Wattle Creek Battery Energy Storage System

Lack of Detailed Fire Safety Plans:
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fails to provide comprehensive fire risk management strategies.
Inadequate Emergency Response Protocols:
There is no clear emergency response plan for potential battery fires, including evacuation procedures.
Absence of Fire Suppression Systems:
The proposal lacks detailed information on fire suppression systems to mitigate fire risks.
Unclear Fire Training Programs:
The EIS does not specify fire safety training programs for personnel and emergency responders.
No Fire Safety Audits:
There is no mention of scheduled fire safety audits to assess and improve fire risk management.

See attachment

BESS BOMBS are Chemical Fire Hazards - posing ongoing, uncontrollable, toxic Fire & fumes that spew carcinogens and corrosive gases across surrounding communities and farmlands.

Spark Renewables have a terrible reputation for causing Rural Sacrifice Zones at Wagga Wagga.
These battery monstrosities are dumped on rural land like Arthursleigh Farm—turning productive farmland into hazardous industrial zones without consent.

Properties near BESS sites are unable to obtain adequate Public Liability insurance & who knows if dodgy Spark Renewables/TNB bullies even have insurance coverage for impacted neighbours harmed by their uncontrollable fire and contamination risk.

TOXIC BESS means Permanent Chemical Contamination - with Leaching of bis-FASI compounds & life threatening chemicals from failed burnt or degraded batteries - poisoning soil & groundwater for generations.

TNB’s Explosive Fire Risk - Lithium-ion BESS JUNK is a ticking time bomb - prone to catastrophic thermal runaway fires that cannot be extinguished and release deadly gases.

Toxic Fume Pollution caused by Fires at BESS sites emit clouds of carcinogenic PFAS, hydrogen fluoride, and dioxins—posing a lethal threat to nearby communities, farms, and ecosystems.

