blind randomised cross over study conducted at the Woolcock Institute in Sydney, showing no adverse physiological, sleep, or health effects from 72 hours of infrasound exposure, although they could show adverse effects on these parameters from simulated traffic noise.
3. That the embedded energy in construction of a wind turbine is equivalent to many years of its operating output. This has been studied for some Australian wind farms by Haywood of Uni Southern QLD, finding an average energy payback time of 14months.
There will doubtless be many other false claims shamelessly presented to the Independent Planning Commission during its consideration. They are easy to make and sometimes more difficult to refute and are used as a deliberate strategy.

I am support of wind farms but believe that all projects should be rated on their merit, and indepth studies as provided by the developer.
Public submissions should have very little weight, as most of them are absolute polly-waffle, unverified dribble, or neighbour or family jealousy.

For example look at the bitter and spiteful comments make by Lenny and Kellie Hodson and all their family and friends with regards to the Windlab proposal at kyalite (96 turbines very selectively positioned for minimal disturbance to the surrounding environment and respect to efficiency of each turbine).
Their comments show extreme jealousy towards their brother who will benefit by the project. They pulled all stops canvassing and stirring up strife with anyone who would take their phone call and listen to the fabricated anti-wind backlash, their "poor little me missing out", all because of a family jealousy. What has this to do with fair and reasonable judgement of any prospective wind farm. If they were so against wind farms, have/will they comment on the dozens of wind farms proposed in the same RES?? No, because it's just a personal family grievance.

So in summary, treat all wind farm applications with the same respect that their professional submission has put up, without regard to the keyboard squarkers.

Stop the green washing! This project will not lower retail electricity prices nor effect the climate. Nor will it be reliable as it is dependent on highly variable weather conditions. This year my electricity cost was already 4.38 times greater than it was in 2019 for exactly the same consumption pattern and number of days. It rose every year despite changing to the lowest cost retail plans five times. Why? Because subsidised projects such as these cannibalise reliable near 24/7 base-load power plants. There are now low emissions high efficiency 24/7 base-load power plants being built around the world to meet emissions, affordability and reliability requirements. The Proponent knows this but is driven by profit regardless of the realties for Australians and the damage it will do to them and our businesses. Shame, shame, shame and shame!

I oppose this project because it is very unlikely that the decommissioning, removal and land rehabilitation will occur due to the exorbitant cost that will be involved. The cost in 20 years or so time will likely exceed today's cost to build the project. Unlike mining companies there is no requirement for this developer to lodge a bond to cover this future cost. Who will ultimately pay? The new owner of the plant, the host landholders, the local ratepayers or the State and/or Federal governments. The project must not be approved unless such a bond is in place.

Save Our Surroundings objects to this proposed project as it poses so many risks to the local human and animal populations. Risks still include grass/bush fires, noise, soil and water contamination, very high disposal costs, unclear responsibility for end-of-life cleanup, lack of economic viable recycling of such huge volumes of toxic components, and the risk of obsolescence as much better technologies, such as small nuclear reactors become available over the next few years. Australia's oldest wind electricity plant recently reached its end-of-life and rather than undertake the decommissioning, etc. that it promised, the owner just declared it a museum. How many more wind and solar projects will not meet their EIS commitments, as is happening in other countries? No upfront bond means no skin in the game.

Wind farms are an insult to REAL FARMS! They don't do what is claimed of them, it's all just a cash grab! Serious consideration should be given for our wonderful natural environment. We KNOW that the project managers (and their employees) DON'T CARE ABOUT OUR ENVIRONMENT nor do they care about our endangered species!! That's your job to police these areas... don't fall down on your job! Don't let overseas company's take advantage of us. I OBJECT TO BALDON WIND. I support real farming for the livelihoods of farmers to feed and clothe our nation.

I object to turbines of this magnitude and in these numbers due to the enormous drain and interruption to our natural environment. They are not green, they are not renewable, they take huge amounts of natural resources to construct, erect, transport and maintain. The CO2 emissions from the concrete needed in itself is an assault on our environment.
NOT GREEN, NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, NOT RENEWABLE, NOT FOR ME!!!

