Restart of Redbank Power Station

I oppose this project as it is contrary to the goal of reducing carbon emissions to achieve net zero by 2050.
The new proposed fuel source for Redbank power station will create a market to destroy even more habitat.
This project is an unnecessary distraction from real renewable energy solutions. It will not help, but hinder decarbonisation of the energy system.
Burning cleared vegetation is not carbon neutral and the project would create a new source of greenhouse pollution.
The proposal is to use cleared habitat and forest biomass from land that has been stripped for farming, not regrowth, meaning there will not be any future carbon sequestration to theoretically reduce the power plant's emissions.
A massive increase in truck movements to deliver fuel to Redbank is another source of emissions and a far-reaching disturbance.
The proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules that are unequivocally failing nature and that are currently under review.
Biomass has negative and unjust health impacts including releasing dangerous air pollution.

Precious bushland will be encouraged to be cleared by landowners to fuel a power station that has no place in anyone’s plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainable renewable power projects are gaining pace and must be encouraged while environmental ravaging projects must be discouraged once and for all time.

The new proposed fuel source for Redbank power station will create a market to destroy even more habitat.
This project is an unnecessary distraction from real renewable energy solutions. It will not help, but hinder decarbonisation of the energy system.
Burning cleared vegetation is not carbon neutral and the project would create a new source of greenhouse pollution.
The proposal is to use cleared habitat and forest biomass from land that has been stripped for farming, not regrowth, meaning there will not be any future carbon sequestration to theoretically reduce the power plant's emissions.
A massive increase in truck movements to deliver fuel to Redbank is another source of emissions and a far-reaching disturbance.
The proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules that are unequivocally failing nature and that are currently under review.
Biomass has negative and unjust health impacts including releasing dangerous air pollution.

The new proposed fuel source for Redbank power station will create a market to clear a massive amount of native forest – more than the entire native forest logging industry in NSW produces. NSWs already has a record of clearing more land and destroying more habitat at an unsustainable level.
This project is an unnecessary distraction from real renewable energy solutions. It will not help, but hinder decarbonisation of the energy system.
Burning cleared vegetation is not carbon neutral and the project would create a new source of greenhouse pollution.
The proposal is to use cleared habitat and forest biomass from land that has been stripped for farming, not regrowth, meaning there will not be any future carbon sequestration to theoretically reduce the power plant's emissions.
A massive increase in truck movements to deliver fuel to Redbank is another source of emissions and a far-reaching disturbance.
The proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules that are unequivocally failing nature and that are currently under review.
Biomass has negative and unjust health impacts including releasing dangerous air pollution.

I strongly object to this proposal on the grounds that this biomass project will have a devastating impact on NS W native vegetation and habitat, which is sorely in need of protection and revegetations. Biomass is also known to have negative and unjust health impacts including releasing dangerous air pollution.

The proposal involves burning cleared vegetation. This is not carbon neutral ,and the project would create a new source of greenhouse pollution and hinder decarbonisation of the energy system. The NSW government should instead be focused on renewable energy solutions.

The proposal is to use cleared habitat and forest biomass from land that has been stripped for farming, not regrowth, meaning there will not be any future carbon sequestration to theoretically reduce the power plant's emissions.

Further , the huge increase in truck movements to deliver fuel to Redbank will create an addtional source of emissions and a far-reaching disturbance.

This proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules that are unequivocally failing nature and that are currently under review. Approving this project would encourage further such applications for projects with equally devastating consequences to the environment, including local vegetation and wildlife.

Burning of wood for electricity is not a valid source of renewable energy. NSW needs to focus on solar and wind power. This project will destroy forests and habitat for wildlife, even more than the NSW forestry corp seeks to destroy. This project will contribute to carbon dioxide emissions and thus climate change and will not be helpful in reaching any net zero or climate change agreements.