The Energy Storage Conundrum - Briefing 61 - GWPF - Francis Menton
"The unsolved, and potentially unsolvable, challenges of energy storage in a grid predominantly supplied by intermittent generation are quite obvious. One does not need to be a highly credentialed scientist or engineer to understand the magnitude of these issues, or to see that solutions are critical if such a grid is to be made to work without fossil fuel backup. And yet politicians across the world have committed their peoples to achieving full decarbonisation without any demonstration project to show that the target can be met in practice, let alone at reasonable cost.
Historically, major innovations in provision of energy have begun with demonstration projects or prototypes to establish the feasibility and cost, before any attempt at widespread commercialisation. In the 1880s, when Thomas Edison wanted to start building power plants to supply electricity for his new devices, such as incandescent lightbulbs, he began by building a prototype facility in London under the Holborn Viaduct, and followed that with a larger demonstration plant on Pearl Street in Lower Manhattan, which supplied electricity to only a few square blocks. Only after those had been demonstrated as successful did a larger build-out begin. Similarly, the provision of nuclear power began with small government-funded prototypes in the late 1940s and early 1950s, followed by larger demonstration projects in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Only in the late 1960s, twenty years into the effort and after feasibility and cost had been demonstrated, were the first large-scale commercial reactors built.
But somehow our politicians have now become so filled with hubris that they think they can just order up a functioning wind and solar electricity system and assume that backup energy storage devices will magically be invented, that it will all work fine, that it will not be financially ruinous, and that all this will be achieved by some arbitrarily-imposed date in the 2030s.
There is today no such functioning electricity system based on wind or solar or a combination of the two that is free of fossil fuels and fully backed up by energy storage. There have only been two half-hearted attempts at delivering such a thing, both of which have been, and continue to be, abject failures, only serving to demonstrate how unlikely the whole Net Zero endeavour is ever to come to fruition.
The most significant of the two is a facility called Gorona del Viento on the Spanish island of El Hierro, one of the Canary Islands. El Hierro is a mountainous volcanic island with a population of about 10,000. The Gorona del Viento project consists of five large wind turbines and a pumped storage system to provide the backup. The wind turbines have sufficient capacity to fulfill 100% of the electricity demand of the island when the wind blows at full strength – the nameplate capacity is 11.5 MW, versus an average demand of 5.1 MW and a peak of 7.6 MW. When the wind blows and demand is low, the electricity can be used to pump water from a lower reservoir to an upper storage reservoir built in an extinct volcanic crater. The water then can be released through turbines to provide electricity at other times when the wind is not blowing.
The concept of the planners of the El Hierro project was that they would demonstrate how to do a 100% renewables/storage electricity system. The project launched in 2014, and on August 20, 2015 the Spanish daily El Pais reported that the island ‘aspires to energy self-sufficiency to provide light
and water from 100%-renewable sources’. However, apparently nobody bothered to do the simple arithmetic to be sure there was enough wind capacity and storage to make it work. The project has consistently fallen far short of its goal, as anyone who had done the arithmetic could have easily shown before they started. Fortunately, the island retains a secondary backup system, based on diesel generators, with a capacity of 11.2 MW, and which is therefore capable of exceeding peak demand on its own.
The most important shortfall of the Gorona del Viento system is that it has only a small fraction of the storage capacity needed to get through frequent daily and seasonal wind droughts. Roger Andrews calculated that the storage capacity would have to be 40 times bigger to see the island through a full year without the diesel backup. Unfortunately, the existing reservoir is the only suitable site on the island for pumped storage, and it cannot be made bigger. Even if a suitable site did exist, it would be of little to no relevance to the rest of the world, where sites for pumped storage on the scale required are essentially non-existent.
A second problem is that, although El Hierro has wind turbine capacity to supply average electricity demand more than twice over when the wind blows at full strength, the wind does not often do so, and therefore the installed wind turbines are insufficient to keep even the existing pumped storage reservoir full for when it is needed.
Gorona del Viento publishes monthly data on how much of the electricity for the island came from the wind/storage system and how much from the diesel generators.21 The most recent data are from September 2021. These make clear how very seasonal the wind power is, with far more in the summer than the winter. Data for earlier years show that the Gorona del Viento system has produced somewhat more than 50% of the electricity for El Hierro in some years of operation, but then fallen back well below half in other years, depending on the weather.
The bottom line is that El Hierro has wind turbines for more than double average demand, pumped storage for more than double average demand, and also diesel generators for more than double average demand – three separate and redundant systems, all of which must be paid for, yet they struggle to get half of their electricity from the wind/storage system, averaged over the year. So the island must retain 100% diesel backup, fully maintained and ready to go, for the regular times, even in the windiest months, when the wind fails to blow. Estimates of the cost of the electricity produced by the Gorona del Viento system put it at around 80 euro cents per kilowatt hour, although most of that is subsidised by the Spanish government or the EU and thus hidden from the El Hierro ratepayer.
In summary, the El Hierro model, in return for electricity costs around four times the European average and seven times the US average, is not remotely capable of achieving Net Zero. It is a disaster that no other jurisdiction can or should attempt to follow.
After El Hierro, the next closest thing in the world to a Net Zero demonstration project is on King Island, part of the state of Tasmania, Australia. King Island is much smaller than even El Hierro, with a population of only about 1500 people. In fact, it never claimed that it was attempting to get all the way to Net Zero, but it did build substantial wind, solar, and battery storage facilities to attempt to get at least a large part of its electricity from these sources. However, like El Hierro, King Island retains 100% backup in the shape of a diesel generator system as well.
Roger Andrews did a detailed study of the results of the King Island system in a post on October 16, 2018.22 He concluded that King Island did not provide sufficient data to enable a precise calculation of how much of its electricity comes from renewables and storage, and how much from the diesel backup. However, he made an estimate of about 60% from the wind, solar and batteries over the
course of a year. He also calculated that to attempt to get to all the way to Net Zero without the diesel generators for a whole year, the island would need at least 100 times more storage, in addition to more wind and solar capacity.
Thus, as a model for how to get to Net Zero emissions from the generation of electricity, King Island must also be rated a total failure. All that it has shown is that you can’t get much beyond 50% of electricity from renewables without vastly more energy storage capacity than anyone can afford.
Politicians throughout the developed world, urged on by environmental activists, talk with utmost earnestness about their plans for Net Zero, and have committed and are further committing their citizens and taxpayers to tens and hundreds of billions of dollars of spending to achieve this goal. Yet from their heads-in-the-sand approach to the energy storage conundrum, one would have to conclude that the entire effort is either wholly unserious or breathtakingly incompetent.
It is abundantly clear that no jurisdiction can get anywhere near Net Zero on the current path of just building more wind and solar generators and paying little to no attention to the problem of energy storage. Down that path one quickly comes to the current predicament of Germany, which has plenty of wind and solar generation capacity to supply its needs on a windy and sunny day, but almost no storage for when the night comes and the wind stops blowing. Germany has thus made itself dependent on fossil fuel backup, mostly in the form of Russian natural gas. And now, with the Ukraine war and the shutdown of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, it has hit the Net Zero wall. With winter approaching, there is no time to acquire batteries to serve as backup, even if any existed that could technically do the job. Moreover, fully replacing natural gas backup with battery storage is a multi-trillion-dollar project, likely costing a multiple of the country's GDP, and thus completely infeasible. Realistically, Germany will never build any amount of storage that is meaningful relative to the scope of its problem. It is only a question of time until it gives up its Net Zero quest, with the other fantasist countries shortly to follow."

