Jindera Battery Energy Storage System

Submission objecting to the Jindera BESS Project being granted a planning permit or in any way proceeding to construction.
1. The Jindera BESS will permanently pollute the farmland it is on. The Jindera BESS is a parasitic Battery complex that operates by taking in electricity at lower prices, hoping it will be able to resell it when a shortfall drives prices higher. It is explained as.
“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 actually loses 16% of the power, having to convert it from AC to DC current going into the BESS. And again converting the current via Inverters from DC to AC current when transferring out of the BESS. This loss via conversion only increases the price to the end user. High prices do as much damage to economies as shortages of supply.
2. This Jindera BESS is completely unnecessary and worthless. This is because all the Federal and State Net Zero emission goals, Emission Reduction goals and Carbon emission limits on big polluters, are all a waste of money, effort, and will not reduce Global emissions by one iota. The reason is that while Australia’s emissions of Co2 are approximately 1.3% of the World’s emissions at the same time China emits 30% of the World’s emissions and is still growing. Any reduction in Australia’s emissions will be quickly replaced by China’s emissions.
3. This Jindera BESS is totally reliant on Climate Change subsidies and mandated energy retailer policies, without which it would never be built. Or if the subsidies, etc are removed this Jindera BESS will be abandoned. Further if the Jindera BESS cannot afford the cost of building the HV Transmission necessary to connect to the Grid. It is ridiculous for electricity consumers and taxpayers to have to pay for the connecting HV Transmission Lines.
4. Importantly this Jindera BESS has not made adequate provision for the outbreak of a wildfire. Firebreaks are grossly inadequate and fixed water tanks are next to useless, particularly in BESS fires. In Victoria CFA fire fighters are refusing to enter Renewable Factories. Water bombers would not water bomb the Jindera BESS because of the risk of explosions The risk to surrounding rural residents is frightening.
5. As well this Jindera BESS has made no financial provision for the dismantling and restoration of the site. Or the cost of the disposal of the toxic, batteries and associated toxic junk. This is why this Jindera BESS is not a net contributor to the electricity generation system or a viable economic proposition and should never be built.

I support project

I object to the Jindera BESS project.

I object to this project

I object to this BESS project

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 (https://www.windconcerns.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/AN-OPEN-LETTER-TO-ALL-AUSTRALIANS-1.pdf):

"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 identified 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 and 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 likelihood of electrical bushfires breaking out from this project and other such projects is unacceptable!

Where is the essential GUARANTEE via a DECOMMISSIONING/REMEDIATION BOND?

Gullible Hosts would go broke lumbered with this burden so Greater Hume Council’s going to be in BIG trouble - left responsible/liable under the POEO Act for any land/water contamination caused by this Toxic BESS JUNK & the despicable 2.4 MILLION POISONOUS Solar Panels they’re unjustly cursed with as well.
What terrible RECKLESS RUIN-A-BULL tragedies the evil Government is forcing on rural NSW!

Jindera BESS plan is a reckless, irreversible mistake in the making - which must be roundly condemned on all grounds — agricultural, environmental, engineering, economic, regulatory, ethical, and national security.

The proposed Jindera Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) represents a grossly irresponsible and profoundly dangerous development that threatens to:
•Undermine regional food production,
•Pollute irreplaceable agricultural soils and water,
•Jeopardise public health and safety,
•Subvert Australia’s national energy security, and
•Drain taxpayer resources for zero tangible benefit to the grid or community.

AGRICULTURAL VANDALISM DISGUISED AS ‘PROGRESS’
This 18.85-hectare site near Ortlipp Road, a stone’s throw from the township of Jindera, lies within an intensively farmed rural landscape, rich in productive soils, irrigation systems, and critical watercourses like Kilnacroft Creek, Bowna Creek, and Dead Horse Creek.
Despite this, the proponent’s consultants conveniently downgraded the land capability classification to permit industrialisation — a manipulation that ignores the government’s own digital soil records (eSpade 2020), which identified the land as Class 3, suitable for sustained, high-yield agriculture.
This is data fraud, not due diligence!
By greenlighting a toxic BESS on this land, the project seeks to eliminate arable productivity in favour of hazardous industrial sprawl.