A massive increase in truck movements to deliver fuel to Redbank is another source of emissions and a far-reaching disturbance.
The proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules that are unequivocally failing nature and that are currently under review.
Biomass has negative and unjust health impacts including releasing dangerous air pollution.

The new proposed fuel source for Redbank power station will create a market to destroy even more habitat.
This project is an unnecessary distraction from real renewable energy solutions. It will not help, but hinder decarbonisation of the energy system.
Burning cleared vegetation is not carbon neutral and the project would create a new source of greenhouse pollution.
The proposal is to use cleared habitat and forest biomass from land that has been stripped for farming, not regrowth, meaning there will not be any future carbon sequestration to theoretically reduce the power plant's emissions.
The proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules that are unequivocally failing nature and that are currently under review.
Biomass has negative and unjust health impacts including releasing dangerous air pollution.

To Whom it May Concern,
It is inconceivable that the Redbank Power Station is even under consideration for being restarted. The native flora and fauna in the Upper Hunter Valley is already under considerable threat due to the land clearing of trees and native bushland by mining companies, that do a completely inadequate job when they 'regenerate' their sites.
Not only is it a ridiculous and arcane idea to burn wood and other biomass in the power station due to the fact that land clearing should cease immediately, but the emissions that such a power station would create in the atmosphere would increase the already poor air quality of this area, an area that has a very high rate of asthma and respiratory problems per capita. My two teenage sons live within 20 kilometres (as the crow flies) of the site. They are the 5th generation living here in Appletree Flat. How dare Verdant Earth Technologies put the health of their growing bodies at risk.
The Redbank Power Station should not go ahead. Australia should aim to be the clever country, not the country that, in the 21st century, reverts to caveman technology.
Regards,
Louise Jean Stokes

Re : Proposal by Verdant Energy to Renew their Proposal to Operate their Redbank Power Plant Burning Native Forest Biomass Energy for Electricity Generation.
This proposal is unacceptable as it would devastate NSW bushland at the very time we need to be protecting and revegetating it; and would also inflict climate damage contrary to our urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero.
The climate crisis is also conjoint with a local and national environmental crisis. Habitat clearing on freehold land is now the biggest cause of environmental loss in NSW.
Verdant want to burn 850 000 tonnes of habitat and woodchips per year – more than the entire native forest logging industry in NSW produces; and also:
• The new proposed fuel source for Redbank power station would create a market to destroy even more habitat.
• This project is an unnecessary distraction from real renewable energy solutions; it would not help, but hinder the urgent decarbonising of the energy system.
• Burning cleared vegetation is not carbon neutral and the project would create a new source of greenhouse emissions pollution.
• A massive increase in truck movements to deliver fuel to Redbank is another source of emissions and a far-reaching disturbance.
• Biomass has negative and unjust health impacts including releasing dangerous air pollution.
• The proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules that are unequivocally failing our environment, and which are currently under review.

The scientific arguments against such proposals were set out in the 2022 paper [“Burning Forest Biomass for Energy – Not a source of clean energy and harmful to forest ecosystem integrity.” https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/1642166/BiomassPaper_finalAK.pdf
Recommendation:
For the reasons above, the Verdant Energy proposal in respect of the renewed operation of the Redbank Power Station is utterly unacceptable and thus must be rejected.

Rupert Macgregor
7th April 2024

I strongly object to the Restart of the Redbank Power Station project on the grounds that it will destroy and burn our forests to produce elecricity that is more expensive, more polluting and more environmentally damaging than coal.
We need our forests because they store carbon dioxide helping to offset the effects of climate change, also and very importantly they provide habitat for our native animals many of whom are under increasing risk of extinction.
It is unconscionable that this project could even be considered.