The sunk energy and materials, short life span, and no good disposal options make batteries a terrible option for storing energy on a large scale. They are totally counterproductive to the stated aim of reducing consumption of energy and materials to save the planet. Then there are the local negative effects of associated power lines and transmission, and the fire hazard that they pose, spreading toxic fumes and contaminants over an agricultural landscape.

Please find attached.

We object to this project.

Batteries use lead, lithium and cobalt, all of which are hazardous materials. This is of much concern to residents and the community as ordinary fire suppression measures cannot extinguish a Lithium chemical reaction fire. A fire that occurred in the 350MW/450MWh BESS during testing on 30 July 2021 in Geelong, Victoria shows how dangerous it can be for nearby residents. When one of the 13 tonne battery packs caught fire, it burned for three days and resulted in the evacuation of residents because of the toxic fumes generated.

The University of Washington's Clean Energy Institute report on Lithium batteries stated:
“Li-ion batteries still have a number of shortcomings, particularly with regards to safety. Li-ion batteries have a tendency to overheat, and can be damaged at high voltages. Most Li-ion electrolytes are highly flammable, so damaged batteries can experience thermal runaway and combustion. Because of the risks associated with these batteries, a number of shipping companies refuse to perform bulk shipments of batteries by plane. Li-ion batteries require safety mechanisms to limit voltage and internal pressures, which can increase weight and limit performance in some cases. Li-ion batteries are also subject to aging, meaning that they can lose capacity and frequently fail after a number of years. Degradation, cost, and safety make Li-ion batteries a poor fit for grid-scale energy storage. And despite the high energy density of Li-ion compared to other kinds of batteries, they are still around a hundred times less energy-dense than gasoline, which contains 12,700 Wh/kg by mass or 8760 Wh/L by volume”.

We object to this environmentally destructive project that will do nothing to give confidence to NSW residents that they will have a consistent and affordable supply of electricity.

This project will add to the increase of mining in many countries, some using child and slave labour in their operations to extract the materials required for this BESS. This batteries in this BESS will require regular replacement and the waste will become toxic land fill. Where is the land fill for waste from this BESS?

Reportedly this BESS will run for 2 hours, is this during peak periods?

Are the neighbours and local community aware of the plans for Arthursleigh and the fact that the project area is 6350 hectares?

Is the University of Sydney aware that, as the land owner, it is ultimately responsible for the decommissioning and rehabilitation of the land?

What are the impacts on insurance for neighbours to the project? What are the impacts on land values for the neighbouring properties?

"A qualified ecologist will perform daily wildlife surveys before vegetation clearance, with a handler on-site for rescues. Representatives will deter fauna by driving through the area. If an animal or threatened species is found during construction, work will stop, and the Project Management Site Representative and Delivery Manager will follow CEMP procedures." Who is policing this?

"It is recognised that the Project may have an impact on sensitive land uses such as schools and residential
precincts within townships along the identified OSOM haulage and material delivery routes. To minimise
the impacts on schools it is recommended that temporary road closures for OSOM movements should be
avoided during school peaks. To this end vehicle layovers should be identified along the proposed haulage
routes to allow vehicles to wait until appropriate times for travel."
In relation to the statement above, are the local communities afforded the same protections as the larger metropolitan communities? Or does this statement above apply only to the larger communities? For example in the Central West we are "informed" that OSOM vehicle movements will occur at night to limit disturbance to residents, but what this means is only major metropolitan residents are considered. By the time the OSOM has left the port they arrive mid morning in regional communities, thus appropriate times for travel are not considered for the "hosting" region.

How many local roads will be closed during the construction of this BESS and for how long? Or will these type of announcements be withheld from the community until a later date?

This project will not benefit NSW residents nor electricity consumers.

I own the property which is directly opposite the proposed solar development and co-located battery energy storage system. Whilst the company has made an attempt to reduce the visual impact of the development, it will still have a significant impact on our lives. We will be experiencing construction for two years and we will have significant disruption on Canyonleigh Rd with traffic.
I am not opposed to renewable energy and I do see a need for battery storage. I also acknowledge that up the road from our property is a substation with two ports for renewable energy. My objection is with the inconsistencies in the EIS especially in regards to wild life, water, fire plans, road traffic, and vague planning. Canyonleigh Rd floods quite significantly. There was a fire at the substation a couple of years ago and the fire fighters could not get in due to the flooding. Someone actually got a boat to ferry them across and they used equipment from the sub station. We were informed that the company would be "training up" rural volunteer fire fighters. How can this be plausible when they are actually supposed to be available for fighting fires elsewhere. They are a limited resource.
We live in a beautiful, peaceful part of NSW. This will be altered forever.
I also have concerns for the cumulative negative impact of the solar farm with the proposed battery farm and any other development that might be considered by other companies.
Before this project is approved, many aspects need to be significantly addressed to provide clarity around numerous vague and seemingly unscientific aspects. Many issues and gaps in the EIS as it is are proposed to be solved in the planning stage rather than the EIS. It is not adequate for a proposal. The EIS is an opportunity for the community to voice concerns but that is difficult to do when we do not have a clear and complete picture.

