Deniliquin Battery Energy Storage System

We expect that this BESS will be backed up by diesel generators. Please provide the details on the diesel generators that will be used in the construction of this site and the ongoing maintenance of this BESS. Please include in those details how much diesel will be used on a weekly basis.

Please confirm that there will be no child or slave labour used in the manufacture of any of the components of the batteries. Please confirm that none of the materials used in the battery components have been mined using child or slave labour.

How much mining will be required to produce the materials for this BESS? What countries are providing the mined materials for the BESS?

Where is the land fill for the obsolete batteries? How often will the batteries require replacement? Will this BESS be like the one in Broken Hill - look the part but not operate when needed?

The environmental impact on the nearby wetlands, agricultural land and forests will be devastating and irreversible.

Put this toxic junk in the cities where the natural environment has already been fully desecrated.
We don't want this unrecyclable mess impacting food production and native landscape. How much power will this project suck out of the grid in order to keep batteries at optimum temperatures (ie attempt to avoid thermal runaway)? How many diesel generators will be used to back up this BESS?

What has been the experience in other countries regarding BESS/Wind/Solar? Economic and environmental disaster.

Stop wrecking our environment.

Stop building this toxic, unrecyclable junk in our community.

This is an environmental disaster and will have serious and irreversible impacts on the Edward River, Millewa Forest and the Ramsar Wetland.

This project is not in the public interest.

Where is the land fill for the defunct batteries?

Refer to attachment

I object and do NOT consent to Deniiquin Battery Energy Storage System because of the extreme potential environmental harm solar farms and battery energy storage systems does to livestock, wildlife, drinking water, the unique and valuable ecosystem and biodiversity, as well as being extremely flammable bushfire toxic smoke and bushfire risk, especially as they are connected to dangerous and potentially flammable high voltage transmission lines.

Why are these high voltage transmission lines so dangerous?

Because just over sixteen years ago, on the 7th of February 2009, 6 out of the 11 Black Saturday fires that took 173 lives and did untold damage to property, livestock and wildlife, were started by high voltage transmission lines. This was such a devastating, large scale catastrophe that a Royal Commission was called to investigate why these fires happened and how they could be prevented in the future - VBRC_Summary_PF.pdf, Remembering Black Saturday - 15th anniversary | Emergency Victoria.

Cameron Stuart of Brittanica.com on the 20th of January 2025 (Black Saturday bushfires | Causes, Deaths, Map, & Location | Britannica), described the horrific, catastrophic, devastating Black Saturday fires in detail:

"On February 7 Victorians were told to brace for the “worst day” in the state’s history: weather forecasters warned of a record heat wave with temperatures soaring to 115.5 °F (46.4 °C), combined with gale-force winds of up to 56 miles (90 km) per hour. That day more than 47 major fires erupted across the state, 14 of them claiming lives or causing significant damage. The most deadly conflagration, known as the Kilmore East fire, which claimed 121 lives, was sparked by a faulty power pole near the township of Kilmore East, 37 miles (60 km) north of Melbourne. The flames quickly jumped a major highway and roared into a forest, where they turned into a giant fireball, dwarfing the resources of local firefighters, who could only flee in its path. Aided by steep slopes and powerful winds, this fire raced through a series of townships, including Kinglake (where 38 people died), Strathewen (27 perished), and St. Andrews (12 were killed), catching residents by surprise and trapping many in their homes. Some sought to escape by car as the fires approached, but dozens died on the roads as they were overtaken by the fire, which leapt 330 feet (100 metres) above the tree line and was powerful enough to kill with radiant heat from nearly 1,000 feet

Late in the afternoon a sudden change in wind direction pushed the fire to the northeast, bringing new towns into its path. A parallel fire, known as the Murrindindi fire, also blew to the northeast, swallowing the unsuspecting tourist town of Marysville, where 34 people lost their lives. Fire experts said that these two fires alone released energy equivalent to that of 1,500 atomic bombs like the one dropped on Hiroshima, Japan."

Fire experts said that these two fires alone released energy equivalent to that of 1,500 atomic bombs like the one dropped on Hiroshima, Japan."

Not only are lithium battery factories extremely dangerous, but they are also deadly Lithium battery factory fire kills 22 in South Korea.

In California, it was reported that it was PG&E's powerlines that had sparked the recent horrific and deeply devastating fires - , How Did The California Wildfires Start? Officials Weigh Power Lines, Fireworks—And Arson (forbes.com), PG&E’s Lengthy Record of Starting Wildfires, and What the Company Is Doing to Change It (californialocal.com) and in fact, PG$E was found to be responsible for the worst fire in California history - the Camp Fire (Customers of PG&E, other utilities pay billions for wildfire prevention- CalMatters)

"POWER LINES AND ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Multiple residents of Altadena sued Southern California Edison on Monday, alleging the Eaton Fire was started by the company’s electrical equipment. The lawsuits cite eyewitness reports of sparking power lines. The company has pushed back against the theory, saying in a statement Sunday its “analysis shows no interruptions or operational/electrical anomalies in the 12 hours prior to the fire’s reported start time until more than one hour after the reported start time of the fire.” One of the filed complaints reportedly alleged, “there is clear evidence from video footage, photographs, and witness accounts that the fire was caused by electrical equipment operated by Defendants Edison International and Southern California Edison.” Power infrastructure has been a leading cause of fires in California in the past—with eight of the state’s 20 most destructive fires having power-related causes—and the amount of fires started by equipment has grown recently, The New York Times reported."

