Stratford Pumped Hydro and Solar

This is the biggest waist of money. Using a lot of coal generate electricity to pump water to run it down hill to create electricity. It is a fools paradise.

How will this energy generation be connected to the grid? Where will the line go, how will be impacted?

Energy losses occur in the process, as it takes more power to pump water uphill than is eventually recaptured. Additionally, high costs and lengthy permitting and construction times can make these projects financially unfeasible, especially as faster alternatives like nuclear.

As a young person concerned about the future of reliable energy, the recent debacle in Broken Hill has made it clear that pumped hydro and industrial-scale solar simply aren’t cutting it. With the town enduring 40°C heat and batteries failing, people were left without power when they needed it most. Food spoiled, and vulnerable residents struggled in sweltering conditions. Solar and battery storage alone cannot consistently meet our energy needs, especially under extreme weather.

Pumped hydro, meanwhile, is a huge drain on water resources, which are already stretched thin in arid areas like Broken Hill. It also takes more energy to pump water uphill than is generated when it flows back down, meaning its actual efficiency is questionable. We need solutions that don’t just sound sustainable but deliver real reliability, especially in rural communities. The current system and backup batteries left Broken Hill stranded—proof we must prioritize energy sources that can meet demand all day, every day. Like nuclear and gas.

The drawbacks of pumped hydro and industrial-scale solar are mounting, particularly when we consider the future we’re leaving behind. Pumped hydro requires immense amounts of water, a precious and often limited resource, to operate effectively. In arid regions, this strain on water supplies is even more concerning, given how energy-intensive it is to pump the water up, yielding minimal net energy gain.

Industrial solar farms, meanwhile, come with their own environmental baggage. They demand vast stretches of land and generate significant waste when panels need replacing. With both solar and hydro, there’s a hidden legacy of environmental junk—obsolete panels, discarded batteries, and spent infrastructure—that will fall to the next generation to handle. Instead of clean energy, we’re risking a landscape of discarded materials and depleted resources.

We Object due to Lack of Accountability!
We demand accountability from regulators who prioritise profits over people, allowing energy companies to exploit vulnerable consumers.

This irresponsible plan is Dangerous, Unworkable & Reckless!
Shambolic Policy-Making & anti Australian energy plans such as this are jeopardising grid stability and our energy security.

I object to this ineffective & destructive plan driven by ruinous, energy depriving policies.
Weather dependent energy policies are fundamentally flawed, neglecting the needs of everyday consumers in favour of off-shore sharks & corporate interests.

I object to the constant Misinformation presented in this & all so called ‘renewable’ projects that are in reality extremely destructive & harmful to all of us & Australia.
I reject the misleading claims about ‘green energy’ initiatives that do not deliver real benefits to consumers.

We are already seriously suffering from irresponsible ruinable approvals!
Unreliable energy sources are reckless, risking our livelihoods and the health of our environment.

Stratford Pumped Hydro & Solar is an Environmental & Economic Disaster which threatens not only our power supply but also the competitiveness of our industries and the overall economy.

This project destroys agricultural land,at risk biodiversity and the local community. It must not be built.

Nuclear power offers a more cost-effective and reliable energy solution compared to industrial-scale solar and hydro. Nuclear plants provide a consistent energy output and operate efficiently for decades, while solar and hydro are intermittent, requiring costly storage systems and backup. Additionally, the high energy density of nuclear fuel means a smaller environmental footprint, as one plant generates massive power with less land. By contrast, solar and hydro consume vast land areas, displacing ecosystems and valuable agricultural land, and entail substantial maintenance and decommissioning costs. For affordability and longevity, nuclear stands out as a sustainable choice.

Pumped hydro and industrial-scale solar come with significant drawbacks, especially in terms of land use and environmental impact. These projects require vast expanses of land, often displacing flora and fauna critical to local ecosystems and threatening biodiversity. Industrial solar installations, in particular, transform once-productive land into fields of panels that demand regular replacement, generating waste. In contrast, nuclear energy is far more efficient, requiring much less land while offering consistent power. Additionally, let’s not forget that CO2 isn’t bad; it supports plant growth, which sustains agriculture and natural habitats. Nuclear, with its low-carbon footprint and smaller land requirements, presents a balanced path forward.