A FIRE HAZARD IN A DRYLAND FARMING ZONE
Lithium-ion battery storage systems are notoriously fire-prone, with a growing body of evidence showing thermal runaway events triggering chemical fires, explosions, and toxic smoke clouds.
Rural fire services have no viable tools to manage large-scale battery fires, which can burn for days and re-ignite without warning.

Jindera BESS will be sited in a fire-prone, dryland farming zone, surrounded by pastures, sheds, homes, livestock, and bushland — yet there is no comprehensive risk management plan, no third-party fire safety audit, and no proven ability to contain the consequences of a battery combustion event.

PERMANENT TOXIC CHEMICAL POLLUTION RISK
The battery components proposed for this project are known to contain and release:
PFAS and related Bis-FASI compounds (classified as forever chemicals),
Fluorinated solvents, corrosive electrolytes, and heavy metals,
PFOS, Bisphenol A, and other toxic endocrine disruptors.
Once these compounds leak into the soil or water, they cannot be removed.
Their half-lives stretch across generations, and even microscopic contamination can lead to long-term bioaccumulation in plants, animals, and humans.

It is utterly unacceptable that no independent environmental toxicology analysis has been conducted.
Poisonous ‘renewables’ are being approved on blind optimism and corporate assurances, not verifiable science.

ENGINEERING FANTASY WITHOUT SYNCHRONOUS INERTIA
The BESS proposal rests on the false claim that it can enhance grid reliability and security.
In reality:
•It offers no synchronous inertia, essential for grid stabilisation,
•It cannot generate electricity — only store and re-release it (inefficiently),
•It depends entirely on intermittent, weather-dependent inputs, and
•It provides no guaranteed power supply during blackouts or demand spikes.

Any grid engineer worth their salt knows that BESS facilities do not make unreliable ‘renewables’ reliable. They simply delay the volatility.
This is window-dressing, not energy security.

☠️PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS POISON - DELIBERATELY UNADDRESSED☠️
Despite the clear health dangers of BESS chemicals (PFAS, fluorides, bisphenols, lithium, cobalt residues), no human health impact assessment has been presented.
Where is the modelling for:
•Inhalation exposure from toxic smoke during fire events?
•Long-term groundwater leaching into nearby irrigation systems?
•Soil absorption of lithium salts and battery breakdown residues?

The public is being kept deliberately in the dark, with no medical or toxicological oversight and zero long-term health studies required by the SEARs.
This is criminal negligence masquerading as planning.

A MONEY PIT FOR TAXPAYERS, A BONANZA FOR FOREIGN DEVELOPERS
The developers and their investors will reap short-term profits via subsidies, rebates, and regulatory fast-tracking — while local ratepayers, farmers, and residents inherit the long-term contamination, fire risk, and grid instability.

This project creates no meaningful jobs, no community benefit, and no energy advantage — yet it drains the public purse to bankroll a boondoggle built from imported, slave-labour components with no Australian manufacturing or innovation.

SUPPLY CHAINS TAINTED BY SLAVERY AND GEOPOLITICAL HOSTILITY
The lithium-ion components used in this BESS will almost certainly come from CCP-controlled Chinese corporations with known links to:
•Forced Uyghur Slave Labour,
•Environmentally destructive mining operations, and
•State-controlled battery management systems with remote access capability.

This project effectively outsources Australia’s energy resilience to the hostile CCP regime — whilst the Federal Government pretends to spend billions on military deterrents regarding China.
The hypocrisy is staggering!

A REGULATORY SYSTEM IN DISARRAY
The Large-Scale Solar Energy Guideline (2022) — used to justify this proposal — is deeply flawed, factually misleading, and systemically biased in favour of developers.
It has never been subject to:
•Parliamentary review,
•Scientific peer review,
•Independent public health scrutiny.
And yet, IPCN and NSW Planning continue to use this broken document as a rubber-stamp enabler of large-scale ecological and economic harm.

Planning and environmental assessment in NSW has become an administrative farce — an unholy alliance between lobbyists, consultants, and political insiders!