We don’t believe that any of the renewable energy projects are looking out for our environment and are nothing but a huge transfer of $$$. Their arrogant disregard for nature and their ‘tick the box’ attitude is a total disrespect, (and harmful) to this country.
The inefficiencies of turbines, the fact that they require base load power to be operational, and the drain on our natural resources to construct, transport and erect have not been adequately factored in to weigh in favour of this project. The injury and illness caused to all living fauna and humans by the seismic vibration, the constant noise, and the pressure effects are of real concern.
Some considerations of huge importance, but not limited to, are;
Making one kilogram of cement adds one kilogram of CO2 into the atmosphere.
One turbine base requires approx. 700m3 of concrete which is equal to approx. 1700 tonne in weight, equalling 1700tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, this project alone will produce a minimum of 306 000 tonnes of emissions just for the concrete for the 180 turbines. Not including the emissions for the production of the steel, the fibreglass and the increased number of heavy vehicles also required.
1 tonne of fibreglass produces around 2 tonnes of CO2 emissions and there are 540 x 90m blades just for this project. I’m not sure the weight of fibreglass in just one blade but I would appreciate an answer. How much CO2 emissions will be emitted at the completion of this project, both here in Australia and in China where the majority of the parts will come from. A FULL disclosure of the environmental cost is required.
If our country was truly concerned about minimising CO2 emissions and saving our planet, then we would stop selling to other countries, that which contributes to world emissions!
There will be an enormous number of semi-trailers and road trains required to bring in the gravel, sand, steel, rotor blades, cables and towers. Tell us exactly how many heavy vehicles will be required to use our roads and the extent to which you are willing to fund the upkeep of these roads and highways. Thousand and thousands of extra heavy vehicles in the way of semi-trailers /road trains will be required, burning copious amounts of diesel and oil. Also required will be heavy machinery, cranes, graders and all forms of earthmoving equipment used in the construction of the on-property roads, fire breaks and easements. Include a detailed decommissioning proposal, including a timeline and costings.
An independent study to prove that the shedding of Bisphenol A (BPA), during the break-down and deterioration of the aging rotor blades contaminating the soil below needs to been proven as to NOT occur at all, (OR of any other toxic contaminants).
The decommissioning of the site requires a bond to be held in trust for an airtight guarantee that the land WILL in fact, be returned to its NATURAL state.

EIS:
- Page 50 – Traffic- concern on damage to Maude Road is used for “construction heavy traffic”. This will need further consultation with Hay Shire Council.
- Page 61 – Decommissioning – removal of any structures to be minimum 1.0m below ground surface level
- Page 143 – Biosecurity- Mitigation Measures – requirement for construction equipment to be washed and cleaned before transporting to and from site.
- Page 184 – Council requests a condition that CASA and Air Services approval be obtained for aviation mitigation measures and that lighting be installed on the WTG’s and WMT.
- Page 208 – Social Impact – Council requests consultation in the development of the ‘Local Housing and Accommodation Strategy’ and a “Workforce Development Strategy’.
- Page 220 – any road upgrade will require concurrence and approval from Council for regional and local roads.
- Page 220 – Council requires a full dilapidation survey of roads prior to commencement of any construction activities, including any early works.
- Page 220 – Port of Newcastle route – Council concurrence will be required, especially when travelling through Hay township and navigating roundabout on the Sturt and Cobb Highways, and the intersection of Cobb and Midwestern Highways.
- Page 239 – any construction activity that crosses a creek/waterway will/should require NSW Fisheries consultation and Fisheries Permit issued. Overland flow – due to the flat terrain even small changes to the ground level (e.g. access tracks) can impact overland flow of water.
- Page 340 - Council requires the Waste Management Plan to be fully consulted and agreed, with a Waste Management Agreement requested as a condition of consent approval. Opportunity exists to develop a circular economy approach to the development with Council.
Appendix F5 – Traffic Assessment
- Page 25 (of route study) – would appear to be a desktop study that hasn’t visited site and observed the landform of the roundabout. This will require further detailing and concurrence with TfNSW and Council.
- General – Any widening of council roads requires consent from Council and an approved design to the satisfaction of the Council engineer. Tree removal at intersection of Cobb and Sturt Highways – this would not be preferred by Council.
Appendix F9 – Aviation Assessment
- General – Any adjustments to PANS-OPS and LSALT is the responsibility of the developer and at its costs. All to be undertaken in consultation and agreement with Council as the aerodrome operator. Developer is responsible to notify CASA and Airservices Australia.
- Page 20 – no consultation with local Hay aerodrome users. Consultation should be required if local users of the Hay aerodrome.
- Page 20 – Council wishes to provide comment/feedback on any aviation impacts for the Hay Aerodrome.
- Page 35 – Council believes that WTG’s and WMT’s lighting should be a requirement.

Murray River Council - comment on Baldon Windfarm EIS