Gara Battery Energy Storage System

Dispatchable generation—nuclear, gas, or molten salt—would provide firm power 24/7. BESS like Gara simply reshuffles what’s already unreliable.
If a medical centre or dairy farm loses power during a cloudy windless week, who explains that it was “worth it” for the optics of storage?

Gara BESS does nothing to solve the ongoing crisis in transmission infrastructure. Without lines to move power efficiently, batteries can’t charge or discharge reliably.
If no transmission lines arrive on time, what purpose does the battery serve—apart from being an expensive monument to planning failure?

The power benefit offered by Gara BESS (a four-hour discharge window) is minuscule compared to the environmental, agricultural, and safety risks imposed on the area.
If the benefit is measured in hours and the risk spans decades, who justifies the exchange—and who pays when it goes wrong?

In a fire event, the proximity to rural homes and properties places the community at unacceptable risk. Thermal runaway fires cannot be extinguished with conventional tools.
If a battery explosion spreads fire into nearby paddocks and homes, what public apology will be worth a family’s loss?

Batteries do not make up for the shortfall in actual energy generation. Instead, they hide the problem temporarily. This creates the illusion of energy progress while generation stagnates.



Unanswerable Question:

When blackouts begin due to lack of generation, will officials finally admit that no amount of storage can fill an empty power source?

The environmental impact assessment does not include long-term soil monitoring, PFAS mitigation plans, or fire suppression infrastructure designed for high‑risk zones. That leaves the burden on local landholders and councils.
If pollution from this battery site affects livestock or crops five years after operations begin, who pays for the damage—the developers, the insurers, or the already stretched farming families?

This despicable GARA BESS is an Extremely Dangerous, Energy Poverty & Consumer Cost Explosion!

Subsidy-driven cost inflation: heavily subsidised BESS inflates energy system costs, pushing prices up.

Regressive impact: rising electricity prices hit low-income rural families hardest, exacerbating energy poverty.

Eroded economic vitality: high operational costs reduce business competitiveness, destroy manufacturing and severely strain household budgets.

National Security Nightmare: reliance on unethically produced components from our most hostile enemy is sabotaging Australia’s Electricity Grid.

Although PFAS risks are acknowledged, long-term studies on BESS fire aftermaths remain limited. Rural communities should not be test cases for environmental experimentation with irreversible consequences.



Unanswerable Question:

If decades from now we discover widespread PFAS contamination from battery fires, will the responsible parties still be around—or will the clean-up be left to underfunded councils and poisoned communities?

Large-scale renewable generation is stagnating. In Q1 2025, only 386 MW of new solar capacity reached financial close. Batteries can’t solve an absence of supply—they merely delay that reality by a few hours.
If BESS facilities like Gara are built ahead of the renewable supply they depend on, will they become stranded assets—or worse, symbols of planning without foresight?

Without adequate transmission infrastructure, renewable power is often curtailed. Some solar farms are already forced to switch off up to 65% of the time. Gara BESS doesn’t solve this—it stores power that may not arrive in the first place.
If solar and wind generation are increasingly curtailed due to bottlenecks, what will Gara BESS charge itself with—thin air, or political optimism?

I object to Gara BESS because:
* It is destructive to native flora and fauna;
* Construction will leave a legacy of land destruction that is unlikely to be rectified by the builder;
* It is an abomination on the natural landscape.
* It is part of a system that costs billions, does not work reliably and attempts to solve a problem that does not exist, in other words useless and irresponsible use of public funds;
* All such infrastructures should be built at developer’s expense, NOT on public funds, we are told wind and solar are the cheapest, well prove it, remove all subsidises do not build this BESS system on public funds;
* The TOTAL cost has not been verified by independent experts;
* There is NO verified scientific basis for reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere so this project is a total waste of public money, along with all other such projects. 
There is in fact reliable verifiable scientific proof that CO2 is beneficial to plant life and by extension to human life on earth.

Australia is on track to fall far short of its 82% renewable energy target by 2030, due to underinvestment and infrastructure delays. Installing batteries like Gara BESS does not fix generation shortfalls or transmission limits—it simply stores what little energy is available.
If targets are missed, the grid underperforms, and millions are left exposed to unreliable power, what value is there in having installed thousands of megawatts of battery storage that have no electricity to store?

The idea that this project is necessary for Australia’s “transition” to cleaner energy is misleading. Batteries don’t generate electricity; they only shift it. Without firm, dispatchable power sources, transitions stall—leaving consumers exposed to price volatility and reliability gaps.
If this so-called transition fails to deliver consistent energy, and power bills skyrocket due to storage inefficiency or supply gaps, who takes the blame—the planners who ignored firm power needs, or the public, expected to accept rolling blackouts for a cleaner image?

Rural brigades are not equipped to handle industrial-scale battery fires that can burn for days and require specialised suppression systems. Despite this, the project plans to place the facility in a relatively remote agricultural zone.
If a battery fire breaks out during peak bushfire season and outpaces local crews — endangering homes and lives — who exactly will be held responsible: the volunteers who couldn’t stop it, or the planners who knew they wouldn’t be able to?

