HumeLink

My submission is attached as a pdf

My submission is attached to this as a pdf

The attached pdf is my full submission - including the submissions earlier submitted

My objections are attached as pdf

Please find attached

John McGrath
1599 Black Range Road
Yass NSW 2582
Ph. 0408268173
[email protected]
I would like to lodge a submission against TransGrid's HumeLink Project Application number SSI-36656827 because of the so-called "Marginal losses" associated with and alternating current transmission system?
TransGrid have not shown any interest in the most environmentally sound way of installing HumeLink? Underground direct current?
Transferring power from "pseudo" generation sources such as known intermittent generators in weather dependant wind and solar from so-called "Renewable Energy Zones" using alternating current culminates in the phenomenon quaintly named by many proponents of wind especially as "Marginal losses?" The intent is for TransGrid's HumeLink Project to transfer intermittent generation from inland Australia all the way to the known coastal load centres?
These losses are not "Marginal" when it is well known that using alternating current to transfer voltage results in in three main line losses namely, resistive, reactive and inductive. All three line losses are due to heat losses caused by impedence of transmission lines to alternating current?
The use of underground direct current alleviates these 3 losses and also narrows the easement required?
Narrowing the easement reduces the habitat destruction and alleviates any aerial interference. Beit, to the natural environment aswell as man's actions above ground level, along the entire length of HumeLink?
Therefore undergrounding HumeLink utilising direct current lessens the impact on the environment for the length of the transmission line?
Yours sincerely John McGrath

Please see attached letter.

We object to the project in its present form

I agree with the renewables energy project but not the above ground transmission infrastructure proposal. Please see attached document Humelink Submission October 2023.
Thanks.

Humelink ,Has been a public relations disaster from day one we have had 5 project managers and a loss of staff and changing of staff.
The public consultation process carried out by Transgrid has been nothing more that a box ticking exercise through the community consultation group meetings.
I am a member of the Tumut CCG and have seen this bad process in action where our questions are not answered .
I am the Chairman of Humelink Action Group over 700 members who are against Humelink Over head Power line that are for Humelink Underground .

The following points have not been addressed by Transgrid in the EIS ,
1.Visual amenities,the Tumut CCG asked repeated for a Windscape visualisation of Humelink power line from Batlow township ,Tumut township as the line goes down the Gilmore valley and from the Yass township the community has received nothing in response from Transgrid on what it will look like .
2.Bushfire risk ,Tumut had a workshop that was tick the box exercise with no one from the Rural Fire Service in attendance or volunteer rfs captains or group captains what a sham .
3.Electromagnetic radiation, EMR the question has been asked on many occasions and through CCG what is the EMR of a 500kv Line double circuit at full load at ground level and at 200 meters away and 400 meters away this has not been addressed .
4.Noise of 500kv double circuit power line at various distances and in the rain has not been addressed.
5.Biosecurity Risk to landholders from invasive weeds bought on property’s by Transgrid vehicles and machinery this has not been addressed,also live stock being grazed under powerlines ,the effect of EMR on animals and the impact on the owners that cannot achieve EU accreditation to sell into the EU because the animals have been grazed under high EMR out side EU standards for human consumption .
6.Biodiversity offsets ,670ha native vegetation will be impacted (destroyed) offsets to be provided by planting trees on a property at Conargo bare Riverina plains on a property bought by Transgrid .The property has a 300mm rainfall how are trees from 500mm to 1200mm rainfall going to be grown there ? ,and be a better example of the ones that have been cleared for the easement that the are replacing.
Transgrids Biodiversity Offsets is corrupt and should be investigated .The NSW Biodiversity Conservation Trust is who administers it ,has Christine Covington as deputy chairperson on the board.
Transgrids solicitors are Corrs Chambers and Westgate who Christine Covington is a partner .
There is a major conflict of interest in Transgrids Biodiversity Offsets it needs investigating as it looks like a sham and the box has been ticked again.
7.Transgrid on 27-7-21 published a PACR with a double circuit 500kv line option 1c new that had an objection lodged against it by Winell pty ltd because it was still called option 3c that was 500kv single circuit with a triangle that came from Wagga past Gundagai .
The PACR was amended on the 18-12-21 and the new line and project was called option1C new .
A new team was employed with a new project manager .
Humelink Action Group got legal advice that from the 18-12-21 1C new was a new project that all consents to enter that had been signed by landholders up to that date 18-12-21 were for the old project option3C and any studies that were done for the environmental statement are Invalid and their use in eis will be challenged in the courts .