NATIONAL SECURITY NIGHTMARE
By entrusting critical battery storage infrastructure to a supply chain dominated by the Chinese Communist Party, Australia is embedding a Trojan horse into the very heart of its grid.
There are credible concerns that these systems will be:
•Remotely disabled,
•Deliberately overheated, or
•Used for surveillance and interference.

The fact that no national security risk assessment has been made public is a scandal in itself. This is not just short-sighted — it is an existential threat!

THIS PROJECT MUST BE STOPPED — FOR GOOD REASON
The Jindera BESS is not a clean energy solution — it is an ecocidal-industrial disaster, a public health timebomb, and a betrayal of Australia’s food-producing regions and sovereign energy future.

This BESS must be refused outright on the grounds of:
•Agricultural destruction and falsified land classification,
•Unaddressed contamination and health risks,
•Unproven, unneeded, and unsafe energy claims,
•National security vulnerabilities through CCP supply chains,
•Irresponsible regulatory conduct and community betrayal.

A FULL INDEPENDENT REVIEW
An immediate moratorium, independent public inquiry - Royal Commission into:
•The true impacts of large-scale BESS, wind, and solar projects,
•The cumulative damage to regional food systems and water supplies,
•The ethics and legality of foreign supply chains,
•The fire and toxic exposure risks to rural communities.

No approval should be granted without independent engineering, toxicology, and cyber-security assessments, as well as full and informed community consent — which has not and cannot be obtained under current conditions.

*’Forever chemicals’ used in Lithium Ion Batteries Threaten Environment, Research Finds | Lithium-ion batteries | The Guardian 14/7/24
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/14/forever-chemicals-lithium-ion-batteries-environment

*Commonwealth PFAS BAN effectively banned the import, use and manufacture of some of the more prominent types of PFAS (PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS) from 1 July 2025.
Some types have been found to be toxic to human health and the environment.

*Safety of Grid Scale Lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage Systems
“The scale of Li-ion BESS energy storage envisioned at “mega scale” energy farms is unprecedented and requires urgent review. The explosion potential and the lack of engineering standards to prevent thermal runaway may put control of “battery fires” beyond the knowledge, experience and capabilities of local Fire and Rescue Services. 
BESS present special hazards to fire-fighters….”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352158070_Safety_of_Grid_Scale_Lithium-ion_Battery_Energy_Storage_Systems

*Grid Scale Batteries & Fire Risk
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/656f411497ae14084ad8d03a/t/66fd2383b56dbc6906390297/1727865736681/Fannon-Batteries.pdf

*Disaster at Moss Landing: The Risk of Battery Storage - YouTube - 16/1/25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuTaZFQA18E

*https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/20/massive-green-battery-plant-catches-on-fire-again-weeks-after-major-toxic-blaze/

*https://localnewsmatters.org/2025/02/13/environmental-tests-reveal-elevated-levels-of-toxic-metals-since-moss-landing-battery-fire/

*https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/environmental-tests-reveal-battery-metals-around-20163514.php

*https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/elevated-levels-heavy-metals-elkhorn-slough-lithium-battery-facility-fire/

*Battery recycling plant explodes - twice. (What it means for you.) | Auto Expert John Cadogan - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-nzOJ01Fkc

*“There is a general lack of guidance and provisions in building codes, standards, and legislation in relation to safety to address the potential risks from these emerging technologies. Part of the problem is that we do not yet know enough about their probability of failure, their mechanisms of failure and potential consequences of failure.”
https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=9402

Storing energy does not on its own generate renewable power The benefit depends entirely on grid mix charging times Additional generation needed Cold capacity and dispatchable generation remain necessary If assumptions about renewables supply fail emissions reduction may not materialise while farmland is lost. What independent energy modelling has been done showing that this battery facility will reduce net carbon emissions over 5 10 and 20 years under scenarios where renewable generation is delayed grid intermittency occurs or demand patterns change

Agricultural land needs adaptability for new crop types changing markets rotational grazing or regenerative farming Once heavy infrastructure foundations hardstands transmission lines and roads are laid that flexibility is lost Even if facility is removed decades later soil compaction altered drainage residual contamination may prevent full return to prior productivity Farmers cannot wait decades for partial restoration Moreover future opportunities such as carbon farming permaculture or higher value horticulture may be foreclosed. After expiry of the battery facility can the proponent provide a restoration bond or guarantee backed by independent scientific soil rehabilitation and hydrological engineering so that twenty fifty or seventy years after decommissioning the land returns to equal or greater productivity for both cropping and grazing without any residual impediment

