Volunteer firefighters fear renewable energy projects will put bushfire-prone town at 'risk'

The town of Dederang, nestled in Victoria's Kiewa Valley, has felt the impact of several bushfires through the decades.
It's why most of the town's population — about 200 residents — are fighting proposals to build two Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) on private land.
"It's one of the highest, most bushfire-prone areas in the state. If they lose control, it will go and then it'll be chaos," said local resident Paul Ingram.
Late last year, Mint Renewables and Trina Solar submitted planning applications to the Victorian state government to build a BESS in Dederang.
The systems are designed to support wind and solar renewable energy by storing excess electricity and releasing it when demand is high.
Dederang is full of CFA volunteers; most are farmers, and they fear the fire risk that lithium-ion batteries could pose for the town.
Doug Connors, a CFA volunteer in Dederang for 50 years, says the town wouldn't be able to fight a battery fire if one erupted.
"As a brigade, we're equipped and trained to fight grass and scrub fires," he told 7.30.
Teresa Hicks is a third-generation dairy farmer with three young children.
She and her fiancé Darren Sagrera are CFA volunteers and her father Jack Hicks is a former CFA group captain at the Dederang brigade.
She says her family wouldn't feel comfortable fighting a battery fire because it would be too toxic.
"No one's going to get on the fire truck anyway, because it's too dangerous," she said.
"We're not the only ones being affected. Wherever a bushfire gets into is going to be affected. Bushfires will run for hundreds, if not thousands of kilometres. We've seen it. So that's the risk."
Dr Matthew Priestley is a battery and energy expert from the University of New South Wales. He says lithium-ion batteries need to be safely managed to avoid overheating.
"What we find is lithium-ion batteries do have a tendency to overheat, and that's why we have a safety mechanism in them, which is called the battery management system," he said.
"The job of the battery management system is to monitor the health of the lithium-ion battery system."
The CFA confirmed to 7.30 that it has consulted Mint Renewables, Trina Solar and the community about the two projects proposed for Dederang.
In a statement, the CFA said: "Fire safety at large-scale renewable energy facilities is a focus for CFA and is one of the key considerations for communities where a facility is proposed."
"The role of CFA is to advocate that developments proposed in CFA areas are located, designed, constructed and operated as safely as possible."
Dr Priestley says the chance of a fire breaking out at a large-scale battery plant is low.
"They are rare and they're generally due to a fault somewhere in the device," Dr Priestley told 7.30.
"When one does fail, often they move into a very dangerous state called thermal runaway.
Trina Solar's Country Manager John Zhong says he understands that the community has concerns.
However in response to the backlash against the proposals, Mr Zhong compared the rejection of the batteries to kids who refuse to go to school.
"My kid doesn't like to go to prep, but then I have to tell them 'hey, going to prep is … part of your journey to actually learn and study and to become an adult'," he said.
When challenged on referring to the community as 'kids' and whether Trina Solar ignored the community's concerns, Mr Zhong said the company did "receive their submissions" and did "take their comments into account".
Mr Zhong also said the company conducted extensive "fire safety hazard analysis" of the area where their proposed battery will be built.
"The bushfire risk has been carefully assessed," he told 7.30.
He admitted the company had sought guidance from a CFA consultant based in Melbourne, not in Dederang.
"We engaged this consultant from Melbourne, and it's engaged by our planning consultant NGH as a sub-consultant. So we, our team, have been there during the community consultation process."
Mint Renewables declined 7.30's request for an interview.
Instead, they provided a statement that said: "We know that the community has genuinely held concerns."
"Our project will only proceed if we are granted a permit by the Minister of Planning that requires us to follow the CFA guidelines".
In March, the community had a win when the Alpine Shire Council agreed to write to the Victorian government opposing one of the batteries.
"Five councillors voted in favour of opposing it, and so we won that. And that was just amazing … I was crying," Dederang resident Sharon McEvoy said.
For the past 18 months, Ms McEvoy has been spearheading the campaign against the two battery projects.
"The first one is basically at our front door, 450 metres downhill," she told 7.30.
"The other one is uphill from that proposal, a couple of hundred metres, and that would be about 600 metres from our house."
She's helped send hundreds of letters to the state government and created petitions against both proposals.
"We have got over 800 submissions, objections that people have written in personally in some way, shape or form, to the development programs department voicing their objections to it," she said.
"For the second proposal, we've got over 700 written in. We presented a petition to the parliament with 1,300 signatures saying, 'please don't build it here'."
7.30 requested interviews with both the Victorian Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny and the Victorian Energy Minister Lily D'Ambrosio; both declined.
Instead, a Victorian government spokesperson said: "To continue to keep bills down and keep the lights on, we've streamlined planning approvals for renewable energy projects."
"All members of the community can make submissions which will form part of any planning decision-making."
It's expected a decision on Mint Renewables and Trina Solar's projects will be made later this year.
The Alpine Shire Council is expected to vote on whether it will formally object or endorse the Trina Solar battery project at a council meeting on Tuesday.
Watch 7.30, Mondays to Thursdays 7:30pm on ABC iview and ABC TV
Do you know more about this story? Get in touch with 7.30 here.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

