Mallee Wind Farm

I object to this project on the hard technical FACT that it cannot under any circumstances provide steady reliable power. It's output is inherently spasmodic with time of day and is subject to variable weather conditions. Further its installation destroys valuable farm land and native habitats. As a power source it is expensive, manufactured overseas (China?) its use is not really "Green" due to its manufacture and mining origins, thus the claims of environment compatibility are false. Finally at end of live or following damage toxic waste is left which has to date no viable means of disposal.

While renewable energy is deemed vital to combating climate change, poorly planned developments can cause irreversible harm. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Mallee Wind Farm demonstrates deficiencies in carbon accounting, biodiversity management, water protection, and socioeconomic considerations. This submission critically examines these issues and their broader implications, with the aim of demonstrating why the project should not proceed without extensive revisions.

i am concerned about the additional road traffic hen the chaffey bridge i alreaqdy congeted.

IMPACTS TO SERVICES IN BURONGA GOL GOL (BGG)

Wentworth Capital Pty Ltd objects to the Mallee Wind Farm project on the basis that impacts to community services in BGG are excessive, unmitigated and inadequately examined / quantified and assessed.

In particular:

HEALTH SERVICES - addition of 400 staff will impact the health services available to Buronga Gol Gol residents. Para 4.4.2 of the Social Impact Assessment devotes only four paragraphs to this fundamental community need and states "such services demonstrate limited capacity to service further population increase".

ROAD TRAFFIC SAFETY AND CONGESTION - 400 additional staff will all be travelling Arumpo Rd to Mildura regularly which will increase traffic risks in this area and further congest the already congested Chaffey Bridge to Mildura

HOUSING SHORTAGE - There is no excess housing available in BGG and the project has inadequately considered these impacts.

Yours sincerely
Bob Wheeldon
Director

Wheeldon Amigh Pty Ltd objects to the Mallee Wind Farm project on the basis of its impacts on the growth and liveability of the townships of Buronga and Gol Gol (BGG). The Wind Farm and associated infrastructure can be located further away from BGG as there is ample area within the Project Site to move all the wind turbines north east by 10 kilometres to the northern part of the Project Site. This would significantly reduce the impacts on BGG with only marginal impacts on the Project itself.

BGG is currently growing quickly and is viewed as one of the desirable locations for young families to live Ian the greater Sunraysia area. Both Wentworth Shire and the NSW Government are investing in the growth of the area. The Mallee Wind Farm will run counter to this.

The NSW Wind Guidelines at Paragraph 2.2.2 specifically identify that:
"for wind energy developments to be approved near certain regional cities, the consent authority will need too be satisfied that any urban land conflicts, impact on urban growth potential and important scenic values are not significant".

While BGG is not currently listed as a regional city it should be as it is growing quickly and together with its Victorian twin town, Mildura, its population is far larger than that of some of the regional cities listed.

The same principle should be applied and the Mallee Wind Farm's impacts one BGG should be assessed as a regional city.

The flat landscape around BGG mean the Mallee Wind Farm will be highly visible. In addition the development will have numerous impacts on BGG including transport congestion and availability off services.

Yours sincerely
Bob Wheeldon
Director

Secura Aaustralia Pty Ltd objects to the proposal as it is located to close to the community of Buronga Gol Gol, the Mallee Cliffs National Park.

Yours sincerely
Bob Wheeldon
Diirector

PLease see my attached submission.

The side effects to native animals and vegetation is to vast.
The side effects on people living near to these windfarms is to detrimental.
Please do not make wind turbine farm in our area

I am concerned about the devastation to local communities, the loss of farm land and the impact on birds and bats by wind turbines. They operate at a low capacity factor and do not provide a consistent supply of energy to the grid.

I am concerned about the additional traffic when the Chaffey Bridge is already congested.

I object to the Mallee Wind Farm because it is way too close to Mallee Cliffs NP home to endangered mallee fowl. Also too close to the road to Mungo NP, people dont want to see wind farms on the drive to a world heritage national park.

