Winterbourne Wind Farm

Vitally important to move away from fossil fuel generation in order to address climate change. Our farming operation based in the Walcha district has suffered the worst drought on record 2 years ago and more recently a number of flood events. NSW needs to urgently replace old fossil fuel plants and we have the opportunity to replace them with clean wind energy.
This project will generate millions of $s for regional NSW and will support the Walcha community with jobs and donations to the Community Benefit Fund.

I don’t believe the walcha wind farm should go ahead. We do not have any available rentals in our town for these “workers” to live in. The roads are already in a bad way with out more traffic travelling on them.

I object to the project due to the proximity of the wind farm to my family property. The wind towers will be very close and will create disruption to the current environment.

Ohio North Grazing Company has owned a large parcel of land in the Walcha shire for the last 70 years.
It is a family owned and operated company, whose predecessors have owned land in Walcha since the 1840's.
As the Director of this company whose land will be greatly affected by the neighbouring development of wind turbines, I strongly object to the Winterbourne Wind Farm Project.
The size and scale of the project, together with the location is of great concern to us. The proposed area for the wind farm project is on some of the states most productive grazing land. There are many other areas that could be considered more appropriate for a development of this size and kind, which would not affect the whole community for the benefit of approximately 30 host landholders.
We have not had adequate community consultation from the developer. We have not been able to have discussions with our neighbours due to Non Disclosure Agreements which I refused to sign. When a neighbour agreement was proposed for our company, the developer was forceful in his approach and the EIS now states that Neighbour Benefit Funds have been scrapped.
The neighbour agreements did not take into consideration the size of land holdings. They were purely based on the number of dwellings affected.
I have grave concerns about land valuations in the future being affected if the development goes ahead without any compensation for those that are affected by the noise, visual and contamination issues of the wind turbines.

Dear Approvals,

I enclose my thoughts on this proposal, and itemise questions to the proponent, and itemise precautionary conditions you may wish to impose.

WINTERBOURNE

"FARM" is such a nice smooth gentle word, reminiscent of Ye Olde McDonald . . . and bringing forth images of fluffy white lambs gambolling around on a velvet field of luxuriant green.

"INDUSTRIAL" is what these things are, monstrous great big heavy mechanical works thumping around disturbing the neighbourhood, full of oil. And self destructing in flames one in a thousand times per year, which for 100 over 20 years, is not merely 2 but as you remember multiple birthdays being quite likely in your school class, maybe occurring 6 or 7 times. And probably similarly likely to throw a blade or two.



There is considerable community push back to renewable projects. In the US over 371 wind farms and 102 solar farms have been rejected up to October 2022. Source robertbryce.com. The US communities do not want them, and nor do the Australian communities.




I object to paying subsidies. If it is so good, let it stand on its own merits. I note that Andrew Forrest's Squadron Energy has paid $4.1BLN for the Swiss CWP Renewables Australian portfolio. Two conclusions can be drawn from that:
1.That the subsidies paid and preferences granted to renewables are EXCESSIVE.

2.That Australia is buying back the enterprises we licensed at ENORMOUS cost.



I especially object to providing subsidies from the Government, as money is better spent directly on the environment, and the contingent liabilities will reduce our credit standing.




As each new wind construction and solar works come online it makes the grid less and less reliable. Up to 50% renewables is just about manageable with 33% spare capacity in fast response coal and gas. No country has successfully gone beyond that. Doubling down with more renewables makes it less reliable. No judicial area in the world has achieved 100% renewables, even with 100% spare capacity.



I ask the proponent to itemise:

1. Public monies. Detail the description and dollar amount of each subsidy, and other benefit, both direct and indirect, to be received from the public purse in a time line. Indirect benefits, including the value of a government guarantee, need to include an actuarial calculation.


2. Itemise the amount of materials needed to manufacture and construct all parts of this project. Including rare earths, where they are going to be sourced from and disposed to.


3.Itemise the amount of CO2 released in all aspects of creating this project, and compare it with the anticipated CO2 to be saved. with timeline, including from the loss of vegetation from the site and connecting roads and transmission lines.


4. Detail the change to global carbon dioxide levels and temperature to be achieved by this project both in gross terms and net after 3. above.