ABC News

39 minutes ago

• ABC News

Ian McLeod, 95, powering his farm ute and house on waste vegetable oil

The blue farm ute in Ian McLeod's shed costs a couple of dollars a week to run, and his farmhouse power bills are virtually non-existent. In a world searching for sustainable and affordable energy, the 95-year-old farmer is quietly perfecting a personal power system, running on waste vegetable oil. "Most of the farms around here have brand new utes, so when I bought a SsangYong for $1,800 online, people thought I was mad," Mr McLeod laughed. "But when Rudolph Diesel first made the diesel engine, he used vegetable oil. "I thought to myself, 'I could do that,' so I set about finding a ute with a pre-combustion diesel engine and converting it. "Modern engines have to have the highest-grade fuel possible, whereas I deliberately went the other way. "I went for an engine that would run on low-grade fuel." Alongside the ute in Mr McLeod's shed at Glenroy in south-east South Australia are engines and mechanical inventions to purify the vegetable oil he collects from local restaurants. "Nine times out of 10, when I go to a restaurant, they say, 'Just take the oil'. They don't want it. All I have to do is clean it." For that job, Mr McLeod took an old electric separator and made a centrifuge out of the inner bowl, which purifies about 15 litres of oil an hour. "It costs me peanuts because the engine driving the separator is running on the same oil anyway," he said. "My main engine for generating power for the house runs on neat vegetable oil and starts from stone-cold on a freezing, cold morning. "I'm gradually getting it better all the time." For the best part of nine decades, Mr McLeod's remarkable mind for mechanical ingenuity has been known only by close friends, family and his wife Shirley, 92, a retired nurse. "Up until the past four or five years, people had virtually ignored Ian … now they realise he's worth knowing and a lot of people are pests now!" she laughed. As a child, Mr McLeod recalls being awed when his father took him by the hand and showed him a huge steam engine on a thrasher on their outer Melbourne farm. "That sowed a seed in me," he said. By the time he was eight, he had built his first steam engine using a turbine he made inside a Malt Extract can from his mother's kitchen. Mr McLeod also drew on his mechanical mind to overcome the trauma of his early school years. "I was a happy little kid, but I used my left hand to write, and the teacher in charge had a mind to change that and belted me. "It's a sad story; I stuttered then for 40 years and wet the bed until I was about 11 because I was just a bundle of nerves," he said. "So making these little steam engines and fixing things around the farm used to help me; it gave me back a bit of confidence." The McLeods came to the black-soil plains of Glenroy via a converted scrub block at Dorodong in Western Victoria, and the family farm at Bulla near Melbourne. The journey, marked by challenges met with determination, imagination and perseverance, is one which the pair look back upon fondly. "We got away to a pretty rough start on the family farm when the Depression ripped the rug out from under my father and his brother," recalled Mr McLeod. "Shirley was from Northern Queensland and her family pioneered the sugar industry up there. "Times got so tough at one stage, she wanted to go back. "I arranged with her early on — I told her she was free to leave with one condition: I'm coming too." And while they've faced tough times, Mrs McLeod said they had "gone through them together". "Some of our happiest years were when we first started on our own at Dorodong with a shed, two young children and second-hand tractors that Ian rebuilt," she said. Later, at Glenroy, Mr McLeod set his sights on irrigated cropping. "I hired a post-hole digger and, with the help of some local fellows, put five irrigation bores down in one day by hand. "I had to put multiple bores down because I didn't have enough money to buy the piping to connect them." Mr McLeod said he bought a stationary irrigator, which he converted to become self-propelled — one of the first in the country. "It became a useful machine. Then a company from Corowa got wind of it, hopped in a plane, hired a car, came out to the farm and crawled all over it, took photos and said, 'Thanks very much Mac', and I have never heard from them since," he laughed. Over his many years on the land, Mr McLeod has bought broken-down, second-hand and wrecked tractors and headers "for $25 or so" and rebuilt and redesigned them to create exactly the machinery he required for growing his crops. "We harvested our first crop of sunflowers with a $25 header that I rebuilt," he recalled. "I built a windrower, joined two old, wrecked tractors together; made a grain dryer for our maize crop, built weigh scales … I always looked for opportunities to mechanise and become more efficient." As the seasons change in the south-east, and Glenroy's flood-plain past is met with a two-year drought, the McLeods reflect on a long life on the land. "We just live quietly out here in our little nest. We're not part of the social set," Mrs McLeod said. "We've faced some tough times and plenty of good times," Mr McLeod agreed. "When things go wrong, that's an opportunity to find a way around it. "When things go smoothly, I get bored."