I believe it should be set back further from the housing and tourism development area of Gol Gol so it does not decrease land value and atmosphere of this region.

I object to the Mallee Wind Farm because it should be setback further away from Buronga Gol Gol.

The destruction of property that occurs while constructing a working wind farm + the costs to set up the wind farm + the maintenance costs + the cost of manufacturing wind farm parts and components + the visual degradation that is a result of massive wind towers in the area make wind farms a complete and utter waste of time and resources.

I object to the proposal on the grounds that its proximity to the Buronga Gol Gol residential area, major tourism routes, and the Mallee Cliffs National Park will have negative impacts on the community, tourism and the environment.

Mallee Wind Farm
A wind turbine is made up of 66 to 79% of steel
11 to 16% of fibreglass, resin or plastic
5 to 17% of iron or cast iron
1% Copper
0 to 2% Aluminium

A 2-Megawatt turbine has 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of ore, which all needs to be mined, manufactured, transported and erected and all produced by hydrocarbons.
For every 1 tonne of steel 1.91 tonnes of carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere.
900 kg of Co2 are emitted for the fabrication on 1 tonne of cement and a concrete base of 1000 tonnes is required for a wind turbine. To make 1000 tonnes of cement you will also need 350 tonnes of water. 76 of the turbines would mean 68,400,000 kgs of Co2 would be emitted into the atmosphere.
37,741,600 tonnes of Co2 from steel not to mention all the pollution from the diesel machinery mentioned in my first paragraph. Based on the Co2 emissions in manufacturing and running (oil) these turbines the overall gains during their life seem to be negligible.
Oil is another factor as the wind turbines require 1,400 litres of synthetic oil which is made from crude oil again from mining.

Leaks from the turbine lead to environmental pollution as well as collapse and fires.

Oil leaks from transformers are flammable, cause electrical faults and can produce high voltage arcing, particularly in extremely high heat temperature and can rupture the tank, causing serious leaks or combust. The use of oil absorbent sheets has not changed in 40 years which is why they’re performance is so low especially in sun and when wet.
Dry transformers if used are larger but they have a larger electrical loss.
The Malle Cliff National Park is right next to the proposed windfarm where they have different species of:
21 mammals
71 reptiles
32 threatened wildlife
4 threatened plants
127 birds
6 amphibians
240 plants

Not to mention the replacement of the:
Bilby
Greater stick-nest rats
Numbats
Hopping mouse
Red tailed Phascogales, just to mention a few that were also collected from Australian zoo breeding programs.
Concerns are that the noise from these turbines also interferes with the propagation of these animals putting them at risk.
In the event of a fire caused by a turbine our Mildura Fire Service has been given two new trucks which hold 4000 litres of water. Which would not be effective enough particularly in our fire danger season. What system will be in place if a turbine does catch fire, an Aerosol System?
The local community is not profiting from much as the workmen have been given their own accommodation, food and on-site facilities. Also, they are not locals. So, I ask what money is going into our community?
The life expectancy of a turbine is 20 to 30 years. Who will be responsible for the decommissioning of them?
The blades are made from fibreglass and carbon and are normally used as landfill, this alone is a great environmental issue. The decommissioning of underground cables also contributes to an environmental impact, but they also contribute to carbon emissions and compromise the site stability, erosion or unwanted pathways for surface water particularly in flood prone areas.
In 2024 it cost 600,000 or more per turbine to decommission. How much will this cost in 30 years’ time and who will be paying for this? I’m sure it will be the taxpayer as it will not be funded by the government they will offset any cost to the taxpayers. Our electricity bills will increase to keep these turbines going. The local community is not receiving anything in having them here not even lower electricity or supply from these turbines, it is supplying the Eastern state.

What are the figures for total emissions for the raw material production, manufacturing, set up and on-going maintenance of these wind turbines during their life cycle?
Also my husband and I have just built our forever home which will decrease in value. This is a major concern for us, in addition the reasons above, I am opposed to the wind farm being built.