5. A calculation of energy in to energy out of this project.


6. Detail how the turbines and blades will be recycled or not and amount of material to be disposed of and where.


7.Detail the number and skill level of the jobs to be created and to be exported.




I request the Planning Department:

1. To require a bond or irrevocable third party AAA guarantee for damage repair, removal, rehabilitation, and toxicity to third parties.


2. To ensure that NO SLAVERY or CHILD LABOUR is used in the manufacture of any of its components.


3. To require the proponent to publicly provide annual reports for the project, including itemisation of each government support, and where those are indirect, an actuarial calculation of their value to the proponent and cost to the economy, and detail their 5 min generation and supply.

4. To provide annual ESG reports.

5. To make the project, and its owner, and its ultimate owner non transferrable.


6.That adequate environmental safeguards be required for fire and toxicity.


7.The fire and toxicity of BESS have adequate safequards.

8.Require the proponent to provide and pay for their own connection costs to the grid upfront.

9.Require the proponent to pay the costs of transmission upgrades based
on their proportionate capacity, upfront.
10.Require strict limits on the frequency and voltage of acceptable supply.

11.Impose severe penalties on supply contracted for but not delivered.

12.Require effective braking to enable supply in high wind conditions

13.I further ask the Planning Department to apply the Precautionary Principle in relation to the uncertainty of the net benefits, and the known and likely risks to the environment, to reject the proposal.

14.That the project receives NO subsidy and NO preference.

15.If granted consent, that it be subject to the some 60 conditions which the NSW Independent Planning Commission have designed to:

prevent, minimise and/or offset adverse environmental impacts;
set standards and performance measures for acceptable environmental performance;
outline how the land can be returned to its current use following decommissioning and rehabilitation of the site;
require regular monitoring and reporting; and
provide for the ongoing environmental management of the development.”

REJECT THE PROPOSAL.

I visit two properties regularly and I am very concerned about the impact on the wildlife. I am also worries about the increased traffic movement of long large truck on roads not suitable for these.

“The origins of the project date back to 2001, when a group of local landowners conceived of a wind farm in the Walcha area” as stated on the Winterbourne Wind Farm website. Since when did a small group of farmers speak and make decisions on behalf of an entire community? These farmers should be ashamed and embarrassed to think that their plan, concocted without any community consultation, would be supported. Vestas have taken on this project and have continued the tradition laid before them, to simply push this project without adequately consulting the local community.

I was only made aware of this project in 2022 through word of mouth in the community. The details, size and impact of this proposed project have been communicated to the community through alternative local media sources, individuals, and groups (not by Vestas or Winterbourne Wind). Vestas have released a 350+ page EIS (4000+ pages with appendices) – how on earth is any individual expect to read, comprehend, and assess a document of this scale and nature in a 5-week period? In addition to assessing the complexity of this document, it is telling of the poor quality of the document by the fact that 5 pages of errata had to be released to accompany the EIS only 3 and half weeks after its initial release. These errors highlight that this developer is incapable and unprofessional.

I have serious concerns regarding the traffic congestion impact and the effect that this will have on health outcomes of people in our community. Walcha is fortunate enough to have a Multi-Purpose Service hospital which facilitates care for acute patients and long-term aged care patients. However, in the event of a serious trauma or complex emergency care, patients are required to be transferred to larger facilities such as Armidale Rural Referral Hospital or Tamworth Rural Referral Hospital. With the significant number of trucks predicted to be on the roads, “288 heavy and 270 light vehicle movements per day during peak construction times,” it is simply impossible to think that people’s health and their medical outcomes will not be affected. Every moment counts in an emergency and any delay to diagnostic equipment, specialist care and treatment will, without a doubt, result in negative and detrimental health outcomes for patients.

I was sorely disappointed, that despite initial promises from Vestas and Winterbourne Wind, a Neighbour Benefit Fund will not be provided. In some cases, neighbours will live closer to these turbines and have a more direct line of sight then the actual host landholders. These neighbours deserve to be compensated.

The Winterbourne Wind Project is set to be constructed against the Oxley Wild Rivers National Park. If this project was to proceed, what example and standard is being set for future developments in and around our National Parks?

