The proposed Penrith battery creates a dangerous, unplanned for toxic contamination burden onsite as well as a monumental toxic waste burden in about 10 years - with no credible end-of-life strategy.

Spent batteries become hazardous waste time bombs, exporting pollution today and abandonment costs to future generations.

Penrith BESS is nothing more than a financially engineered market-manipulation device, designed to exploit price volatility rather than deliver reliable energy.
Penrith BESS would inflate electricity prices, deepen energy poverty, and punish households and businesses while delivering windfall profits to a subsidised corporate entity with zero accountability to the Penrith community.
Why have TOXIC BESS FIRE FACTS - poisonous to the public - been deliberately omitted?

The Penrith Battery represents a life-threatening toxic hazard, with lithium-ion phosphate chemistry known to release hydrofluoric acid, PFAS “forever chemicals,” and heavy metals during fires—pollutants that permanently contaminate air, soil, water, and lungs, long after the headlines fade.

Given the irreversible nature of water and soil contamination, precaution should outweigh convenience. If this site proves unsuitable in hindsight, how is that mistake undone?

The facility’s proximity to the river means zero margin for error. Once contamination enters a river system, it becomes a shared burden. How is consent obtained from those who bear the risk but receive no benefit? Is zero risk realistically achievable in an industrial installation of this type?

Downstream wetlands act as natural filters but are highly sensitive to chemical inputs. What happens when the ecosystem designed to protect us is the one damaged?

The proposal assumes technological solutions will exist to fix future problems. What if those solutions never materialise or arrive too late?

Heavy metals released into water systems can persist for generations. How is intergenerational harm weighed against short-term energy benefits?

The transport of lithium-ion components to the site introduces spill risks before operation even begins. Who accounts for risks that occur outside the facility boundary but because of it?

Microscopic contamination may make land unsuitable for future uses not yet imagined. How can opportunity cost be calculated when the future is unknowable?