News.com.au

10 hours ago

• News.com.au

You should delete yourself from the internet: here's how

If you feel like most of the calls you're getting at the moment are from 'The Visa MasterCard fraud department' or you're getting bombarded by texts from Clive Palmer 's lackeys, then your data has probably been bought and sold. Your name, mobile number, email address and possibly even home address are likely showing up on the databases of data brokers, available to the highest bidder or, worse, anyone who knows where to look. In the best case scenario, this data is being used to try and sell you stuff, in the worst case scenario, it's being combined with other data for identity theft. The good news is that you can take some of the control back and remove yourself from many of these databases. Turns out it's not even that complicated if you're willing to dedicate a little time or money to the problem. The only issue is that it's going to be a Sisyphean task. Dr Arash Shanghagi, a Senior Lecturer in Cyber Security at the University of New South Wales says that while this process can seem like a hassle, it's necessary. 'People opt out of data broker databases to protect their privacy and reduce risks like identity theft, fraud, or aggressive marketing. Brokers collect and sell personal details. This can include names, addresses, phone numbers, and even financial data. Often without consent,' he said. 'This exposure can make you a target. Here's a familiar example: 'Hi Alice, this is Sarah from your energy provider. We've noticed unusual usage at your home on 10 Sydney Street. To secure your account, can you confirm your billing details?' It sounds legitimate because they know your name and address. But it's a scam. That kind of info is often bought from data brokers and used to trick people into giving up payment info or login credentials. By removing yourself from these databases, you're not just cleaning up your digital footprint. You're reducing attack surface. The goal is to reclaim control and make it harder for bad actors to exploit personal data.' If you want to get a sense of what data of yours is out there, there's a free tool from Google called 'Results About You' which will periodically scan the internet to see if your name, email address, phone number and/or home address has shown up in any of the data bases or 'people search' websites it checks. If data is found, you can start the process to request its removal. It's a very simple, low stakes tool. A Google spokesperson told that Results About You is just one of the tools Google makes available so people can take control of their privacy: 'We provide people with a range of tools to help safeguard their online information and mitigate the risk of identity theft. Beyond robust security features like Security Checkup, My Activity offers valuable insight into online activity, enabling people to investigate suspicious activity on their account. Google also actively sends notifications if it detects suspicious activity on your account to help you prevent unauthorised access and secure your information. Additionally, our 'Results about you' tool allows for the removal of personal contact information from Search, further enhancing privacy.' When I tried the Results About You tool, nothing came up for me, even though I know my data is out there, judging purely on the amount of spam and prank calls I get. While those free Google tools are a good place to start, they don't cover the full breadth of what's out there. Dr Shanghagi also says that it's worth being weary of data protection and privacy tools released by a company whose primary business is selling data. 'I think a healthy dose of scepticism is justified. Google's core business is built on data-driven advertising, so when they offer a tool like 'Results About You,' it's worth noting what it actually does – and doesn't do. It only removes your personal info from Google search results, not from the original data broker sites. It is a very narrow offering from a company that thrives on data. Use it, sure. But don't mistake it for real protection. Always pair it with more comprehensive tools and be mindful of how much data you're handing over to Google and other online services.' Step two: Use premium services to go even further Services like DeleteMe, PrivacyBee, Mozilla Monitor and Optery are set up to scan the internet and, depending on what account tier you pick, delete all your data on your behalf. Lawrence Gentilello, CEO and Founder of Optery told that when it comes to the databases of data brokers, his company understands the stakes. 'The personal information collected by data brokers is compiled into extremely detailed profiles. The information in these profiles can be used against people in harmful ways. It's both a privacy issue and a security issue. Most people don't want their private details made available publicly or for sale. The scale and granularity of data collection is beyond what most people would even imagine, sometimes including tens of thousands of sub-attributes and inferences about a person's behaviour, which may or may not be accurate. There is a widespread pattern of data brokers failing to adequately vet their customers, some of whom are malicious actors. Millions of dollars have been stolen from vulnerable consumers using brokered data.' 