Walcha is a beautiful country town, that is normally united in the face of uncertainty, change and progression. The Winterbourne Wind Farm EIS states that the project will result in “improved community and family cohesion and vibrancy.” This could not be more untrue. This project has divided, shattered, and caused great distressed to our community, families, and friendship groups. This project does not hold social license in the Walcha community.

My submission for this project is attached.

I am a 6th generation grazier on the property Ohio North. SN Nivison and Co has operated as a family grazing business for over 50 years.
I object to the Winterbourne Wind Farm Project for several reasons as outlined below:
1. I have concerns about the aerial application of fertilizer and herbicides which are an integral part of our business. Without the ability to utililze aerial applications with fixed wing planes our operation could be negatively impacted by 20%. The Developer has not addressed any of these issues with the community nor is it outlined adequately in the EIS document.
2. There 16 turbines proposed within 650 metres to 3 kilometres of our boundary. More specifically, 7 turbines in an uphill direction within 5km of our airstrip in the flight direction. Our airstrip has not been identified in the EIS document. The number of turbines within short distances of our boundary will create enormous impacts on our current management practices.
3. I have great concerns regarding the "leading edge erosion" of the turbine blades, in terms health of my family, neighbours and livestock. There are real issues in relation to contamination of the land and waterways and ground water which our livestock business is based.
4. It has been identified that there are real risks to the biodiversity in the project area that obviously will affect our land due to its proximity to the project. I have concerns about the incidents of blade strike of the birds and bats. Not only is this an issue for the wildlife but with dead birds in the proximity of livestock this introduces feral pest and contamination issues for our business.
5. The EIS report into sound is underestimated according to an independent study and this has real life impacts for our family and staff with the proximity to the turbines as 3 proposed turbines are within 2.5 km of 3 of our occupied dwellings. There is also the issue of infrasound that has not been addressed and could have negative health impacts on our family and livestock.
6. We annually sell 60 B double loads of cattle and introduce another 30 loads of cattle each year. The high level of traffic on the roads in and out of Walcha will create problems in terms of transport of livestock and this will increase the cost and animal welfare issues.

TO: NSW Major Projects regarding Winterbourne Wind

POLLOCK LIMIT for wind already EXCEEDED

Monckton, 13/1/23 writes on Francis Menton's website that:
Pollock consulted widely among grid operators, generators and academic experts. He found widespread puzzlement that after a certain point – varying from species to species and grid to grid – adding more renewables either did not increase that species’ share of total grid output or resulted in ever-growing capacity-constraint payments or do-not-generate orders to renewables generators at times of high wind, strong sun or low demand. He investigated, worked through the math and found he could answer the industry’s question. He proposes – justifiably, in my view – to submit his result to a leading journal for peer review.

He discovered a counter-intuitive and unexpected fact hitherto entirely unknown in the industry: namely, that the maximum national renewables fraction (the maximum share of total output on a national grid contributable by a weather-dependent renewable species without either prohibitively costly and logistically unfeasible static battery backup or wasted generation covered by cripplingly expensive capacity-constraint payments or disconnect orders) – is equal to the mean national capacity factor of that species (the average share of that species’ nameplate capacity that is achievable given national average annual weather patterns). Surprisingly, the mean national capacity factor of a renewable species – the greatest penetration achievable without great cost and waste – is its Pollock limit in that national grid.

Now, Monckton and Menton are having a bit of a spat about the effect of overbuilding, which is so great about our democratic system and the advancement of science. In a sense, both Monckton and Menton are absolutely correct. And I love maths.


Monckton says that the optimum proportion of renewables is equivalent to the % capacity they can produce. i.e. if it is 30%, then the optimal amount of renewables is 30%.
Any more than that, then you have overbuilt your system, and at some point you will have surplus electricity left over, which is often sold at negative prices, eg Germany pays Poland to take its surplus electricity.
Now Australia is in a pickle because we have nobody to sell this electricity to.
As a refinement in Australia, maybe you can fill up batteries, or pump water uphill, but that is not going to take much. A second refinement maybe, is that the wasted capital on overbuilding may be less than the capital cost of batteries, or rapid response backup, but that also is not going to take the percentage a lot higher.
Monckton was right if you are not going to overbuild, but then too Menton is right that a small amount of overbuilding is cheaper than its alternatives.

