Stoney Creek Battery Energy Storage System

Independent research warns that mega-scale BESS fires exceed firefighting capabilities and have life threatening, poisonous impacts for human beings and biodiversity, while the NSW Government is hastily and irresponsibly approving these dangerously volatile projects without doing their due diligence.

This horrific failure in their duty of care to the people of NSW/Australia - in spite of the catastrophic impacts - just to appease vested interests - is outrageous and must be condemned.

“Safety of Grid Scale Lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage Systems”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352158070_Safety_of_Grid_Scale_Lithium-ion_Battery_Energy_Storage_Systems

This horrible plan is for toxic pollution that lingers for generations - defying all the Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development - including the Precautionary Principle and Intergenerational Equity.

Hazardous Battery fires disperse microscopic heavy metals and fluorinated compounds that are highly toxic, bioaccumulate, evade detection, and leave no viable cleanup pathway - resulting in toxic wasteland and public health and safety disasters.

There are no benefits whatsoever from this ruinable junk that’s a poisonous curse to the public, our essential energy security, food security, our economy and sovereignty.

The predatory vested interests are manipulating the market - profiteering at our expense - while we all suffering the Government inflicted Cost of Living Crisis - caused by intermittent RenewaBULLs and BESS that profits from price volatility and arbitrage, distorting electricity markets and increasing costs for consumers.

The parasitic crooks pedalling and approving Intermittent, weather dependent Solar/Wind generation with bankruptingly costly BESS are completely failing the Australian people & irresponsibly destroying our country - which is blessed with far superior, natural energy resources that they are cruelly depriving us of.

Who is the enabler of this torturous prioritisation of CCP control of our electricity system and the deliberate sacrificing of our once energy independent, secure country?

I object and do NOT consent to this project for the following reasons:

The fact that this project and other similar renewable projects are connected to potentially flammable and dangerous high voltage transmission lines and towers. For example:

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

In addition, developers, NOT landowners, farmers or people who host renewables should be made to not only pay full decommission costs of these renewables, they also should be held solely responsible, along with the planning commission and government to ensure that no electrical bushfires breaks out of the renewables, high voltage transmission lines and towers, wind turbines, Battery storage units, solar "farms" (farms is a misnomer indeed) and any other energy infrastructure, NOT landowners, farmers or people who host renewables. https://braddonbeagle.com/do-we-have-a-do-as-i-do-or-do-as-i-say-government-you-decide/

I am a retired GP with a lifelong interest in the environmental determinants of human health, to which climate change is the major threat of our times. I support this project for the following reasons:
The battery storage is a cost-effective alternative to gas peaking plants, minimizing environmental impacts due to its compact footprint and minimal land clearing.
It will enhance grid stability by providing 125MW of storage for 8 hours, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Community benefits include $30,000 annually for local grants and commitments to First Nations services and workforce development.

These developers say they are building the billion dollar backbone to Australia's energy system! When what they are really seeking is to profit immensely from taxpayers and electricity consumers by gaming the electricity market. This BESS will need to be replaced within 10 years, will require diesel generators to keep the fans cooling the batteries 24/7, will encourage more mining of raw materials to construct the BESS, will be a fire risk for the community and will become toxic waste at end of life.

This developer lives nowhere near the project and cares nothing for the environment around this BESS.

Dear Recipient/Reader,
EIS - first paragraph explains my motivation,
I see, in the second half of my 73 years, Australia's weather, getting harsher, and look to the formerly temperate, and predominantly, milder summers and passing of colder winters, of coastal NSW, now, of very rare once soaking rainfall, of today's dumpings, of extreme runoff, all being progressively replaced, quickly, by increasing aridness and dryness, of ever higher running temperatures, year round, to know every effort must be made to end fossils' emissions, of which batteries are imperative. There is no time to lose, a good deal because of the inaction, of decades, and sharply pointed to by the International Energy Agency warning, some years back, emissions must end, yet emissions are still rising as these words are read, and that is the continuing outlook, without any clear end. This outline presents a real hell for Australia's fragile flora and fauna, which has been hit by the viciousness of that introduced since 1788. Just on gas, as a back up, all fossil projects, leak up to 80 times more potent methane, from exploration to end use, into a now bristling, boiling atmosphere, of 300 years' emissions, vis-a-vis the biosphere, a crucial point, that does not seem to register to anywhere near the extent, it should.

Some reasons for your support might include:

• Battery Energy Storage is the shortest and quickest way to toughen the renewable network.
• Leaves the land and its ecology intact.
• Requires little transmission wiring.
• Strongly supports the grid.
• Grants and livelihoods benefits.
•Low bushfire risk.
• Next to inert on water flow. So good.
•Workforce accommodation looks sound.
• Strong baseload and added power supplier.