The company, Verdant Earth Technology, proposes burning 850,000 tonnes of habitat and woodchips per year – this is more than the entire native forest logging industry in NSW produces which is already too much. This climate wrecking, air, water and land polluting, ecosystem destroying project cannot go ahead.
The new proposed fuel source for Redbank power station will create a market to destroy even more native forest habitat.
This project is an unnecessary distraction from real renewable energy solutions. It will not help, but hinder decarbonisation of the energy system.
Burning cleared vegetation is not carbon neutral and the project would create a new source of greenhouse pollution, resulting in worse climate change outcomes.
The proposal is to use cleared habitat and forest biomass from land that has been stripped for farming, not regrowth, meaning there will not be any future carbon sequestration to theoretically reduce the power plant's emissions.
A massive increase in truck movements to deliver fuel to Redbank is another source of emissions and a far-reaching disturbance.
The proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules that are unequivocally failing nature and that are currently under review.
Biomass has negative and unjust health impacts including releasing dangerous air pollution, costing NSW taxpayers more and placing more pressure on our underfunded and overworked health system.

I object to the proposed restart of the Redbank Power Station using waste wood residues (excluding native forestry residues from logging) for energy production as follows:

- VET has failed to appreciate that Australia is currently experiencing a climate emergency that can only be avoided by the complete de-carbonisation of Australia’s energy generation methods. It is a scientific fact that burning plants to create electricity generates 50% more CO2 per watt of electricity produced than coal.

- The burning of plants releases even more toxic chemicals such as Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O), which have Greenhouse gas effects greater than CO2 between 28 to 36 times and 265 to 298 times, respectively, over 100 years. Clearly, the additional burning of fossil fuels, such as biomass as propose by VET, will significantly delay the reduction of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) in the atmosphere to safe levels.

- VET’s claims of Net Zero GHG emissions are false. The burning of vegetation releases Greenhouse Gases, that have been sequestered over for tens to hundreds of years, in minutes. There is no way that release of these toxic chemicals can be re-sequestered in real time. In fact, the proposed burning of 850,000 (wet) tonnes of wood on site to generate electricity will result in the release of 1.3 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is simply unacceptable to me.

- Initially, VET is proposing to get the bulk of its biomass from clearing ‘invasive native species’ (INS) on private land, in order to create more agricultural land. This, by definition show that VET have no plan to replace the CO2 sequestering vegetation thereby increasing the damage to the atmosphere. In addition, there will be more emissions from debris and soils at the clearing sites, and from processing and transporting of woodchips.

- Furthermore, there has been no assessment of the environmental impacts of the extensive land clearing proposed, including the loss of wildlife habitat, or the CO2 it will release. Habitat clearing on freehold land is now the largest cause of environmental and ecosystem loss in NSW. So-called ‘Invasive native species’ actually create ecosystems which provide habitat for native birds and animals, many of which are facing extinction. Accelerating native species clearing by creating a market for the wood will destroy native animal’s habitat and deny them shelter, food sources and places to breed.

- Burning biomass is not a genuine renewable energy practice. In fact, as I have outlined earlier, it adds Greenhouse Gases to the atmosphere when producing electricity in contrast to real renewables such as solar and wind. Overseas, the burning of biomass for electricity is increasingly being discredited. For example, 800 scientists from across the world signed a petition condemning burning biomass for electricity in 2019: https://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/UPDATE-800-signatures_Scientist-Letter-on-EU-Forest-Biomass.pdf

- The amount of GHG emissions from the associated transport disturbs me greatly. The collected biomass needs to be trucked hundreds of kilometres in B-double trucks. With at least 56 truck journeys every day, it cannot be a clean, green or renewable operation. 

- Finally, the VET proposal will significantly add to the Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere, thereby exacerbating the climatic effects that are the basis of the climate crisis we are facing across NSW. I urge the Planner, Joe Fittell, to send this application to the Independent Planning Commission for further consideration and investigation.

