Beryl Battery Energy Storage System

BERYL BESS

The Beryl BESS is another renewable energy project that adds to the cumulative fire risk of renewable energy projects and associated tranamission infrastructure in the CWO-REZ.

How devastating these fires can be is evident in the coronial inquiry into the 2009 Victorian Black Saturday bushfires. There were 11 major fires on that day, 6 of which were started by power lines. There were 173 deaths with 159 of those deaths attributed to the 6 power line fires.

The AEMO has given the CWO-REZ a fire rating of E; this being the worst possible rating on a scale from A to E. Building any electrical infrastructure that can start fires, including BESS, solar farms, wind farms and associated tranission infrastructure in this REZ presents an unacceptable fire risk.

Add to this the predictions of climate change, in which the extreme weather events experienced in the Victorian fires become much more prevalent, and the situation becomes even more perilous.

This will be compounded further by the reduced ability to fight these fires. Water cannot be used on lithium battery fires, It is too dangerous for fire crews to access fires within solar farms, and power lines and wind turbines restrict the use of aerial water bombing to control these fires.

The proposed Beryl BESS is situated in close proximity to a large number of rural residences; that is 16 within 1km and 28 within 2km. Hot dry westerly winds create the worst possible fire conditions, with the Beryl Bess being only 6km west of Gulgong township. It is directly across the Beryl road from the Beryl Solar Farm. This facility has already experienced a major fire within its boundaries.

From a fire perspective alone the Beryl BESS should not be approved. Anyone doing so would be at risk of being deemed culpable before a coronial inquiry.

The visual amenity and noise implications for residents in the immediate viinity must also be considered. The suggested provision of vegetation screening may not be successful; witness the Beryl Solar Farm. Screening is ultimately an admission of failure in that the visual impact is considered so bad and unacceptable that in a rural setting attempts must be made to hide it from view.

The necessity of large amounts battery energy storage in the CWO-REZ must also be questioned. If the majority of renewable energy is and will be produced from rooftop solar, then it would be logical to promote residential battery storage rather than storage in inappropriate locations such as the Beryl BESS.

All of the above would suggest that the Beryl BESS should not be granted approval.

BESS factories are destroying the landscapes and significantly devaluing residential, agricultural and commercial properties within the Gulgong community. Nobody would want to live anywhere near this heap of fire-causing garbage.

As I know from previous projects in our area, we are wasting our pressious time in objecting to the project,as some people have already told me that the battery is ALREADY APPROVED ?
Who cares about us ,The LANDOWNERS? who wish to farm as a living (Not the City folk !! )
I object to the site as it is in a water course which feeds the Wyaldra creek,the Cudgegong river and the Macquarie river all being a substantial part of the Murray Darling System.
We have a listed Regents Honey Eater habitat along our creek ( wyaldra creek)
I have also witnessed the Australasian Bittern nesting in reeds. Where power lines cross the creek.(prior to the power company clearing trees and scrub.
We also have platypus living and nesting in our sections of the wyaldra creek.
We have been told in the past that sustained tree planting will take place (Beryl solar farm) and it HAS NOT !! therefore we still have a rotten view oif the solar panels.I realise that this is not BESS But you must understand once bitten twice shy!
I am a direct neighbourof this proposal & I feel people will be reluctant to buy my property as it is far too close to the NEW BATTERY set up if it goes ahead
People hear the word Lithium Battery and associate it with all the uncontrollable fires that a regularly on the News.
Fires frighten me as we only have one escape from our properties.Are the local R.F.F.S.allowed to fight a fire inside the site?

The Wangaratta planning scheme protects state-significant agricultural land, yet this project disregards that designation. Building infrastructure on versatile farmland will disrupt productive agricultural operations, which are critical to the region's economy. their is a huge one being built where I live.

Local farmers, homes and businesses face losing critical water supply, should this project go ahead. How would the Gulgong community get through periods of drought and water restrictions when this infrastructure would clearly be given water priority?