Approving this battery energy storage project on what appears to be prime or near prime agricultural land will set a precedent across NSW that similar projects may locate on productive farmland It will weaken policy protections and encourage more industrial projects in rural zones once the threshold is breached Local councils and developers will point to this case as justification for approving future proposals on Class 3 or even better land The cumulative effect is erosion of agricultural land protections and loss of rural economic base

If this proposal is approved how can the Secretary ensure that no further battery storage or solar infrastructure will be sited on Class 1 2 or 3 agricultural lands in the region ever again and what legal enforceable policy or legislative instrument will bind that guarantee

On site verification may have sampled only less productive or selected parcels thus biasing classification downward Seasonal or soil moisture variability may mean soil capability fluctuates Land capability maps like eSpade are thorough and publicly available The conflict between eSpade and the applicant’s verification demands clarity
What complete soil survey data including topsoil depth subsoil texture and moisture infiltration rates across all cores across seasons was collected and how it contradicts or aligns with eSpade mappings

Creek lines riparian zones and soils may hold cultural artefacts Indigenous heritage often tied to land not only built sites The aesthetic and landscape values to the community are part of place identity These values are rarely submitted in assessments or given weight comparable to industrial metrics
What archaeological survey has been undertaken covering full site including creek courses and riparian zones what indigenous consultation was done and what protections will be guaranteed and enforceable

Neighbouring farms and residences will suffer from reduced amenity noise risk of fire visual intrusion reducing appeal and investment value Land valuations and bank loan security may decline Insurance premiums may rise Affected property owners may not be compensated justly
What valuation study has been completed that shows the change in property values for all neighbouring properties over 5, 10, 20 years and what compensation mechanism is in place

The Jindera BESS is an irresponsible, deceptive, and dangerous assault on:
Food security
Public health
National sovereignty
Energy affordability
Rural community futures

•An immediate Moratorium on BESS & industrialised Solar/Wind Swindle Factories is essential.
•A Royal Commission ASAP into the ‘Energy Transmission/Interconnector Nightmare.
•Independent Electrical Engineering & Toxicology Review
•Audit of CCP-Controlled Supply Chains in National Energy Projects
•Full Soil & Water Toxicity Baseline Study & ongoing, Independent Expert Testing, Monitoring, & Reporting - onsite & surrounding area.

Farmland here produces food fodder feed for animals and crops for human consumption Losing farmland reduces local self sufficiency In severe climate or supply chain disruptions local production becomes more important National food security depends in part on preserving productive agricultural
What modelling has been done to assess how much locally produced crops or livestock output will be lost over the life of this project and how that loss compares to any energy or emissions benefit

Once foundations roads transformer pads are built parts of soil will be compacted vegetation removed hydrology altered Some damage is permanent or very difficult to remedy Even at decommissioning full restoration rarely returns soil health fully Past restoration projects often fail to recover original productivity
After decommissioning can the proponent guarantee that soil compaction chemical residues and hydrological changes will be entirely reversed restored methods proven and costed under independent supervision

Projected rental payments or investor subsidies often obscure real losses to agricultural income market value of land lost to crop or livestock production opportunity costs for neighbouring farms and declines in ecosystem service value not included Farmers may lose more in lost production and increased input costs than compensation offered. What calculated present value of all lost agricultural income over 25 years combined with losses to neighbouring farms plus ecosystem services has been provided and how does it compare to the developer’s profit

I am against this project and any future modifications.

Contamination and Waste Management are issues that are being swept under the carpet. It’s time government stop putting renewable energy targets ahead of the nation’s public health and food security. Since Kilnacroft Creek is only 100 m south of the Jindera BESS Substation and draining easterly to join Bowna Creek, and Dead Horse Creek being only 1 km north and running in an eastern direction to join Bowna Creek, which is 1km SE of the proposed BESS site & runs east towards Lake Hume. In my opinion there is a high risk of contanination ending up in the storage water system of Lake Hume. Please see attached submission for further particulars on contamination from BESS.