I oppose this project because it is very unlikely that the decommissioning, removal and land rehabilitation will occur due to the exorbitant cost that will be involved. The cost in 20 years or so time will likely exceed today's cost to build the project. Unlike mining companies there is no requirement for this developer to lodge a bond to cover this future cost. Who will ultimately pay? The new owner of the plant, the host landholders, the local ratepayers or the State and/or Federal governments. The project must not be approved unless such a bond is in place.

I oppose this project as it is just one of many that will cumulatively destroy our country life-style and country environment, which will be devastating for decades, including for tourists.

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 objects to this proposed project as it poses 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, such as small nuclear reactors become available over the next few years. Australia's oldest wind electricity plant recently reached its end-of-life and rather than undertake the decommissioning, etc. that it promised, the owner just declared it a museum. How many more wind and solar projects will not meet their EIS commitments, as is happening in other countries? No upfront bond means no skin in the game.

I oppose this project because it is very unlikely that the decommissioning, removal and land rehabilitation will occur due to the exorbitant cost that will be involved. The cost in 20 years or so time will likely exceed today's cost to build the project. Unlike mining companies there is no requirement for this developer to lodge a bond to cover this future cost. Who will ultimately pay? The new owner of the plant, the host landholders, the local ratepayers or the State and/or Federal governments. The project must not be approved unless such a bond is in place.
I oppose this project as it is just one of many that will cumulatively destroy our country life-style and country environment, which will be devastating for decades, including for tourists.

I am opposed to this project for a number of reasons.

1. We moved to Gol Gol because it was a quiet, laid back, close nit community with an abundance of local flora and fauna and adjacent to the Mallee Cliffs National Park. The Spark Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) details the fact 13 threatened species live in the area. The area has an abundance of other bird wildlife, such as migratory pelicans that no doubt will heavily impacted should this project proceed. I am not opposed to renewables and I am a strong proponent of solar farms, these are less impacting on local communities and flora and fauna. The mitigation strategies listed in the EIS are without substance, how can a wind farm be considered or placed adjacent to a National Park with threatened species?

2. The Project flags the fact that cheaper energy will follow, for who? A French Company investing in Australia under a Federal Government who has seen an average of 30% increase in power costs for the average Australian under their term. There is no guarantee that anyone let alone locals impacted by the project will get cheaper electricity.

3. The local area already has a massive uptake of solar usage and the government should be focussing on expanding individual solar usage and farms with incentives and investment in sustainable battery systems. This project will merely feed the east coast with power at a cost to locals and local flora and fauna. If Sydney and Newcastle needs power, let those local communities have massive wind farms on the shores of Sydney and Newcastle. Regional Australians, often forgotten by governments with consideration to our needs often put behind those in major centres.

4. Government decision makers will be long gone when the local community is left to clean up and manage the decommissioning of these plants in 30 years. Will the government ensure that money is put aside for decommissioning in 30 years? (Current cost @$600k per turbine)

5. How much if any of the infrastructure being used will come from Australian Manufacturing? The irony is that most of the infrastructure will come from China that is using less than ideal environmental practices in manufacturing, paid for by a French Company that the Australian tax payer will be paying for, for years to come.

6. The financial benefit to local community is overstated, a pocket of individuals will see the majority of benefit with a smaller portion to local government. Employment will largely be a specialised work force from outside of the local community on a rotating platform.

7. A recognised risk in windfarms is fire, while rare they can be very expensive and cause significant damage. The local area where the project is proposed (Category 3 Bush Fire Prone Land) does not have a full time fire service. The mitigation option of having 1 water tanker on the proposed project site is absolutely inadequate. How will that 1 tanker cover and handle a fire? Our community, houses, businesses and flora and fauna will be at a heightened risk as a result of this project and an inadequate proposed mitigation for fire.

This is an important ecological locality in Australia, I support the solar aspect of this project not the windfarm and respectfully ask this to be considered along with any other submissions.

Doctors for the Environment Australia supports the development of the Mallee Wind Farm. Wind energy generation is the crucial technology that can lead to the cessation of coal burning, which has multiple adverse health outcomes. Our reasoning with further details is in the attached fact sheet.