Lithium-ion battery fires are a growing national hazard . Australia sees over 10,000 battery-related fires annually, including serious incidents in trucks, recycling centres, and large-scale energy sites. The Wattle Creek BESS proposes a 350 MW / 1,400 MWh facility in a bushfire-prone, agricultural zone, yet the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fails to present detailed, independently verified fire prevention or emergency response plans. This puts rural communities, farmland, and lives at risk.
The most recent on a ship in the ocean which was abandoned!
Threat to Critically Endangered Species
The development site lies within known habitat for critically endangered species including the Swift Parrot, Eastern Bent-wing Bat, and Pink-tailed Worm-lizard, among others. The EPBC referral has already flagged this as a “controlled action” under federal environmental law. The developer’s mitigation strategies are vague, unproven, and insufficient to justify destruction of such sensitive habitat.
Risks to Agriculture and Food Security.
The project is located in a productive agricultural region. A battery fire or chemical leak could contaminate soil and water, devastating food production and local ecosystems. The long-term risks to Australia’s food supply and farmland have not been properly addressed.
Lack of Transparency and Detail
The EIS fails to outline concrete, enforceable strategies for,
Hazardous waste handling
Long-term environmental monitoring
Microplastic and toxic byproduct containment
Emergency services coordination
This level of ambiguity is unacceptable for a project of this scale and risk.
Until transparent, enforceable, and community-approved safety and environmental protections are in place
This project should not proceed.
The cost to rural communities, biodiversity, and food-producing land is too high

Waste of money! Toxic junk that will last maybe a decade provided there isn't a good hailstorm. No recycling solution for the millions of solar panels planed for the area, let alone the entire state. Appears that the foreign owed developer has control over way more land than is required for the project. Traffic impacts, bushfire impacts and environmental impacts should halt this project. Trashing the environment to reportedly "save" the environment is appalling. The only beneficiary here is the developer. No joy for the electricity consumer, the result will be intermittent exorbitant electricity prices.

An large grid scale lithium ion battery that is very expensive to develop will lead to expensive electricity for energy consumers.
Apart from its enormous cost, the toxic nature of these batteries when they catch fire is an unacceptable risk to human health including our fire fighters.

This project is not going to benefit electricity consumers. The BESS will require replacement in less than 10 years, resulting in more toxic landfill. The project area, according to the Malaysian developer is over 6000 ha - why so big? What is coming down the pipeline next? Quarry, waste dump, wind, more BESS more Solar? Why is the NSW Government allowing so much of our agricultural land in NSW to be controlled by foreign companies? Why has the University of Sydney handed over control of over 6000 ha it was bequeathed?

This BESS is a fire hazard, there is no procedure in place for any local fire services to manage a battery fire on this scale. A 40,000 litre water tank will not extinguish a fire in a BESS. It appears the 40,000 litre tank also has to provide water for the solar component of the project as well.

Is Spark Infrastructure relying on local volunteer fire teams if a fire breaks our anywhere on their project area(over 6000 ha)?

What slave or child labour has been used to mine components of the BESS? What is the country of origin for all BESS components?

This project will cost us dearly both environmentally and financially. I object to this project.

Arthursleigh was bequeathed to the University of Sydney 1979, it is a valuable resource for teaching and should not be destroyed to enhance the profits of Spark Renewables, which is owned by a Malaysian company.

Spark Infrastructure refers to the wind farm at the same site, has UMWELT (German for Environment....what a sad joke!) made a error in their EIS or is there an industrial scale wind project planned for Arthursleigh as well?

This project is not in the public benefit. The only beneficiary is the foreign controlled company. Unrecyclable toxic waste will be the result, combined with environmental destruction from this project and it associated transmission, substation, solar and wind (??) projects. Where are the battery components coming from? China? Via slave labour mining in underdeveloped nations? How much diesel will be used to keep the BESS running? Who will put the fire out? Or will it be like the battery fires, from transportation of EV's, where everyone flees the "ship" because battery fires cannot be extinguished.