'Data brokers get hacked, and when they do, the personal profiles they've compiled are often sold by cybercriminals on the dark web. Data broker profiles enable phishing attacks, voice and messaging scams, identity theft, and fraud. They also pose a physical danger by enabling doxing, stalking, harassment, and violence. And so personal data removal is important for both digital and physical security. People in high-profile or high-risk roles — such as executives, journalists, law enforcement, and judges — use personal data removal to prevent malicious actors from showing up at their homes.' The data that services like Optery uncover and delete goes deeper than just your name and addresses, but things like your real time location, your favourite order at that place you have a loyalty card with, political preference, mental health status, device usage, and religion. Gentilello told us 'This data is packaged and sold to marketers, political groups, law enforcement, private investigators, and virtually anyone through subscription-based platforms. The datasets include inferred characteristics, life events, spending habits, and real-time or historical geolocation data.' 'Some brokers openly advertise data on US government employees, military personnel, students, elderly Americans, and even people with Alzheimer's or cancer. This kind of profiling is used for targeted advertising, lead generation, and identity verification, but it can just as easily be used for scams, discrimination, or surveillance. Malicious actors can buy pre-packaged datasets to identify and exploit vulnerable populations. Companies may also use this data to make decisions about you — whether you qualify for a loan, get hired, or receive certain services — without you ever knowing it.' With Optery, you can sign up for free, get a report on what private data more than 645 websites have on you. You can then manually remove yourself from these databases for free, or you can subscribe to various tiers to have Optery opt out of these databases for you. Because most of these services are US-based, most of their targets are also American, but the local options appear to be limited and this is better than nothing. Step three: The nuclear option Fully deleting yourself from the entire internet is likely an impossible task, but if you want to keep going after deleting yourself from these data broker sites, there are a few things you can do: Delete your account from any social media websites you're a part of. Some will allow you to just scrub your account from the settings, while others will require you use third party tools to delete your posts, and then you have to contact the service directly to request they delete your account, this doesn't guarantee that the company won't keep their data on you, but it will usually mean it stops being public (though it won't delete it from any internet archives that may have archived). Delete your accounts in any apps that you've made accounts. This might also involve contacting the company to request your data is deleted. Then, once you've deleted the account, delete the app and all its data from your phone. Once you've deleted any public profiles or accounts of yourself from the original sites, if you want to go really scorched Earth, you can then contact The Internet Archive to delete any archives of your data by emailing info@ To then stay off the radar without completely withdrawing from society, you can use a few different tools when looking at buying devices or using apps. First, consult Mozilla's Privacy Not Included database to gauge the creepiness level of the device or service you're looking for to see if there's one whose policies you're comfortable with. Another great tool is the Terms of Service: Didn't Read website, which sums up terms of service documents so you can understand what you're agreeing to without wading through all the legalese. Alternative step three: the more alert but not alarmed option Dr Shanghagi also recommends the following habits as a middle ground if you don't want to delete yourself completely: • Use privacy-first tools: Browsers like Brave or Firefox, along with ad blockers, can cut down on invisible tracking and surveillance. • Use alias emails and phone numbers: Services like Firefox Relay or SimpleLogin let you mask your real contact info when signing up for things online. • Create a 'privacy-first' identity: For newsletters, online stores, or giveaways, use a separate email and minimal real info. Keep your primary identity for essentials only. • Be mindful on social media: Oversharing is a goldmine for data brokers. Share less, and when in doubt, leave it out. • Avoid 'Sign in with Google' or Facebook logins: They may save time, but they link your activity across platforms. This is not great for privacy. • Tighten your settings: Check your privacy settings regularly across social, email, and mobile accounts. Do not trust the defaults. • Use a VPN: It hides your IP address and encrypts your internet traffic. Very useful when on public Wi-Fi or travelling. • Opt out where you can: Unsubscribe from marketing lists and use opt-out tools or services to remove your info from broker databases. Be selective with online forms: Skip the optional fields. your birthdate or phone number often isn't necessary. The goal isn't to disappear. It's to be intentional. A little effort goes a long way in protecting your digital footprint.' Generally, if it's not something a company has to know to provide whatever service it is for require, you don't actually have to give them any real information. Have fun coming up with your alias, and make sure it's something you can remember, so your real identity stays safe. Another thing that came up repeatedly from the experts we spoke to, and the guides we read is to use privacy focused web browsers, like Firefox and Brave, and to make use of privacy focused extensions. Good luck out there.