Sources: Wattsupwiththat, 11/1/23,Manhattancontrarian, 13&15/1/23

Best wind farm in Australia got up to 48.4%, and best solar got 26.4%. BUT don't get carried away by the extremes. The 15th best wind was only 35% and solar was 22%. And there are at least 100 each of these things. I guess the average is going to be around 30% wind and 18% solar, AT BEST. Even with 10% overbuild, we only need 33% wind and 20% solar penetration. THESE ARE SMALL NUMBERS.

Let us hope this maths penetrates the subsidy providers and State approvers.

Looking at the maximum demand we can ignore solar which falls away quickly in the evening and has no contribution in the early morning. The maximum demand in the NEM is about 35TW and declining. The capacity of wind "existing, committed and anticipated" is 12.8TW and expanding rapidly (with another 76.7TW "proposed"). THE 12.8TW IS ALREADY 36%, and so any construction beyond that is overbuild.

One consequence of overbuilding renewables is negative prices. aer's State of the Energy Market, 29/9/22, comments:
Negative prices tended to occur when electricity demand was low and weather conditions were optimal for renewable generation. While historically occurring overnight, they are now more common during the middle of the day when solar resources are producing maximum output and demand is relatively low. AND
Between October to December in 2021, prices were negative in South Australia 27% of the time and in Victoria 22% of the time.
I am not suggesting negative prices occur during peak demand. I am trying to highlight that overbuilding is already occurring in Australia, and has consequences.

This POLLOCK LIMIT revelation is going to take some time to be fully appreciated. What I think it means, is that mathematically we can only use 30% wind and 18% solar, and we are already at 36% wind and way in excess of solar, at least 5 times in excess. There are times when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, and the cost of storage is exorbitant.

I am open to receiving any update to figures, or improvement to my maths.

Winterbourne is not needed, is an injudicious use of capital, and a waste of public subsidies.
I OBJECT STRONGLY.

i am attaching my submission as the word count went over the limit

I am not against wind farm development, however I am opposed to the size and scale and planning of the Winterbourne Wind Farm project.
I lived at Moona Plains for over 10 years and have now lived in the township of Walcha for 20 years.
I only found out about the Winterbourne Wind project from local media and from speaking to local people.
I have real concerns about the project for the following reasons:
1. Poor consultation process from the developer. I do not think that people have been provided with enough information from the developer.
2. The economic analysis is unclear and it would appear that this project will make alot of money but not much of it will flow in to the local economy.
3. There is no plan for decommissioning at the end of the project. It is unclear what will happen to the wind turbines at the end of the life of the project.
4. The EIS is error ridden, incomplete and has many misrepresentations. I think the developer has done a very poor job of preparing these reports for the community to read, analyse and form an opinion from.

In general I believe the development is the wrong size for this town and I have concerns for the cumulative effect that these wind and solar developments will have for the town of Walcha.

My name is Nanette Peatfield and I object to the Winterbourne Wind Farm project for the following reasons:
1. Decommissioning 2. Biodiversity 3. Cumulative Impact 4. Disruption to community by development
Decommissioning
Where is the Government's and proponent's realistic planning for decommissioning? It is unbelievable to think that this wasn't considered thoroughly before any of the REZ was commenced. Apparently, the cost to decommission one wind tower is approx. $600K - $700K in today's dollar. An enormous and alarming cost. What will that be in 20-25 years' time at end of life? According to the Winterbourne EIS the legal responsibility is between the proponent and the landholder. How does this work when the ownership of the project can and has changed hands even before the project has commenced? What guarantee is there for the community that the towers will be taken down? And if so, what arrangements have been made with local council in regard to waste management and landfill? These are serious questions that need answering. In the end, will the iconic landscapes of New England be littered with outdated technology because no one can afford to dispose of the massive concrete bases and non- recyclable blades? Where does the responsibility lie? Why don't renewable projects have decommissioning and rehabilitation funds or bonds in place as a legal requirement of development like the mining industry? If the cost is so high, perhaps this is the wrong technology in the wrong place. Winterbourne has stated that it intends to avoid any contribution to a bond, until they decide this 'might' be necessary. IT IS VERY NECESSARY. What right have any investors to destroy our landscape forever.