Stratford is the gateway to the beautiful town of Gloucester. Stratford is part of the Barrington coast which is an amazing region closely located to Sydney and Newcastle which enables these residents the pleasure of driving to the country for a day out or weekend camping.
The Chinese company Gloucester Coal ltd has already decimated the local farming area with the coal extraction and now want to devalue the whole stratford and Gloucester region by installing kms of solar panels at Stratford along the main road . By applying for this development they are making a statement that they don't care for the local community and the value of their properties.
This proposed Pumped Hydro and solar installation will totally devalue the farming regions property prices . One of these properties will be our family home. Gloucester Coal is not even owned by Australians, majority Chinese, they wont see the panel from China, shame shame you. They say it will give jobs for 3 years. The fact is the jobs will predominately be for non local workers. The submission is using this as an incentive to sell the idea which means nothing to the locals who own these farming areas. Gloucester Coal ltd have a history of not complying with the past relevant approvals and this will start the whole process again.
I would assume solar panels may be better suited to an area where it will not impact on hundreds of people and their property values. Maybe direct them to the middle of the dessert and 100 km from the main road so the eyesore cannot be seen.
How would a city property owner like tens of thousand of solar panels out their front window. I am sure this would not be acceptable. I would wonder if James MacKenzie wants it at his front door, has he stayed at Statford or Gloucester for a few days to embrace the beauty of the area. I assume he is just a money guy and hasn't really addressed the environmental impact on the area as the companies he boards are known for only lining their own pockets and neglecting the local communities.
In Brief this company does not care at all about the local communities. The proposal shows this by their total disregard for the area. The panels for the next 50 years will be a disgraceful scar on the region forever. Please keep the area beautiful, that is what we are trying to teach our children and the next generations. Once we destroy it it is gone. Progress does not need to destroy our beautiful landscape.
Under the coal approval they are meant to be monitoring and rehabilitation of the areas for the next 15 years. How can they attempt do do this with thousands of solar panels and grid systems.
Please stop this from being approved.

Industrial-scale solar installations come with significant drawbacks, taking up large swathes of land that could otherwise support agriculture or sustain natural habitats. These sprawling solar farms displace local ecosystems and reduce available land for food production. They also only generate power when sunlight is available, making them unreliable and requiring costly storage or backup power sources to ensure consistent supply.

Pumped hydro projects are similarly inefficient and environmentally taxing. They require vast amounts of water and energy, as more electricity is needed to pump the water uphill than is produced when it flows back down. This process burdens already limited water resources and offers a minimal net energy gain, making it an unsustainable option for large-scale energy needs.

Reliable energy solutions like nuclear, gas, and coal offer more dependable and efficient alternatives. Nuclear energy, in particular, delivers consistent, high-output power with minimal land use, avoiding the massive environmental trade-offs seen with solar and hydro. Additionally, CO2 supports plant growth, aiding agriculture and helping maintain balanced ecosystems—a factor often overlooked.

This is a stupid use of water. Australia is one of the driest countries in the world. We are waisting resources when we could be using nuclear and gas.
Industrial size and sites of solar will never supply reliable power to us.

The serious/irreversible environmentally harmful impacts of Stratford PHES +Solar Factory - reliant on the unpredictable weather, would have devastating Public Health & Safety Risks for human beings from toxic Solar Panels that hardly work, along with the PHES & Solar Factory deliberately designed to wreck our ecology and biodiversity.

I am so sick of these ridiculous plans that can only be described as Electricity Consumer Rip-Offs & Exploitation!
We are all fed up with dodgy practices that exploit consumers already suffering from energy deprivation.

I object to Stratford PHES & Solar Electricity Generating Works as it’s based on FALSE PROMISES!
We are sick & tired of empty promises about renewable energy that fail to address our immediate needs for stable and affordable power.