Long distance objectors force review of giant battery project sited close to sewerage plant

Long distance objectors have forced yet another big renewable and storage project to be referred to the Independent Planning Commission in NSW, this time a giant giga-scale battery project proposed for a site close to a sewerage plant.

The Yanco battery, a 250 MW and 1,100 MWh facility proposed by Acenergy near the town of the same name, in south-western NSW, received 63 objections.

More than 90 per cent of these objections (58 out of 63) came from people and “special interest groups” located more than 100 kms away from the project site. Nearly one third (17) of the objectors came from interstate. There were no objections from anyone living within five kilometres of the project site.

The Yanco battery is proposed next to an existing large electricity substation, alongside a rail line, is surrounded by numerous existing transmission lines on three sides and is just 200 metres from a local sewerage treatment plant.

The NSW department of planning has recommended approval of the project. “The department considers that there is a very low level of local interest or concern towards the project and that there are relatively low levels of residual impact associated with the proposal,” it writes.

However, under NSW rules any project that receives more than 50 objections, even if none are from the local area and most are from long distance agitators, it must be referred to the IPC.

The Pottinger wind and battery project – also in the south-west – faced a similar process after mostly long distance objectors forced its referral to the IPC. Long distance objectors also targeted a small solar-battery project in the central west, and others.

All but six of the public submissions against the Yanco battery withheld their name. Most of the submissions are a conflagration of conspiracy theories, misinformation, and climate denial.

Where do they get their information? Their submissions cited a variety of sources, including the Murdoch media, the Centre for Independent Studies, climate deniers such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation and Joanna Nova, and renewable critics such as former ABC journalist Chris Uhlmann.

“The empty promises of clean, reliable, sustainable are all absolute baloney as this deplorable, electrified nightmare is nothing but a great big scam making the carpetbaggers bucket loads of Fake Green cash ripping off the energy deprived, long suffering, unjustly treated public,” one objector wrote.

“This is an unproven, unreliable experiment using inferior, environmentally destructive, toxic contaminating JUNK THAT NOBODY WANTS & WONT EVEN WORK MOST OF THE TIME!” wrote another.

There was great support for coal and nuclear:

“Other countries now recognise these shortcomings and are now turning to better alternatives such as safe, long-life, 24/7 output electricity generation options, such as efficient low CO2 producing HELE plants, CCGT plants , nuclear reactors and in the near future small modular reactors,” wrote another.

“There will disgracefully be BLACKOUTS & unreliable power during critical times, such as during extreme weather events or high demand,” wrote another, possibly unaware that the biggest risk to energy reliability is ageing coal fired power plants. PUT THE COAL BACK IN THE COALITION & ADD A NUCLEAR POWER FUTURE!”

There was a familiar reference to “swindles”, a phrase often used by the LNP’s agitator-in-chief Barnaby Joyce.

“Energy Poverty will result from this Swindle Factory BESS plan that will burden Australians with exorbitant energy costs, driving many individuals & businesses to the wall.” said one.

“Fake Green, Weather Dependent, Intermittent Swindle Factories are Useless & BESS are Incapable JUNK!” wrote another.

There were the inevitable climate deniers:

“There is NO verified scientific basis for reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere so this project is a total waste of public money, along with all other such projects,” the objector said. “There is in fact reliable verifiable scientific proof that CO2 is beneficial to plant life and by extension to human life on earth.” No, there is not.

There was concern about the impact on animals.

“BESS is dangerous and brings hazards to the project and community,” wrote yet another. The noises from this BESS project will have negative impacts on the nearby livestock and wildlife. These impacts will be evident in not only everyday life for the animals, but also during breeding and birthing cycles.”

“Decarbonisation.What Crap ! And I’m Tired of it. You people need a Learning Lesson about Mother Earth You Harm and Cause Loss To For No Reason At All. You are a Disgrace Yes,” wrote another.

“Cease operating, Acenergy. Immediately. Thanks. How Do you get away with it ? I know. I am in contact with Elders you see. They would Never enable infrastructure Man Made upon their Country.”

There were links and antipathy to electric vehicles.

“The stupidity of AGL last year offering a great deal to EV owners to charge AT NIGHT for as low as $5 AT NIGHT. How stupid is this?” wrote one. “The sun don’t shine at night, but we should all charge our highly flammable “slow-to-go- anywhere” EV’s AT NIGHT, for a DISCOUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!! “Have you ever seen anything so stupid?”

Apparently that wasn’t a problem when hot water systems were, and in some cases still are, switched on at night.

There was concern for emergency services workers.

“They have proven lethal to emergency services workers being electrocuted when helping at accident scenes. It takes days to go where normal cars take hours to go, and the disposal of the batteries and componentry will be a nightmare,” wrote another.

“Overseas, insurance companies will not insure EVs, and multi-level car-parks are having the same problem, as the EVs catch fire, then catch cars, can’t be extinguished, and just have to be left to burn out.”

The IPC will have to sort through this and has called for more submissions. It has scheduled a public meeting in Leeton for September 15.