I object to the project in its current format.
I do not believe the Humelink Project in its current form meets the environmental standards of today. There are several flaws within the EIS that go against the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000 and Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements. HumeLink has been re-routed through high risk bush fire prone areas and this environmentally destructive risk and major community safety concern needs to be addressed urgently. This risk can be eliminated via use of under grounding transmission design methods which have comparative costs and no increased timeline requirements for implementation when compared with overhead. See full objections in the attached statement.

I object to the HumeLink project proposal.
I do not believe that the environmental impact of the project is acceptable when there is a less damaging option, to underground transmission infrastructure. HumeLink will be negatively impacting over 90 threatened species. The option to underground transmission infrastructure would drastically reduce the severity of this impact. We should be taking every step available to protect our environment and remnant vegetation on farms.
I believe that HumeLink also poses an unacceptable risk of bushfire. Not only does transmission infrastructure carry the risk of starting fires, but seriously hinders firefighting efforts. In case of a bushfire, many areas will become undefendable. This not only risks the lives of RFS members, but community members as the infrastructure surrounds many towns and villages, cutting off evacuation routes. The devastating impacts of a bushfire on our flora and fauna could also be avoided by undergrounding the project. Also of concern regarding bushfire is the maintenance of easements. In many cases in my community the easements have not been maintained to a satisfactory or safe condition and have been known to contribute to the severity of a fire. Undergrounding transmission networks will also protect them from severe weather events and maintain secure and reliable electricity supply to consumers.
I do not agree that TransGrid have good social standing. I believe that they have misled the community in many areas. Information sessions have not been accessible, and complete and accurate information has been hard to come by. I do not believe that they have been open about the full impacts to landholders and communities. I am yet to see any positive outcomes proposed for my community as a result of this project.
Overhead transmission lines are not in keeping with renewable energy ideas and they are not the safest or most environmentally friendly option.
Jan Duckett

Submission against the planning and building of HumeLink

I believe that construction of HumeLink will become part of Renewable Energy Factories Blight (REFB) that is being forced on Rural Communities. With effects that can only be described as a nightmare of slow torture, which will seriously cripple Australia’s energy supplies. Along with permanently reducing long term agricultural production and the overall economic wellbeing of rural Australia. At the same time seriously disrupting the serenity, amenity and peacefulness of Rural Communities.

HumeLink should not be built, because as shown below Solar and Wind Farms have a short working life. As the effects of the Renewable Energy Factory Blight becomes well known to rural communities they will respond WITH PITCHFORKS and the REFB rollout will come to a stop. We cannot do otherwise, our very survival depends on it!

A QUESTION TO TRANSGRID. If HumeLink becomes redundant in ten years time. Does Transgrid have a costed plan to decommission the project and return the land to its original state?

Ten reasons why HumeLink and other Renewable Energy Projects should never be built.

1. Solar and Wind Farms, have a relatively short working life. Solar and Wind farms have a 100% working life of only 20 years, after which they need to be replaced. Even that 20 years of 100% working life (because of a lack of reliable weather fuel, the Sun or the Wind as the case may be), only averages out at 30% or 8 hours of electricity production every day.

This is compared to coal, gas or nuclear driven power plants which have a 100% working life of 50 years or more. And produce at 100% efficiency 24hrs/day, 7days/week.

Because of this short working life, the capital cost per MWh is much higher for Solar and Wind Farms. Solar Farms also have a much higher risk of damage from hail storms and wildfires, which can severely damage the production of a Solar farm.

Battery Energy Storage Systems have an even shorter working life of 10 years. This makes the capital cost of each MWh stored much greater as it has to be spread over a much lower number of MWh’s.