Interestingly enough,, prior to the recent wildfires in California, PG&E had a mitigation plan, which as you can very plainly see did NOT stop the extremely horrific, deadly and destructive California Wildfires from happening, much less actually put them out, and so now, what will happen to all the taxpayers who lost their homes, livelihoods, pets, etc because of PG&E's powerlines sparking the tremendously fast moving fires throughout Southern California, doing untold damage, along with taking lives? (TN13803_20240402T112956_PGE's_2025_Wildfire_Mitigation_Plan_Update.pdf).

And then there is the astronomical and, in my opinion, completely irresponsible and unjustifiable cost of these renewables:

Stated in the 2025 SUBMISSION TO CSIRO'S DRAFT 2024-25 GENCOST REPORT.pdf

"3.0 Capital Cost Factors GenCost defines future capital cost factors 6 for various generation and storage technologies. It observes recent years when freight and raw materials rapidly increased costs. Its use of a 2006 to 2009 price bubble to show prices returned to previous expectations is not entirely realistic since the industry was much smaller at that time and basic power costs affecting manufacturing have been recently escalating much more rapidly. GenCost’s contention that “…inflationary pressures for most technologies and the cost of some…such as solar PV and batteries are falling again” is contestable. We believe this is only a small part of the story. In our view: • Renewables are now relatively mature technologies after 30 years of intensive development, thus making assumptions of substantial future cost decreases too optimistic. • Labour costs have been hit with high inflation recently; these costs are not going to go down. • The dominance of one country, China, in the entire supply chain for renewables makes higher future prices likely as competition is stifled and hence deserves more careful analysis. • Increasing demand in global markets may cause price rises. • Shipping costs are being hit by increasing fuel costs. • Operating costs of renewables are greater than anticipated, as the UK and Germany have found. • Subsidies for the cheapest form of electricity generation, which surely should not still be necessary) could be reduced, adding to manufacturing costs. Compounding the uncertainties in predicting future costs are: a. realisation that the extraordinary costs involved are not affordable nor sustainable, b. the negative impact on national economies from unreliable intermittent power, c. many countries, including the largest, doing nothing or very little, to meet Net Zero goals, d. the withdrawal of the US from the Paris Accord, e. the mounting market failure of EVs, f. recognition that the science of climate catastrophism is overstated and overhyped, and g. the severe environmental impacts of solar and wind generation installations being regarded as unacceptable. 6 GenCost Section 5 P3"

This report/submission was written by 19 independent engineers and professionals who are all well qualified to comment on the true costs of implementing the government’s Net Zero 2050 policy for the National Electricity Market (NEM):

Professor Michael Asten, PhD, BSc (Hon), BLitt, FRAS Ben Beattie, BE(Elec), CPEng RPEQ Jeremy Barlow, BE, MBA, FAIMM William Bourke, BSc, BEng (Aero), MEng Sc. Michael Bowden IEng (Electronics-UK); CPL; CQP Rafe Champion, MSc (History and Philosophy of Science), B.Ag.Sc. (Hons) Arthur Day, PhD, BSc (Hon) Paul R C Goard, BSc, Physicist, M.A.I.P., M.I.of P., M.A.I.E., M.A.M.O.S. Peter J F Harris, BEng, Dipl. Prod Eng. Professor Emeritus Aynsley Kellow, BA(Hons) PhD Bryan Leyland, MSc (Power systems) DistFEngNZ, FIMechE, FIEE (rtd) John McBratney, B. Tech (Electronic Engineering), formerly MIE Aust, MIEEE John McLean, PhD Paul Miskelly, BE MEngSc Electrical Engineering Grant Piper, BE Aero UNSW, FRAeS, Chair NREN Peter Ridd, PhD, BSc James R (Jim) Simpson, (Ret., former business unit manager, OTC & Telstra) Bill Stinson, Dip.Tech(Building), B.AppSc.(Building), Dip Labour Relations & Law, Cert. Design Sc. (Facilities) James Taylor, PhD, MSc, BEng Elect (Hon), PEng, FCASI

Despite decades of rolling out wind and solar plants in many countries the CO2 emissions still rise every year. Wind and solar projects, including this proposed standalone BESS project, just make no difference. This BESS will increase atmospheric CO2 and increase our NEM electricity system costs to me and other end consumers. I object to any project that costs me heaps for no benefit at all. Don't approve this useless project!

My opposition to this proposed Deniliquin BESS project are many. 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 towns that will continue to occur despite the claims by the Proponent.

SOS objects to the Deniliquin BESS
The proposed project will negatively impact our energy and national security. The bulk of the components will be made in China, who is not only the world's increasingly higher greenhouse emissions country but has already used trade bans against Australia. This project will make Australia even more dependent on current and future supply of electricity components. Do not approve the project for the sake of our children and their children.

The proposed project is not "fit for purpose". It will not reduce electricity costs to consumers, as evidenced by not only the huge frequent increases in Australian NEM prices to date, but also the experience in every country where wind and solar are 30% or more of the capacity mix. Sweden recently dropped its target of 100% renewables as wind and solar generation do not work (unreliable and intermittent). Instead, Sweden is to build more zero emissions nuclear plants, as other countries are doing. Australia must do the same! The project must therefore be rejected.

Save Our Surroundings (SOS) objects to 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 and responses required from the Proponent.

Cultural knowledge Holder Narrandera