BIODIVERSITY
Construction of the Winterbourne project will be far too close to the Oxley Wild Rivers National Park. Construction run off will clearly impact the Macleay catchment and river. Native flora and fauna will be at peril. This unique park is home to the wedge tail eagle, little eagle, koala and glossy black cockatoo all of which are endangered species, and these are only some of the endangered species that will be impacted. Their habitat is in danger of not only being invaded but destroyed, as are the wildlife corridors to the National Park. A similar crisis lies with our precious flora, especially our native gums which have been affected historically by over clearing and dieback. Tanya Plibersek declares protection for our ecological communities. Is she aware of what is really happening in the regions re biodiversity when it comes to the construction of renewables? Our eco system is delicate and won't survive this attack. She needs to be enlightened by those real ecological experts in the local community of Walcha and others who know full well exactly what is happening. They know the nightmare and long- term effects associated with the construction of wind and solar projects. It appears that much of the Winterbourne EIS has been desktop study. Considerable time spent in the district is necessary for accurate assessment of the sociological and agricultural impact of this project and the consequential direct and cumulative impact on our environment.
Where is the justice in the reckless clearing of productive agricultural land for foreign wind and solar projects when the law strictly prohibits its Australian farmers any clearing whatsoever?

CUMULATIVE IMPACT
If a number of the proposed projects (including Winterbourne) in the Walcha district are accepted, it will result in a significant cumulative effect particularly regarding visual amenity, noise (infrasound) and vibration, nighttime lighting and blade flicker, electromagnetic radiation, blade edge erosion of toxic bisphenols polluting our environments, potential contamination of our river systems and eco systems and the destruction of our roads. How badly will this affect our country lifestyle and general health? Once again, I ask, "Who is responsible?"

DISRUPTION OF COMMUNITY BY DEVELOPMENT
The heavy traffic density caused by the extensive use of our roads by the massive construction vehicles will cause traffic congestion on our major highways and local roads. This congestion will affect the locals in the running of their day to day lives, businesses and properties, particularly when several projects are being constructed concurrently - an enormous disruption. Roads that have not been built to carry this number of huge vehicles will need to be rebuilt on a large scale at taxpayers' cost. Are our local councils capable of taking this on board in terms of expertise, cost management, time and labour? Has the Winterbourne project covered this problem adequately? ? We need our roads to be safe in order to carry on our businesses, especially the agricultural industry that relies heavily on soundly built roads and regular maintenance. The truck movements in this EIS are nothing short of negligent and ridiculous. Has anyone really looked closely at this?

SUMMARY
The ecological, sociological, agricultural and visual impacts of large-scale renewable energy projects such as Winterbourne Wind is not compatible with our district which provides significant food, fibre, tourist, education and lifestyle opportunities to the Australian population.

I write this submission on a cool and drizzly day from my home in Sydney – in the middle of January. This year of record floods, chaotic weather, and pandemic anxiety comes on the back of many consecutive years of catastrophic disease, fires, floods and heatwaves, not just in Australia, but around the world. We are living through a rolling disaster that will only get worse unless we continue taking serious action to reduce our emissions now.

The Winterbourne Wind Farm is a significant part of that action.

I have taken the time to read about the signifcant benefits the project will deliver to the local community and the planet. I have also read the concerns of some people and organisations in the local region who are opposed to the wind farm. I understand there are some negative impacts for some local people, and I respect their concerns.

But I believe there has been extensive work done over many years to assess and minimise these negative impacts as much as possible. I also believe the benefits of transitioning our energy network to a low emissions system far outweigh the negatives. And when I drive over similar country in the Blue Mountains and see the bushfire destruction that still remains, I am further convinced that a collection of turbines dotted through the landscape near Walcha is a small price to pay in comparison to decades of future fires and dead, blackened countryside.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit. I look forward to seeing Australia take another important step towards a brighter future for our children with the approval and construction of the Winterbourne Wind Farm.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan McCauley

We have less than ten years to drastically cut our emissions. If we don't, the adverse impacts will continue to grow. The impacts to farming and the economy will be unimaginable; the impacts to mental health will be even more severe; the legacy we leave our children will be unforgivable.