Lithium-ion battery fires release PFAS — toxic, persistent chemicals — at 10–60 µg per kg of cell material. This contamination risk is compounded by rural runoff, wind dispersal, and limited clean-up capabilities in remote areas like Armidale.
When the firefighting foam, ash, and battery chemicals leach into soil and water tables, who will trace the health effects on children, livestock, and future residents — and how can we prove liability once the developer has moved on?

The project occupies over 13 hectares of formerly productive farmland near Armidale, removing it from agricultural use indefinitely. There is no commitment to return the land to farming condition after decommissioning, and no detailed rehabilitation plan has been published.
If the soil becomes chemically compromised, the groundwater polluted, and fire damage permanent — who guarantees this land will ever be restored to feed Australians again, and why is no financial bond in place to make that happen?

Renewable energy currently provides about 43–46% of Australia’s grid electricity. However, energy from storage like Gara BESS still depends entirely on those same intermittent inputs. The project’s framing as contributing to “love power” is misleading and obscures the real grid risks that remain unsolved.
If Australians are promised “clean love power” but are instead subjected to blackouts and price surges when renewables dip and batteries are empty, what agency or authority will step in and admit that the love story was a marketing fantasy?

Gara BESS, at 400 MW / 1,760 MWh, cannot supply continuous baseload electricity; it merely stores and redistributes energy, dependent entirely on intermittent inputs. This renders it an ISO‑style buffer, not a generator capable of ensuring grid stability during demand peaks or supply shortfalls.
If the battery system discharges fully in four hours during a heatwave, and solar input is low the next day, who will be responsible when hospitals, farms, and households lose power — the developer, the state government, or the absent renewable supply that left it empty in the first place?

According to Submission to CSIRO’s Draft 2024-25 GenCost Report
By Independent Engineers, Scientists and Professionals, 11 February 2025:

"Conclusions and Recommendations

Independent Engineers, Scientists and Professionals, 11 February 2025

1. GenCost fails to demonstrate that it is ‘Australia’s most comprehensive’ report on NEM costs. It
fails to include major cost elements funded by government and consumers. Its levelised cost of
electricity (LCOE) method is aimed at providing investors with theoretical marginal investment
indicators limited to investor costs, not national electricity costs, yet undisputedly this document
is misused by government to justify its energy policies. GenCost should be much more forthright
upfront in the disclaimer and executive summary regarding its true purpose.
2GenCost’s claim that wind and solar are the cheapest form of electricity generation are completely
contradicted by whole-of-system ISP capital cost cash flow estimation – by a large margin as
indicated in Appendix 2 to this submission and other reports. CSIRO needs to explain the reasons
for this stark difference or clearly state that it is geared to investor interests and is not fit for
purpose to underpin national energy policy. The warning on page 57 states that cash flow cost
models are more realistic but is not sufficiently prominent.
3. GenCost employs highly contestable assumptions and data concerning capacity factors, capital
cost factors, facility lifetimes and spillage costs. CSIRO should rebalance the assumptions and data
for consistency to ensure it does not unduly favour renewables.
4. GenCost fails to account for Consumer Energy Resources (CER), low voltage distribution network
upgrades and disposal/remediation costs, which form a very large part of whole-of-system costs.
CER by itself is 60% of all solar and battery capacities in AEMO’s ISP. GenCost must include these
costs – they are not free. A purposeful report should include all costs to the national economy,
regardless of who pays.GenCost’s assumption that investors will have free access to previously built network resources is
completely unrealistic in normal markets and particularly considering that grid design must be
based on worst-case conditions, when all resources are at maximum utilisation. CSIRO must
reconsider the whole GenCost approach to renewable integration costs.
6. GenCost’s use of an unspecified electricity system model running 9 years of historical weather￾related data to determine maximum integration costs based on the simple assumption that the
grid will be reliable is a major mistake for many reasons.
a. The 2011-2019 AEMO data does not encompass all worst-case conditions, which recent
freely available data from both Australia and overseas indicate. Wind droughts and solar
outages are a common-mode failure affecting the entire NEM.
b. AEMO’s use of a simulation model in the Integrated System Plan (ISP) illustrates the pitfalls,
which are detailed in Appendix 1. CSIRO must provide details of the model used and how the
criteria for reliability must include maintaining a viable dispatchable reserve margin under
all conditions to protect against facility outages. The failure of the ISP to define worst-case
conditions inherent to proper high reliability system engineering casts serious doubt on the
integrity of its modelling and grid design with direct implications for GenCost."