Possible improvement,

• Already great community benefits listed, expanded, and clearly made to ensure it is clear what is locked in.
• Any funding program should have input by a local committee, be open to the
community, with transparency and annual reporting of expenditure.
• The EIS could go further in its commitments to First Nations, similar to the example
of the Wellington BESS which has made a landmark arrangement with the Wiradjuri
people, providing a 5% equity share in the battery.

• Further community benefits, for a distant regional area, could include:

o Education and engagement programs around the importance of storage and
the need for the transition.
o Look to a co-located community energy project for
local governance and ownership models.
o Bolstering local training opportunities in renewable energy.
o Providing a local physical presence that can respond to queries and provide
genuine engagement, avoiding consultation fatigue from “drop in” sessions.
o Develop programs such as those delivered by Democracy Co to help work
through conflict and consultation fatigue seen by the number of major
developments currently under consideration in the region.
• The EIS Bushfire Assessment should include planning for worst case scenarios if a
bushfire reaches the battery installation, how any smoke would disperse and how fire
fighting water would be managed to avoid contamination of surrounding land and
water.
• Commitment for more communication on road closure,
changed traffic conditions and oversize movements due to the increase in traffic
during construction.
• The EIS should clarify that the battery will NOT provide backup power or direct grid

Wishing you well,

Yours sincerely,

Graeme Tychsen

As a Hunter Valley resident who is currently installing a solar battery in my home, I am supportive of the transition to renewable energy and aware of the financial and environmental benefits solar batteries and their contribution to stabilizing the grid and reducing GHG emissions. As a member of the Hunter Community Alliance and the Lake Macquarie Sustainable Neighbourhood Alliance, I am also aware of the importance and usefulness of community consultation by developers.
I would therefore like to make some recommendations for improving this aspect of the proposal.
The community benefits reported in the media are a good start. Nevertheless, I would like to see these benefits expanded and clearly quantified in the EIS to ensure greater accountability. Any funding program should have input by a local committee, be open to the community, with transparency and annual reporting of expenditure, and the EIS could go further in its commitments to First Nations, similar to other battery projects that include equity shares in the battery.
Furthermore, it would be good to include education and engagement programs around the importance of storage and
the need for the transition and establish a local physical presence that can respond to queries and provide
genuine engagement. Finally, I would like to see a commitment to more communication on road closure, changed traffic conditions and oversize movements due to the increase in traffic during construction as these impact on the daily lives of those living close by.
I hope that these suggestions are helpful to the project developers.

Dear Madam/Sir,

I hereby lodge my submission to the Stoney Creek BESS Environmental Impact Statement.

I support the Stoney Creek Battery project.

The Stoney Creek Battery project is a 1,000MWh battery consisting of 150 batteries each one in a 34 foot container spread over about 8ha, located on Stoney Creek road adjacent to the substations and near to the old cemetery. In recognition of the need for storage in the grid this battery has received a LTESA (Long Term Energy Service Agreement) which is a minimum pricing scheme from AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operator); this sets a floor price that AEMO will guarantee for the first 14 years of the battery life.

It will connect to the Transgrid line and substation across the road. This is a big line that services Sydney and the battery will charge up during the day when there is excess solar generation and provide electricity back to the grid at night, evening out the peaks and troughs in the grid.

The land to be used has been cleared and farmed for many years and it has no need for new transmission lines. Construction is expected to be 12 - 14 months, commissioning up to 8 months for a 25 year life span, when it may either be repowered or decommissioned. The construction phase will create 48 new FTE on-site jobs with 4 permanent roles ongoing for the operation of the battery.

The land was purchased from a local farming family by Enervest and the project was taken over by Energy Vault in March 2025. Energy Vault intends to own and operate Stoney Creek which will be their first in Australia, however they have a pipeline of approximately 3GW of battery projects across Europe, USA and Australia and also have others in China.

I support this project for the following reasons:

• Battery Energy Storage is one of the cheapest and most flexible forms of firming, and reduces the need to build new gas peaking plants and therefore new gas fields and pipelines.
• This project requires no land clearing at all, avoiding negative biodiversity impacts and has a compact footprint.
• This project requires only a short new transmission line (340m) on the project land and across to the substation, avoiding the negative impacts experienced by people facing new transmission lines.
• This project will provide crucial support to the grid, smoothing out the peaks and troughs by providing 125MW of storage for an 8 hour duration for excess solar, ultimately helping to reduce emissions from our electricity grid.
• The community benefits committed as part of the LTESA (Long Term Energy Service Agreement - essentially a federal floor price provided based on conditions) include $30,000 per annum community grants and a range of procurement, jobs and training commitments as well as commitments to First Nations services, businesses and workforce.
• It is a low bushfire risk site given it is mostly surrounded by farm land and it adheres to the standards well, including a 20 meter Asset Protection Zone around the BESS equipment, which is larger than requirements.
• The project uses no groundwater and has a detention basin that collects runoff from the hard stand so it does not increase stormwater pressure for neighbouring areas.
• Narrabri and Boggabri have workforce accommodation available at the CIVEO, reducing the risk of local housing pressure. However, this should be closely watched due to cumulative impacts of a number of major project construction phases occurring at once.
• Because it stores excess solar that is currently being curtailed (limited) from solar farms it produces no ongoing GHG emissions. The battery will allow two and a half times more electricity to be provided to the grid than Wilga Park gas power station and will create no annual emissions.