Gregory John Olsen
15C Panorama Rd
Bundanoon 2578

The arguments against burning biomas for energy production far outweigh any arguments for this practice, particularly when the biomas is coming from forest sources. I find using the term ‘carbon neutral’, in this context, fraudulent; and using the term ‘waste products’ to refer to any parts of a forest ecosystem that are not millable trees, is illogical.
Even if the Redbank Power Station were to only burn trees from non-forest sources, this burning would still be pumping a similar amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as a coal fired power station would, possibly more. And, as any primary school child could tell you, trees remove carbon dioxide from the air and store it for hundreds of years (if they are allowed to grow to maturity). Also, all the mulch that trees produce (leaves etc) and the microbial activity around tree roots, allows significant amounts of carbon to be sequestered back into the soil.
As a society we need to be transitioning to true renewable sources of energy, solar, wind, tidal and geothermal. The notion that you can chop down a 100-year-old tree and burn it and replace it with a sapling, and call this a “renewable” source of energy is ludicrous and this practice needs to be addressed both nationally and globally.

Verdant Energy are attempting to revive their Redbank biomass energy project by burning native vegetation cleared on freehold land. Destroying our trees and burning native vegetation will contribute to increased climate change and air pollutants.

NSW already has an abysmal track record of unrestrained habitat clearing. Habitat clearing on freehold land is now the biggest cause of environmental loss in NSW. This is unacceptable. This proposal will make the problem exponentially worse as Verdant want to burn 850,000 tonnes of habitat and woodchips per year – more than the entire native forest logging industry in NSW produces.

I am deeply and strongly opposed to the restart of the Redbank Power station in Singleton Shire because-

1. The new proposed fuel source for Redbank power station will create a market to destroy even more habitat. This will affect those species that rely on vegetation as their habitat or food source. Many species are at a tipping point in NSW and will not sustain this ongoing destruction of their habitat. They lose their habitat, they die!

2. This project is an unnecessary distraction from real renewable energy solutions. It will not help, but hinder decarbonisation of the energy system. This is an outdated practice and does not support the federal government’s Climate Bill. Burning cleared vegetation is not carbon neutral and the project would create a new source of greenhouse pollution.

3. Our forests and native vegetation should not be counted as renewable resources as they take many years to renew. So, defining the biomass industry as a source of renewable energy is incorrect when it destroys environmental values. We must protect our precious trees and vegetation on private land, and unique forest biodiversity from biomass burning and prevent a huge new source of climate emissions.

4. The proposal is to use cleared habitat and forest biomass from land that has been stripped for farming, not regrowth, meaning there will not be any future carbon sequestration anyway to theoretically reduce the power plant's emissions, meaning carbon emissions will increase and have negative impacts for our environment, native wildlife, and us.

5. The proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules that are unequivocally failing nature and that are currently under review. This is not the time to be approving a detrimental project when the federal government have established a ‘Nature Repair Market’. This is not repairing nature when it uses the vegetation needed for survival of wildlife to burn it for energy. NSW Nature laws have failed nature, and this is yet another example of how industry has contributed to nature’s rapid decline in our state, as our laws are too weak and not fit for purpose to really protect nature.

6. The new proposed fuel source for Redbank power station will create a market to destroy even more habitat. It won’t stop with Redbank; more applications will be made, and we will see more vegetation loss and habitat destroyed.

7. Biomass burning has negative and unjust health impacts including releasing dangerous air pollution. The combustion of biomass releases toxic air pollution including fine particulates (PM2.5) and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants cause premature mortality, respiratory and cardiovascular disease, as well as low birth weight. Those who suffer with severe allergies or are asthmatics may experience worsening conditions. Nearby communities will suffer from the negative impacts from this source of pollution. The government is encouraged and has a moral responsibility to protect people’s health.

Verdant Technologies plans to use native vegetation biomass on private land as a fuel source. Biomass emits up to 50 per cent more carbon dioxide (CO2) than coal when burnt. This biomass energy project will destroy even more habitat that will lead to an increased decline of our native wildlife. The number of species at risk of extinction continues to rise. 115 ecological communities are listed as threatened under NSW legislation.