Further:

"According to An Open Letter to All Australians:

"Despite our vast natural resources, Australia now has some of the highest electricity prices in
the world. In 2022 the government promised $275 in savings. Instead, families are paying up to
$1,000 more on their bills.
 The Net Zero Australia report — prepared by the University of Melbourne, University of
Queensland, and Princeton University, advised by the Australian Conservation Foundation and
Climate Council, and sponsored by the Minderoo Foundation — estimates a full renewables-only
transition would cost between $7 and $9 trillion over the next 35 years, including the
government’s “green hydrogen superpower” plans.
● This is the equivalent of up to $850,000 per household—a figure quietly buried by its own
supporters as it would bankrupt the nation.[https://www.netzeroaustralia.net.au/wp￾content/uploads/2023/04/Net-Zero-Australia-Modelling-Summary-Report.pdf]
● The repeated false claim that nuclear would cost $600 billion was created by a renewable
energy lobby group that receives funding from renewable energy supplies and donates to the
political parties – so are far from independent.
 Their figure is five times the real cost estimate of Nuclear which based on CSIRO data is
approximately $120 billion and would deliver decades of secure, zero-emissions, reliable
power.
● Under current policies the risk of blackouts is real and rising. [AEMO warns of blackouts in 10-
year energy forecast | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site]
● Large-scale renewable projects are destroying habitats, displacing wildlife, and degrading
farmland. [Impacts of large-scale renewables — Rainforest Reserves Australia]
● New transmission lines are carving a swath through regional Australia. Thousands of kilometres
of high-voltage towers and wind turbine pylons are being built on the high country and
disrupting farms and communities.
 The government’s plan is based on discredited analysis. The modelling for the current
government plan for the renewable transition has been rejected and discredited even by the
government’s own frontbenchers. Despite this, policymakers and politicians are pushing ahead
with these policies without a replacement model and one that reveals the total system costs. "

Aidan Morrison, Director of Energy Program, Centre for Independent Studies also states:

"The AEMC should aim for principles-based regulation focusing on consumer protection
rather than an outcomes-based approach that views increased CER uptake and
coordination as an end in itself. Consumers should be able to choose to participate in the
CER market or not, according to their willingness to bear risks associated with becoming
traders of electricity rather than simply consumers.
1
The responsibility for reducing electricity-related emissions and ensuring the grid can
handle peak demand lies with generators, governments, network service providers and
grid operators. These entities are well placed to handle increasing complexity and risk.
The review should bear this in mind and avoid shifting the increasing complexity and risk
of maintaining cheap, reliable, and clean electricity onto unwilling consumers — the
majority of whom do not own solar panels, home batteries, or EVs. ", highlighting the need for AEMC to focus on consumer protection and giving consumers the right and ability to participate in the market or not.

And finally Daniel Wild succinctly notes, " “Australians who lose their jobs in agriculture, mining, and manufacturing because of a net zero
emissions target will not nd jobs in the so-called new, green economy – because it doesn’t exist,”
said Daniel Wild, Director of Research at the Institute of Public Affairs.
IPA research has identi ed that the renewable energy sector accounts for just 0.2% of all jobs
across the Australian economy, compared with agriculture (3.1% of all jobs), mining (2.5% of all
jobs), and manufacturing (7.9% of all jobs). Together, agriculture, mining, and manufacturing
account for 13.5% of all jobs.
The new research also identi ed that the renewable energy sector accounted for only 1% of all net
jobs created since 2010.
“The political class looks down on Australians who work in agriculture, mining, and
manufacturing. They see them as inconvenient roadblocks on the inevitable path to progress,
and would prefer them to just spend the rest of their lives on the dole.”
“Labor, Greens, half the Liberal Party, big business and their lobby groups, and the trade unions
hold Australian workers in contempt. They expect a 45-year-old unemployed manufacturing
worker to simply upskill and nd a new job which don’t exist,” said Mr Wild"

I completely agree with Daniel that Labor, Liberal, and the Greens hold Australian workers in contempt because from what I have observed, with the exception of of a few members who are Greens, these three major parties do not seem in the least bit interested in listening to constituents' concerns regarding massively expensive and I feel, potentially very flammable and unstable Good Earth Green Hydrogen and Ammonia project. Nuclear should be an option on the table for all Australians."

And since this and other projects are under the ASIC, they are financial products that by their very nature demand FULL DISCLOSURE and I feel should not be peddled to the public under any circumstances because of the above-mentioned reasons and for the fact that energy storage systems are made with highly flammable lithium-ion batteries, which makes them a high electrical bushfire risk that cannot be put out with water. Therefore, mitigating strategies are woefully inadequate to stop electrical bushfires from breaking out from energy projects such as these and the only way to prevent and eliminate the risk of electrical fires and the only way to ensure that electrical bushfires do not break out from projects like these is to permanently scrp this and other projects like it. Otherwise, I feel projects like this are just asking for the possibility of 2009 Black Saturday type fires which were caused by 6 out of 11 high voltage transmission lines, like the high voltage transmission lines that would be attached to this project. That high liklihood of electrical bushfires breaking out from this project and other such projects is unacceptable!

Cadeema’s Agricultural Land Utility Assessment fails entirely to consider the reality of toxic lithium-ion contamination and the extreme fire risks.

The Agricultural Assessment omits these critical
toxic hazards, makes misleading conclusions by
omitting key variables, gives false reassurance and undermines the EIS’ credibility.

Decision-makers are NOT ACTING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST when they JUST TRUST THESE DODGY, PARASITIC DEVELOPERS - relying on such incomplete and fudged assessments that enable reckless development.