This battery will further exacerbate the sigificant fire risk that the existing solar factory is already exposing residents to. Batteries are known to be fire prone and the local RFS cannot enter the solar factory and battery fires cannot be extinguished. I am concerned about further reduction I property values a
Ready experienced since the solar factory was installed. I am concerned about the loss of further productive farm land I our area after already losing a significant amount of pri e land to install the solar factory. I am concerned about further environmental damage exacerbating that already experienced by the install of the solar factory.

The solar farm already installed has proven to be a significant fire risk, has resulted in a significant drop in my property value, is a risk to the environment due to the leaching of compounds into my paddocks and has in increased flooding due to the filling in of dams. What unforeseen degradation will result for this next project.

Further the solar factory already installed is reaching quarter to half life and as such to install this battery alongside this aging eyesore is creating an additional environmental relic that will need to be disposed of when this ridiculous experiment is finally shelved.

I object to the Beryl Battery Energy Storage System.

I am a fifth generation farmer from Dunedoo, NSW. Whilst I live approximately 45 kilometres from the proposed BESS I have grave concerns regarding the whole “rapid transition to renewable energy”, without which large scale battery storage systems would be unnecessary. The impacts of the transition on agriculture (and therefore food security), hazard risk (bushfire), traffic and transport, water, noise and visual amenity and all the foundations of rural and regional communities and landscapes is being put at risk in the name of saving the environment from climate change. Is there any sense in destroying the environment in an attempt to save it?

The people of rural and regional NSW, and Australia, who are being forced to host the vast majority of infrastructure needed to transition OUR country to renewable energy, are not being given opportunities to have their opinions and concerns heard early enough in the planning stages. There is plenty of room for real, valuable and constructive collaboration with community, but that option is being taken away through secretive, manipulative, divisive conduct from Government and developer employees. Whilst the proponent and Department may find impacts to surrounding landowners negligible, minor or insignificant it is not their homes, livelihoods and communities being put at risk.

Save Our Surroundings (SOS) objects to the proposed BESS Works in this project because there are still so many unresolved concerns about risks and issues involved with Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), for instance:
1. Lack of research into the life-cycle of BESS
2. Resource intensive requirements
3. Involves slavery in mining and production
4. Environmentally damaging
5. Fire starting risks increased
6. Fire-fighting dangers increased
7. Local fire risks considerably increased
8. Expensive
9. Short life-span
10. Variable operation
11. Very little Australian content
12. Increased energy and sovereign risks
13. Roads and road travel are impacted
14. Electricity charging and air-conditioning requirements are high
15. Classed as hazardous goods
16. No certainty at end of the short life of a BESS
17. Increased dependency on intermittent electricity generation
18. Poor viability
19. Increase retail electricity prices.
Please refer to the attachment for details.

My oppositions to this proposed project are many but in particular I am very concerned about the use of industrial lithium batteries. They require many minerals to be mined, including in wilderness areas, that are toxic and, in some cases, require the use of slave labour to keep costs down. The recycling of thousands of tonnes of lithium batteries is not yet viable and, due to their short economic lives, will pollute our environments in a few short years. They pose fire and toxic smoke risks to fire-fighters and nearby residents and my town that will continue to occur despite the claims by the Proponent.

I further object to this Electricity Generating Works proposal because I am convinced it will never result in cheaper electricity for us or others. Our electricity costs have already gone up four-fold in four years even before the latest 25% increase by the AER. Wind and solar electricity generation requiring backup storage such as this BESS proposal have increased significantly over the same period. Conclusion, as discovered by others around the world, more wind and solar equals increasingly higher energy bills.
Your faithfully
A Very Concerned Gulgong Resident

I object to this proposed project. My property will be a few kilometres from the Beryl BESS site and many other under construction and proposed unreliables solar, BESS and wind works. The Beryl BESS and the other projects pose 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 clean up, lack of economic viable recycling of such huge volumes of toxic components, and the risk of obsolescence as much better technologies become available over the next few years.

Please see my attached submission on BESS.