SBS Australia

a day ago

• SBS Australia

Australia's social media ban is approaching, but questions remain over whether it will work

April Willis says young people need a seat at the table for figuring out how to implement the teen social media ban. Source: SBS News / Ash Minchin Like many, April Willis has been using social media since her early teens. As she grew up on the platforms, she says she didn't immediately understand the impact it was having on her. She says that in hindsight, though, she can see that a lot of her "behaviours" and "the content and interactions" she had on social media platforms were "definitely not great" for her mental health. But the now 22-year-old ReachOut youth advocate says she doesn't think a ban would have stopped her. "I think the hard truth is that a lot of us are thinking, 'I would've found a way around it', as I'm sure many young people will." Whether she actually would have is one of the many questions experts are wondering six months out from the implementation of Australia's social media ban for those under the age of 16. And as of 11 December this year, social media companies will be required to take "reasonable steps" to prevent Australian children and teenagers under 16 from using their platforms. A government-commissioned trial into the potential technologies used to assess the ages of users presented their preliminary findings on Friday. Their key finding was that "age assurance can be done in Australia and can be private, robust and effective". "The preliminary findings indicate that there are no significant technological barriers preventing the deployment of effective age assurance systems in Australia," project director Tony Allen said in a statement. "These solutions are technically feasible, can be integrated flexibly into existing services, and can support the safety and rights of children online." With details about the accuracy of the technologies tested left for later release, experts are wary of the trial's initial claim. Daniel Angus is a professor of digital communication at the Queensland University of Technology and the director of its Digital Media Research Centre. "One of the key concerns that we have is how the industry often will inflate their accuracy and the utility of these approaches when we know that there are still significant issues when it comes to both gender and also racial biases, but also the general lack of efficacy of these approaches," he said. According to the Department of Communications, a government-commissioned report from the Social Research Centre found nearly nine in 10 adults were supportive of age assurance measures. Only two of those 10 had heard of at least one potential method to check a person's age online. 'This research shows Australians widely support our world-leading age restrictions on social media for under 16s and have strong expectations of platforms when it comes to data protection and security," Communications Minister Anika Wells said in a statement. Angus says the general public has not been adequately informed about the likely impacts of these technologies. "I think Australians are in for a very rude shock when this actually perhaps, gets implemented, and they all of a sudden are being forced to hand over [their] data to access services that they've freely been able to access up to this point," he said. "It's absolutely everything you would expect to find in the midst of a moral panic where people have been sucked along with this idea that, 'Yeah, this thing is really, really bad and we need to prevent it,' but have not stopped to think critically about this, and then not been properly informed about the fullness of that risk." John Pane, chair of digital rights organisation Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), is a member of the stakeholder advisory board for the trial. He says the EFA has "concerns about the rollout of this technology because it's not simply about restricting access to social media platforms for children 15 and under". "It requires all adults who participate in the online environment, who wish to access social media platforms to either have their age authenticated or establish their identity as a means of, or part of that age authentication. "So from our perspective, it's the Trojan horse for getting people to get used to providing more and more credentials online." Amid these concerns, some remain supportive of the ban, including Kirra Pendergast, another member of the stakeholder advisory board. "Initially, I was only against the ban purely because of the technical workarounds that are possible for some kids who are more technical than others," she said. "But after having lots of conversations with parents in particular, it became abundantly clear that the ban was making parents have a conversation that we've needed to have for a very, very long time." Pendergast is the founder of Safe on Social, an online safety advisory group for schools and businesses, and chief digital safety strategist at the global Ctrl+Shft Coalition. "I get contacted almost every single day by parents that are struggling with this," the cybersecurity expert said. "They don't know how to say no." Pendergast said parents and educators would have "a lot more time to get it right". "It's like all aspects of technical security, cybersecurity, and cyber safety. It's never ever going to be 100 per cent. This is never going to be the silver bullet. "It's a really, really good start because, again, it sparked all of the conversations that we needed to have at every level of society." Professor Tama Leaver, an internet studies academic at Curtin University and the chief investigator in the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, says the ban responds to a "very real fear that parents have that social media is an unknown space". "If this is world-leading, we need to be quite clear on what the legislation is actually doing." He warned that the implementation of the policy may not address all the issues that have been discussed. "Some harms, for example, such as cyberbullying, were very much touted as one of the big problems to be solved," he said. "There is nothing in this legislation that addresses cyberbullying meaningfully at all. "This at best addresses algorithmic amplification … of young people's experiences of social media, but … we expect from what's been said already that most messaging apps are exempt from this legislation. "So, the spaces where we imagine cyberbullying is most likely to happen are not being touched by this legislation at all." Leaver was a signatory on an open letter from more than 140 academics and civil society organisations against the ban. "If the rest of the world is watching Australia and hoping that this might be a blueprint, we're going to have an awful lot of work to do in the next few months to actually have a blueprint to practically do this rather than simply aspire to giving parents some reassurance," he said.