Consequently, difficult decisions need to be made - like allowing proposals such as the Winterbourne Wind Farm to go ahead. Yes, many are scared of change and hence, such developments must, nevertheless, be undertaken in as sensitive a manner as possible. But the clock is ticking....

I'm writing in support of the Winterbourne Wind farm project outside of Walcha, NSW.
I support this project on a number of grounds.
1) This project, and others like it are desperately needed to accelerate Australia's transition to renewable energy in order to provide a chance of a safer climate for our children. NSW is at significant risk of failing to meet it's 50% GHG reduction goal by 2030 and needs to support projects like this to meet these much needed goals. This project will have a material impact on reaching that goal.
2) This project was originally conceived and promoted by local property owners, and will be a net positive for the community and help to diversify the economy of the local region.
3) Vestas are a credible proponent and the elements of the EIS that I have read suggest that a significant amount of detailed research has gone into reviewing the impact of the farm and addressing concerns from the local community.

This wind farm should be approved for the greater good of the people of NSW and Australia. Yes, there are aesthetic impacts, and there will be relatively minor disruption during construction, but we need to weigh these against the greater good that this project will deliver for generations of Australians throughout the NEM.

The Winterbourne Wind EIS has understated or even ignored the massive environmental damage that will result from this wind project. The landclearing for towers and transmission lines on ridgelines and close to the National Parks will change that landscape forever. Trees are needed on the ridgelines to prevent erosion and enable recharge of our soil table. There needs to be a critical mass of trees on grazing land to support long term trees in clumps or woodlands. The windfarm clearing will break up the treescape and set up the decline of native trees forever. The EIS has not considered this at all. The damage to the biodiversity of the woodlands by breaking up the tree areas has also been disregarded. Flora and fauna needs connectivity. By breaking up the connectivity of the treescape, all flora and fauna is threatened. One obvious species is the apex bird predator, the wedge tailed eagle. It will be savaged and hunted from our skies by these massive turbines, again dismissed by the EIS.
This EIS has only considered the Winterbourne Wind Project on its own. If this project goes ahead it will need transmission lines to join it to the grid near Uralla. If tranmission lines are built, the Walcha Wind business plans to build a further 650 towers in our district. Walcha has developed a reputation as a "pasture wonderland", indeed that is signposted when you enter the Walcha Shire. Allowing the Winterbourne Wind project to progress without considering the follow on projects is again inadequate. The larger project is way too much for one district, when the rooftop solar in the cities and where the energy is needed is taking off. Walcha, as a Pasture Wonderland, is widely regarded throughout regional Australia. We do not deserve to lose this tag.
The EIS has not considered what happens at the end of the life of this project. These turbines are not recyclable. The decommission process means pulling down and returning the landscape to its original position. This has not been considered and I believe is impossible.
In summary, the idea of removing trees and damaging the landscape biodiversity to put up a clean energy system whose carbon footprint is questionable, a wind factory that will has been superseded by better technology already and will be well out of date and inefficient by the time it is built, and which will be impossible to pull down and clean up in 25 years cannot be justified.

The move to renewables is vital to our and our children’s and our grandchildren’s future. Projects like this must be the forerunners of others as we drag ourselves towards the 22nd century- or our generation are doomed to to be rightly held accountable for our failure to act in a timely manner. We can do something- and we must. This project must get the full support of all levels of government. And by the way- I used to work in the coal industry. We must move on.

I write to Object to Winterbourne Wind Farm based on the removal of habitat and potential impact on species, including habitat for Koalas (206.9 hectares), Squirrel Glider (206.5 ha) and Greater Glider (206.5 ha). The applicant proposes Offsets required under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Control Act, including New England Peppermint Grassy Woodland, White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland, Koala, Narrow-leaved Black Peppermint , Blue Grass, Greater Glider, Spotted-tailed Quoll, White-throated Needletail and Fork-Tailed Swift. However this does not stop destruction of habitat and species from occurring. If Australians are serious about achieving zero extinctions, developers that propose destruction of protected habitat and species should be stopped, not billed for the privilege. Australian consumers of electricity and manufactured goods cannot pat themselves on the back for transitioning to renewables if it comes at the cost of extensive habitat removal and biodiversity loss.