2. Solar Farms are grossly, inefficient. This is because solar panels, are powered by an unreliable weather fuel, sunshine. The fuel for solar is permanently restricted in that the Sun which is the fuel source ONLY shines (provides fuel) on a very good day in Winter for only nine hours a day. (Good solar fuel for six hours 10am to 4 pm. Fair solar fuel for three hours. 8.30am to 10.00am and 4.00pm to 5.30pm). On some cloudy and rainy days no electricity may be produced at all. So, for at least 62.5% or 15 hours of each of the 365 days of each year, it provides no renewable energy at all, which can only be described as an impossible issue to overcome.
The result is that Solar Farms can NEVER produce baseload electricity in a constant, even flow 24/7, as required by the modern Australian economy,
Because of the fact that Solar farms only produce electricity for a maximum of 9 hours per day and for the other 15 hours a day the consumers have to be supplied by a secondary source at a much higher price. When averaged over 24 hours, the cost to the consumer of the Solar produced electricity is almost certainly much higher, than is being quoted.
3. Wind farms are equally inefficient. Wind turbines rely on Medieval technology which has ‘the wind’ as a weather fuel. This means that the Wind Farm operator has no control over their fuel supply. The amount and availability of fuel is completely decided by the uncertainties of the weather. And because they can only produce electricity, when the wind speed is between 12kms/hr and 90kms/hr) they are reported to produce electricity on average for only 30% of their rated capacity or on average for eight hours per day. Leaving random periods of hours, without any electricity being produced. For some calm periods, wind turbines will produce no electricity for days at a time.

Who would buy a car, knowing that you would begin each day not knowing how much fuel would be available for that day or when. That it could suddenly come to a stop because it had run out of fuel. Or you could not drive it at night, because it was a calm, frosty night. That would be a ridiculous idea. And it is ridiculous to think you can power a modern economy that relies on a reliable supply of base load electricity every minute, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. (24/7) on wind power. The last time wind was used commercially as a power source was in the 1800’s to drive sailing ships and to power Dutch windmills. It was discarded then because it was too unreliable. The result is that wind farms can never produce baseload electricity in a constant, even flow 24/7, as required by the modern Australian economy,
4. The permanent pollution and devastation of land. The land on which Solar farms, Wind farms, Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) and HV Transmission Lines is sited, will be permanently polluted, (for 100 years or until it is decommissioned). I.e. Solar panels and solar farms contain heavy metals (such as cadmium telluride), glass, metal, sealants, copper, concrete steel reinforced blocks, steel stands, electrical cables, etc. In the case of a hail storm or fire, the risk of toxic contamination of the land and ground water is great. There is a risk that as the solar panels deteriorate with age, the ground will become contaminated. If decommissioning is attempted the solar panels cannot be demolished by bulldozing and removed by excavators. But instead, they have to be removed carefully by hand which makes the cost prohibitive. As is well known, once land is a construction site, it can NEVER be returned to the pristine condition, it once was.
This pollution equally applies to Wind Farms, BESS installations and HV Transmission lines.

5. Bushfire/Wildfire risk. As an unintended consequence, Solar and wind farms will provide a monster fire risk of devastating rural Australia with scores of huge bushfires, every summer fire season. The loss of life, the deaths of domestic stock and wildlife and property damage will be unimaginable. The amount of compensation payable by the owner/operators of solar farms, wind farms and HV Transmission Lines, will be for record amounts.

This bushfire risk is because if tens of thousands of wind turbines on 180m to 300m towers. Along with tens of millions of solar panels on solar farms. Additionally add thousands of large lithium batteries. Pack them together in factory farms, with dry grass growing amongst them, encircle them all with a two-metre-high security fence. Have no firefighting equipment, with the required water etc on site.
Scatter solar and wind farms in their hundreds, all across rural Australia, amongst highly combustible grassy, grazing land, bone dry wheat and other grain producing paddocks or highly combustible eucalypt forests and you have wide-scale disasters waiting to happen. On a total fire ban day, with a 43dC temperature and a 70km NW wind and there only needs to be one wind turbine or one solar panel to catch fire and a disaster is likely to occur. Multiply that by ten or twenty and a nightmare scenario is not hard to imagine.

It is exacerbated because, in regards to firefighting, solar farms are a “no-go area” for firefighters, because of the risk of getting trapped. And burning batteries give off toxic smoke and require a lot of water and special treatment. With wind farms, aerial water bombers keep several kilometres away from wind turbines, because of the turbulence they create Stopping fires when they are small, is the no one priority of current firefighting protocol. But with solar and wind farms that is out of the question.

