CASTLE COVE
,
New South Wales
Message
I support this modification to the original project because it should improve the project in the long term by removing the transmission lines from public view and access. I note that RAPs will be present at the relocation of the Aboriginal artifacts on the site, which is essential for the graceful treatment of our heritage.
However, it would seem that burying the cables as proposed will not facilitate any future increase in transmission capacity from the battery storage, as easily as the overhead transmission of the original project. If it transpires, as I think is likely, that Broken Hill soon needs greater battery storage and therefore greater transmission, would it not be better to plan for this? I don’t see that future view in the project’s discussion on what size of BESS to install.
As proposed in this modification, it seems that for greater transmission capacity, new cables would have to be installed in another excavation and the approval process would have to be repeated. In the fast-moving world of renewable energy, I think this issue should be addressed in the current project. I’m thinking to either bury oversized cables or to ensure that the trench, the protective structures in the trench under the watercourse and the roadway, and the connection structures at each end of the trench, are constructed so that more cables can be inserted without the need for another trench?
Just a thought for AGL (and by collaboration, Transgrid)?