Objection to the Proposed Beryl Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) near Beryl. The specific location and nature of this project raise significant concerns that cannot be overlooked and are grounds for refusal of this proposal.
1. Proximity to Residential Areas: The proposed BESS site is alarmingly close to residential properties, with 16 homes within a 1km radius and 28 within a 2km radius. The close proximity of this industrial installation to residential communities is likely to disrupt the daily lives of many, posing risks and reducing the overall quality of life for surrounding residents.
2. Visual Impact and Inadequate Screening: The visual impact of the BESS is a considerable concern. The Beryl Solar installation, located nearby, has already demonstrated inadequate visual screening, which has not only affected the immediate neighbours but has also detracted from the overall scenic value of the area. The picturesque character of this rural landscape is at risk of being further compromised by this new project. The cumulative impact is unacceptable.
3. Noise Pollution Concerns: The noise generated by the inverters in the BESS could become a persistent issue for nearby residents. The constant hum and potential noise spikes are likely to disrupt the peace and quiet that residents expect in this rural environment, leading to further deterioration in their quality of life.
4. Fire Safety and Environmental Risks: Lithium-ion batteries, which will be used in the BESS, present a significant fire hazard. In the event of a fire, the potential for spontaneous combustion of these batteries means that residents will be exposed to dangerous toxic fumes, requiring immediate evacuation. Moreover, conventional firefighting methods are ineffective against lithium-ion battery fires. While the project proposes water storage for fire control, it is important to note that water alone is insufficient to extinguish such fires, making this a critical safety concern for the community. Will they cover the flames in PFAS or some other toxic chemical with future devastating carcinogenic consequences for our community?
5. Who is going to fight the resultant fires? Who is going to compensate neighbours from devastation loss of life and properties from fires sparked by these infrastructure work? As a condition of consent this infrastructure should be shut down on high fire danger days.
6. Proximity to Gulgong Township: The site is located just 6km west of Gulgong township, which places it uncomfortably close to a larger population centre. The risks associated with the BESS, including potential fires and toxic emissions, are therefore not just confined to a few rural homes but also pose a threat to the broader Gulgong community.
7. Insurance and Property Value Implications: The proximity of the BESS to residential properties raises significant concerns about the insurability of these homes. Potential hazards associated with the BESS could lead to increased insurance premiums or even denial of coverage for nearby homeowners. Additionally, the presence of such a facility is likely to lead to a reduction in property values, further disadvantaging local residents.
In conclusion, the proposed Beryl BESS presents multiple risks to the surrounding community, including safety hazards, cumulative environmental impacts, and economic disadvantages and should not be approved.

The placement of these incendiary devices in areas that impact farming land and close to residences is an unacceptable risk to food security and human health and life. It is madness if this project is approved.

Australia is an arid continent with only a narrow band of fertile, or suitable, farming land. It is totally illogical from an environmental and sustainable perspective to propose to keep on covering, and smothering, it up with industrial constructions like the Beryl Battery Storage System. The whole concept of the CWO REZ on prime agricultural lands should be stopped so that the farmers can keep Australians in fresh food and clean fibre without our waterways and soil being polluted with all the involved industrial productions that they entail.

I strongly object to the Beryl Battery Energy Storage System on the following grounds.
Firstly there will be a significant fire and health danger to surrounding residents and the township of Gulgong from this facility. It is well know that the lithium ion batteries used, can, and do spontaneously combust, and this happens frequently. The toxic fumes from these burning batteries pose serous health risks to those living nearby and anyone in contact with these fumes. While water will put out regular fires, the fires from lithium ion batteries require specialist fire fighting methods, chemicals and equipment, which will not be readily available at the Beryl site. A fire at this site would require evacuations from the 16 residents within just 1km of the site, the 28 residents just 2 km from the site, as well as the entire township of Gulgong just 6 km away.
Will an evacuation of this scale be implemented before the serious health impacts and damage are thrown apon the unsuspecting people in the area.

The devaluation of land and property continues with the growth of this site. Insurances will become unaffordable to many because of the fire risk that this proposal will create, insurances, that residents nearby will need more than ever.

On top of the fire concerns, the nearby residents will also have to contend with the noise from the inverters from this battery system.

More productive farming land in this REZ will be taken to created this battery storage system, thus impacting on rural land holders ability to earn a living.

