Beryl Battery Energy Storage System

These projects and infrastructures are ruining our communities and landscapes. Stop with the destruction.

Objection to Beryl Battery

We object to Beryl BESS based on the fact that this is a toxic waste disaster.

The fire risk to the neighbours and residents of Gulgong is unacceptable.

How much slave labour has been utilised in the mining and manufacture of the BESS components?

Exactly how does the developer plan to extinguish a fire in this BESS and who will be charged with this responsibility? Do all the neighbours know the risks of this development given the proximity to their homes?

Where will the spent batteries be disposed?

Are all the neighbours aware of the noise that this project will generate? Given that the cooling system has to run 24/7 in order to prevent thermal runaway.

Are all the neighbours aware that this project will be lit 24/7?

What is powering the cooling system? Diesel generators? It will be catastrophic if the cooling system stops working due to lack of power which is what we all expect from a system reliant on wind, solar and batteries.

I object to yet another foreign owned and controlled, government funded addition to our increasingly unreliable energy network.

This BESS will contribute to our economic poverty as already our energy bills are unaffordable and our industries are moving offshore.

What guarantee do we have that none of the components of this BESS are mined/manufactured using slave labour?

What guarantee do we have that the NSW Government is willing or able to ensure that any consent conditions are adhered to?

What guarantee do we have that in a fire situation toxic smoke does not belch over the neighbours and township of Gulgong?

What country in the world runs on wind/solar/batteries?

This BESS is a fire risk. There are 16 residences within 1 km of the BESS and 28 within 2 km and it is less than 6 km from Gulgong township. Water won't extinguish a fire in this BESS.

Beryl Solar already has a track record of fire, Beryl solar already has a track record of not adhering to consent conditions. Why will Beryl BESS be any different?

Nothing in this BESS is recyclable and likely much of the components are produced from slave labour.

This project is not in the public interest, the only beneficiary is the developer.

I object to the proposed electricity-generating works as it poses a serious risk to Wangaratta’s special water catchment. The increased exposure to toxic contamination from industrial activities will jeopardize the water quality, essential for both agriculture and human consumption.

I object to the Beryl BESS project.
Why is our government forcing FIRE HAZARDOUS infrastructure and UNRELIABLE energy on our nation at the expense of rural Australia?!?
Save the land that produces food and fibre for Australia. Put these elsewhere!
These projects are destroying rural Australia!!

Objection documents attached

Submission objecting to the Beryl Battery Energy Storage System (BBESS) that it should be declared a controlled action and not be approved to be built.
Battery Energy Storage Systems claim that “The intermittent nature of wind and solar resources creates the need for ‘back-up’ capacity to support any supply gaps”.
This statement alone clearly sets out. That by their intermittent and unreliable nature of electricity production, (because of an unreliable supply of ‘weather’ fuel) solar farms and wind farms. Should never be considered as an economic or dependable electricity generator for supplying baseload electricity to a modern electricity grid. To add a BESS to the mix, does not produce one MWh of power and only increases the price to the end user. High prices do as much damage to economies as shortages of supply.
To explain why Solar panels are completely economic. Solar panels are powered by a weather fuel, Sunshine. At 12am, every day, the Solar fuel tank is empty and will remain empty for the next seven to eight hours, until the Sun rises at 7am or 8am. If the weather is fine there may be six hours of viable fuel (10am to 4pm) and a further three hours (8.30am to 10am and 4pm to 5.30pm) of less viable fuel available. For a total of nine hours of fuel availability. But even this is very uncertain, because of the presence of fog, overcast cloud cover and rain, the fuel tank can suddenly become empty at any time. The amount of fuel available may be reduced to four hours or even on many Winter days, zero, with no electricity being produced. Beginning between 5pm and 6pm, the Solar fuel tank becomes empty and remains empty for the next fourteen or fifteen hours. This means the fuel tank that supply the solar panels is empty for a minimum of fifteen hours of everyday and could even be empty for the whole day, with no electricity being produced.
As for connecting the BBESS into the Grid. Adding the BBESS to the mix, does not produce one MWh of power and actually loses 16% of the power, it may have been charged with. This is because of having to convert the current from AC to DC going into the BBESS. And again converting the current via Inverters from DC to AC current when transferring out of the BBESS. This loss via conversion only increases the price to the end user. High prices do as much damage to economies as shortages of supply.
I believe it would be highly irresponsible to grant a planning permit or allow construction of the Beryl BESS Project, as rather than being able to make a positive contribution to the Grid, its inclusion would be totally negative and uneconomic.
Further points of objection.
1. Consisting of so much compact electrification, the BBESS will create an extreme fire hazard to surrounding areas, particularly on a Total Fire Ban Day with the temperature at 43dC and a NW wind blowing at 50km/hr. Being so tightly packed together it would almost be impossible to contain a fire started within the BBESS perimeter. The fact that burning Lithium batteries give off a very toxic smoke, fighting the fire would be very dangerous for fire fighters. The surrounding land owners should be very concerned about their welfare.
2. If a fire was to occur the risk of soil contamination, would be very great. With unknown consequences.
3. If it should be approved to be built, then it should be mandated that the BBESS have a Public Liability policy to cover fire and other possible damage to surrounding areas of at least $500million to $1billion.

4. Unless the BBESS puts up a restoration bond, there will be nothing stopping them from walking away and leaving the local Council and community with a very expensive noxious, Junkheap, that will desecrate the whole area.
For the above reasons I strongly believe the Beryl BESS should be declared a controlled action and the project be not given approval to be built.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I strongly object to this project for the health and safety of my son and his family who reside 540m from the proposed site. Please see attached submission.

Please find my objection submission attached.

I am writing to formally object to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project (SSD-61460977) near my residence located at 148 Beryl Road, where I am identified as Receiver R-08. As a homeowner living only 550 metres from the project site, I have deep concerns about the adverse effects this project will have on my family's health and well-being, particularly my wife and 1-year-old son, who are at home more often than I am. I have attached my objection letter and queries.