I would like to make the following suggestions for improvements:

• The community benefits listed in media are a great start, however I would like to see these benefits expanded and clearly quantified in the EIS to ensure accountability.
• Any funding program should have input by a local committee, be open to the community, with transparency and annual reporting of expenditure.
• The EIS could go further in it’s commitments to First Nations, similar to the example of the Wellington BESS which has made a landmark arrangement with the Wiradjuri people, providing a 5% equity share in the battery.
• Further community benefits could include:
1. Education and engagement programs around the importance of storage and the need for the transition.
2. Exploring the idea of a co-located community energy project that allows for local governance and ownership models.
3. Bolstering local training opportunities in renewable energy.
4. Providing a local physical presence that can respond to queries and provide genuine engagement, avoiding consultation fatigue from “drop in” sessions.
5. Develop programs such as those delivered by Democracy Co to help work through conflict and consultation fatigue seen by the number of major developments currently under consideration in the region.
• The EIS Bushfire Assessment should include planning for worst case scenarios if a bushfire reaches the battery installation, how any smoke would disperse and how fire fighting water would be managed to avoid contamination of surrounding land and water.
• I would like to see a commitment for more communication on road closure, changed traffic conditions and oversize movements due to the increase in traffic during construction.
• The EIS should clarify that the battery will NOT provide backup power or direct grid benefits locally.

With the ever-increasing effects of climate change on the country the Minns Government must actively pursue the implementation of this project. Green energy generation and infrastructure must now take precedence. The extraction and use of fossil fuels must be curtailed immediately. To divert from this way forward would be irresponsible.

I thank you for this opportunity to express my opinions on this matter.

For the only planet we have.

Colleen Wysser - Martin

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. Please refer to attachment:

Pls see attached submission

These batteries last on average 9 years only and therefore have to be replaced every 10 years. This will ensure the price of electricity to consumers will remain high to pay for the infrastructure.
Lithium ion batteries have a propensity to catch fire and when fires happen they produce very toxic gases and dangerous chemicals that pollute the countryside and water.

This plan breaches the Government’s Primary Duty of failing to protect its citizens from the obvious National Security Risks from CCP produced/controlled BESS infrastructure and the highly toxic, Fire hazardous nature of this BESS.

Knowingly introducing such toxic fire risk, cyber vulnerability, and infrastructure fragility in pursuit of ideological energy targets is completely irresponsible and unacceptable.

This BESS plan is intrinsically Toxic, experimental and unsafe technology.

Lithium-ion batteries are chemically unstable, release poisonous gases and persistent pollutants, and create long-term contamination risks when they fail.

“Forever Chemicals’ used in Lithium-ion Batteries Threaten Environment”
The Guardian, 14 July 2024

This plan must not be approved as Thermal Runaway Fires burn for days - billowing poisonous smoke and releasing irreversibly contaminating residue - affecting vast areas and poisoning the public.

CSIRO explicitly states there is no certified method to extinguish lithium-ion battery fires, meaning failures escalate into uncontrollable thermal runaway events.
CSIRO Advisory Note AN-004 – Extinguishment of Lithium-Ion Battery Fires

This insecure CCP reliant BESS plan is an open invitation for a catastrophic, sabotaging, Critical-Infrastructure attack on Australia’s Electricity Grid.

It’s extremely treacherous that this untrustworthy Government are relying on Chinese BESS that embed CCP-manufactured, networked hardware into Australia’s grid while lacking robust, transparent cyber-security requirements.

Western intelligence agencies are constantly warning that Chinese hackers actively target energy infrastructure they produce - like this unethical, insecure plan that would illogically expand our exposure - threatening national security.
(PBS News, 2024 - FBI Director Christopher Wray warning)

It is totally illogical to plan to fail so extensively - with an intermittent, weather dependent Solar/Wind/BESS ‘Transition’ that DOESN’T WORK MOST OF THE TIME, that has an endless and irreversibly poisonous, monumental footprint that is ABSOLUTELY NOT FOR THE GREATER GOOD.