The visual impacts of this once picturesque farming area are also destroyed, adding yet another negative aspect for the residents living in the area. The visual screening promised to close residents of the Beryl Solar Farm has been inadequate so far, and I am guessing that should this proposal be approved, the screening will also be of low priority for the developers.

I urge you to think of the impacts these projects are having on people living and working in these rural areas. Our country needs farmers more than ever, and country people who have saved and chosen to live on the land and in rural areas have to right to do so without large corporations rolling in and industrialising once picturesque, productive farming land.

I am objecting this project for several reasons:
Too close to several small holding residences and the township of Gulgong. Being to the west of the township if a fire starts the toxic fumes from the batteries could affect Gulgong and these fires are hard to extinguish.
The noise from the inverters could affect the 16 residences that are within 1km of the project.
The renewables are not going to solve the power situation and the battery storage should be on the coast where the power is used.
The screening will not be effective till after the end of the life of the project as trees take many years to grow and need maintenance and care during their early life.

This infrastructure is too dangerous to the neighbouring properties and communities. BESS is a significant fire risk. I object to this project.

This project introduces unacceptable fire risks, especially considering the proximity to dense grassy woodlands, where fire hazards could escalate quickly and lead to uncontrollable disasters. There are safer locations that should be considered for such works.
how can the company guarantee than if a fire happen that POFAS be spewed into the air and on neighbouring house and property

I object to the Beryl Battery Energy Storage System.
I have strong concerns about the risk of fire from spontaneous combustion of the Lithium Ion batteries to be used in this system.
Lithium Ion batteries are known to frequently catch fire. The smoke and fumes from this is extremely toxic to humans and animals. In the likely event of a fire, residents nearby, and possibly the town of Gulgong would need to be evacuated. There does not seem to be any evacuation plan in place should the need arise. While I understand there will be sufficient water to fight a bush fire or a normal fire, a fire from these batteries requires specialist equipment and chemical to control it, water will not control burning batteries. How much damage to health of both people and animals will be done while the specialist equipment is on its way.?
There are 44 residences within 2km of this station. At least 16 of these are within 1 km. What is being done to compensate these people for the noise from the invertor/s.
The Beryl Solar farm has done a very poor job of screening and lessening the visual impact of the panels and infrastructure. Will this development be the same ?

This development has taken up and continues to consume valuable and productive farming land. There seems to be no consideration for farming families and their livelihoods or the fact that land and property values decrease for those that own land, near and beside these many renewable energy projects.

To add to the woes of those who are forced to live near this growing project, insurance premiums will become unaffordable to many due to the increased risk of fire from living near a solar farm and its battery storage system.

It is vey disappointing when to submissions are given to the proponents, they throw away submissions they consider to be not relevant. They trow away the one that aren't from locals. They then take over 12 month to answer a question asked, which can only be found on the portal. This is not an easy site to navigate. Dose the proponent throw away the support or the comments or just ignore the objections?
Many people who live in these are, people who now will have to look at 2 million panel, a battery or Turbines at their front gate have put an enormous time into submission just to be thrown away.
This madness of rushing unreliable turbine solar and transmission lines and covering rural generation farming families has to stop and stop now!!
There must be a moratorium on the plethora of turbines, solar panels, battery, substations and transmission lines.
80% of Victoria and 100% of the western district!! It is just madness.
many people are working tirelessly to hold off the ridiculous notion that Australia can rely on the weather. 
 The great dividing range will be no more because this frankenstein government is going to bulldoze the top off for turbines, the decimation and erosion will be herindis. Habits that have been there for centuries. Some are to be corralled on all four sides.
No other business ,industry or person is allowed to cause so much destruction. with the approval of the government.
This is destroying our communities.
My husband, I have been farming for 40 year we know firsthand just how brutally unreliable the weather can be. It is a boom of bush factor, the right weather can make more money than a whole year of hard work.
The weather is unreliable, intermittent, and uncontrollable. It can be cold, hot, windy, warm, cloudy, frosty and you can never be certain of which and when. That is the nature of the breast. weather is unpredictable. We are going to putting energy generation at the peril of uncontrollable weather.
Why is this allow the break the pairs agreement. not to trash agriculture in favour on energy generation