6. The loss of agricultural production from the land on which Solar Farms, Wind Farms, BESS and HV Transmission lines are sited. The agricultural production and income from the sites will be lost to the surrounding communities forever. As mentioned in point 4. Placing renewable energy assets on the sites will permanently pollute the sites and stop any meaningful agricultural production coming from the site for maybe 100 years or more. This money is lost to the local community and surrounding towns and cities, with resultant very serious economic consequences and loss of job opportunities.

7. The loss of the peace and quiet serenity of rural country sides. The people who live in Rural Australia, highly value the quietness, visual serenity, natural beauty and isolated safety of rural Australia. Solar farms, wind farms, BESS’s and HV Transmission lines are extremely disruptive and are irreversibly damaging the peaceful and visual serenity of Rural Australia. All this toxic junk is likely to remain as a blight on the landscape. Creating a haven for feral pests and increasing the bushfire risk.

8. The damage to the tourism industry. The tourism industry is particularly affected by the renewable energy industry. Tourists come to rural areas for the beautiful scenery, wildlife, and peacefulness. To blight it all with millions of solar panels and thousands of wind turbines on skylines, for uncertain short term economic gain is ridiculous. The long term damage will be enormous.

9. 9. The loss of our precious wildlife. Australia’s wildlife is unique and needs to be protected at all costs. In particular the affect that wind turbines have on birds, bats and bees is devasting. As birds, bats and bees can move over a wide area, wind turbines can have an effect over a very wide area. Particularly with Wedge Tail Eagles, if one pair is killed off, another moves in to take their place, they are killed off and the cycle continues. As Wedge Tail Eagles, live long and breed slowly it is not beyond the possibility of them becoming extinct. In any other areas to kill off Wedge Tail Eagles, bring with it heavy fines and even imprisonment.
For these reasons I believe HumeLink should never be built.

John McGrath
1599 Black Range Road
Yass NSW 2582
Ph. 0408268173
[email protected]
I would like to lodge a submission against TransGrid's HumeLink Project Application number SSI-36656827 being constructed overhead because of the potential habitat destruction pertinent to 2 endangered Cockatoo species, namely the Gang Gang Cockatoo Callocephalon fimbriatum and the Glossy Black Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami.
Construction of HumeLink overhead rather than underground TransGrid has not addressed the impact on 2 endangered iconic Cockatoo species the Gang Gang Cockatoo Callocephalon fimbriatum and the Glossy Black Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami. Both these cockatoos will be impacted by further reduction in nesting and feeding opportunities through futher unnecessary vegetation removal?
The Glossy Black Cockatoo is a specialist feeder, feeding on select Casurina species and the Gang Gang Cockatoos feeding requirements whilst not being as specialised as the Glossy Black Cockatoo will still be severely impacted by further vegetation reduction?
Nesting opportunities for both Cockatoo species will be decreased especially with removal of mature hollow bearing trees, this tree removal is due to TransGrid's inflexible attitude to avoidance of these mature trees due to their perceived costs? Both cockatoos have specific requirements for tree hollows to nest in?
Unfortunately generally the TransGrid HumeLink team have a blinkered approach to vegetation removal to construct HumeLink overhead?
Yours sincerely John McGrath

John McGrath
1599 Black Range Road
Yass NSW 2582
Ph. 0408268173
[email protected]
I wish to lodge a submission against TransGrid's HumeLink Project number SSI-36657827 because of the Threatened Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor.
With an estimated 750 individual Swift Parrots remaining in the wild it is 1 of only 3 migratory parrots that Australia has.
This critically endangered parrot the Swift Parrot is Australian bird of the year 2023 the Gaurdian/birdlife Australian biennial poll uses rhe slogan "send a message that they want to see the habitat of the world's fastest flying parrot protected."
In doing so any interference with this endangered species habitat should be frowned upon and discouraged?
TransGrid in its senseless push to construct HumeLink 500KV transmission line overhead will increase the easement width compared with a direct current underground option?
In doing so not only will it reduce feeding options for this mainly nectivorous and partially insectivorous parrot species whilst it is on the Australian mainland wintering over after breeding in Tasmania, but will greatly increase death to the Swift Parrot from collision with overhead conductors and supporting structures? By following the viable underground option to construct HumeLink TransGrid will remove any further impediment to the migratory flight path of the very fast flying Swift Parrot? As before collision with overhead transmission lines and supporting structures by the Swift Parrot will be inevitable if TransGrid construct HumeLink overhead and generally at 90° to the north south migratory flight path of the very fast flying Swift Parrots' flight path?
This fast flying parrot already suffers death colliding with many other man-made structures such as Bass Straight lighthouses and wind turbines based both in Tasmania and on the mainland.
Therefore why increase the further demise of this endangered unique and iconic parrot species by construing HumeLink overhead?
Yours sincerely John McGrath

I object to the Humelink project for the following reasons:
1. It will be too close to the house.
2. It is a Hazard when we are growing crops.
3. It is a Hazard when we need to aerial spray our crops.
4. It is a Hazard and a fire danger, lines will be in the road when fighting fires
5. The noise of the lines.
6. It is an eye saw out our windows & takes away our country living views.
7. It depreciates our property value by a huge amount.
8. It is a environmental Hazard.
9. It is a Health Hazard, as we have lost three members of our family to cancer living near the lines and another member having cancer.
10. They are in the road when rounding up stock.

As per attachment

Refer Letter Attached

I object to the proposed above-ground project

Jessie Reynolds
1 Yaven Creek Road
Bangadang NSW 2729

Correspondence to: [email protected]



Director – Energy Assessments,
Development Assessment,
Department of Planning and Environment,
4 Parramatta Square,
12 Darcy Street,
Parramatta NSW 2150


Dear Sir/Madam,

SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF THE
HUMELINK PROJECT – APPLICATION NO SSI-36656827

I hereby submit this response to the HumeLink Environmental Impact Statement report.

I object to the HumeLink proposal on a number of grounds, one as follows:

My main points for your consideration,
• Cultural & Heritage Concerns – the proposed line will be very close to Mudjarn Nature reserve, the reserve is also known locally as “Pine Mountain” due the locally abundant Black Cypress Pine (Callitris endlicherii), which gives the reserve a very dark appearance and makes it stand out from other high points in the area.
Mudjarn Nature Reserve protects areas of remnant native forest, including small pockets of Yellow Box and Red Gum woodland, a component of the endangered White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely’s Red Gum woodland community. Nine species of mammal, four frogs, seven reptiles and 153 species of bird have been recorded in the reserve, including six threatened bird species.
Mudjarn Nature Reserve also protects Aboriginal cultural heritage sites, landscapes and other features that have high significance to the local Aboriginal community. Whereas the valleys were a focus for living, the high peaks and hills are associated with ritual. Initiations are known to have occurred within the ranges and hills until the 1920s.
The towers are proposed to be a mere 20-50 m from the boundary of this significant area.
The NSW government need to be protecting areas with such significance from extra fire risk, placing towers this close is a huge risk and moving away or undergrounding needs considering.
HumeLink Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report EIS Technical Report 2 Page 237/432

10.1.2 Mudjarn Nature Reserve Mudjarn Nature Reserve is an Aboriginal place about 300 metres from the project. Mudjarn is associated with significant ceremonial sites, burials and a source of natural materials to manufacture traditional weapons and tools. It is the dwelling place of the spirit being Dulargul. Mudjarn represents the long-term occupation of the Wiradjuri, Ngunnawal and Walgalu of the Tumut River Valley. The distance of Mudjarn Nature Reserve from the project footprint means that the indirect visual impact to the significance of this site is assessed to be negligible.

HumeLink Historic Heritage Impact Assessment EIS Technical Report 3

Page 55 - Killimicat was the site of a timber beam bridge across the Tumut River, constructed in 1897, as well as a quarry.134 In 2016 it had a population of 29, engaged primarily in grazing.135 Figure 5-16 The Pine Mountain from Killimicat Hill on road from Tumut to Gundagai, sunset, 1881136

I have read most of the reports and it is wonderful but the word negligible and indirect visual impact when the project is a mere 300metres and the towers are up to 75m tall the visual impact will be seen from the nature reserve, Pine Mountain and from the Brungle road where we have many people stop to take picture and view the Nature Reserve. The area of amazing cultural and heritage significance.

The Bushfire risk will be significantly higher for the nature reserve as the area is of high lightning strikes. We have lost many trees and some livestock over the past 25 years we have lived there. and the towers will increase the danger to this significant site. One which we need to preserve and the undergrounding of the HumeLink project could really be the best option for all involved.

• I acknowledge and accept the Department of Planning and Environment’s disclaimer and declaration.
• Declaration of political donations: No.
Yours sincerely,

Jessie Reynolds