I am strongly opposed to this project as NSW already has an abysmal track record of unrestrained habitat clearing. Habitat clearing on freehold land is now the biggest cause of environmental loss in NSW. The Redbank Biomass project will devastate NSW bushland at the very time we need to be protecting and revegetating it especially when much of our landscape was destroyed after the worst bushfires of 2019-2020 in living memory on the east coast of NSW which killed over 3 billion animals and placed Koalas on the endangered list. We cannot afford to risk this ever happening again.

The volume of material required cannot be met locally, therefore trucking in of material will lead to increased diesel emissions.
It would take a very creative set of calculations that are devoid of fact to come to a conclusion that this, along with ALL biomass burning proposals are good for the environment - Just watch Planet of the Humans for some instructional guidance.

I have serious questions on the truck movement calculations as provided by Verdant regarding the delivery of 700,000 Tonnes of dry biomass needing "about 56 return trips per day" to deliver.

This is because a typical B-Double has an approximate capacity of 80m3 and DRY woodchips have a weight of about 380kg per M3, 400 kg per M3 when wet. Source : Cat-Performance-Handbook-Edition-50-June-2022-Caterpillar.pdf as attached.
The payload on an 80m3 B double is then only approximately 30.4 Tonnes.
700,000 Tonnes divided by 30.4 Tonnes = 27,961.
27,961 divided by 364 days = 77. 77 Truck movements per day, inbound alone, so double that for the "return" journeys.
No doubt Verdant will respond "We will use specially adapted trucks" but the dimension limits of the B Doubles are close to a maximal Over Dimension as it is.

Additionally, Vedant's Annual reports cannot be located on their own website. The only financial data is to be found through the New York Stock Exchange.

I fully support this project. The state urgently needs baseload power, and the state urgently needs new jobs. Power bills are soaring enormously, and it makes perfect sense to use an existing power station that is already connected to transmission lines to put power into it. My power bill rose from 2200 last quarter to 3200 this quarter with no real change in use. It would be irresponsible for this project to not go ahead the state needs it.
On top of this, it is a rare opportunity to have baseload power supplied by an IEA endorsed source of renewable energy in modern biomass and it is very exciting for the future of NSW if this very sensible project was to proceed.

To whom it may concern,
I totally oppose the proposal to use biomass to generate electricity at Redbank. The forests of eastern NSW are part of one of the world’s 35 biodiversity hotspots because of their exceptional species endemism and extensive habitat loss.There is nothing ecologically sustainable about clearing tens of thousands of hectares of native vegetation inhabited by millions of native animals in the midst of a biodiversity crisis, and converting it into carbon dioxide to worsen climate heating.

1. Landclearing and associated habitat fragmentation are the single greatest threat to biodiversity in NSW, and yet most clearing is unapproved and the approval process requires no surveys to identify habitat of threatened species.

2. Landclearing and logging are not in the public interest – they do not have a social licence, and do not require public consultation through a Development Application process like other developments on private land.
3. Land clearing has rapidly escalated over the past decade, making NSW part of one of the of the world’s 24 deforestation fronts.

To supply the 850,000 tonnes of biomass required each year, will require a major increase in the rate of land clearing, especially in the Hunter valley and on the tablelands. Creating a market for large volumes of biomass will provide an economic incentive to clear land that would otherwise not have been cleared as Land clearing needs to stop, not expand. Claims that over four years 56,000 ha of biomass crops will be planted to provide 70% of feedstock have not been planned, are not credible and unlikely to eventuate. It is recognized that the current proposal does not include logging residues, though the other sources of biomass are so poorly assessed and unlikely to provide the feedstock required, that there is a high risk that a variation to include logging residues will be made soon after approval.
The pretense that burning 850,000 tonnes of biomass for electricity every year will result in no emissions of CO2, and is thus clean energy, is a nonsense.
The power station will release over 1.3 million tonnes of CO2 each year, with increased emissions from debris and soils at the clearing sites, and from processing and transporting woodchips. We need to reduce our emissions of CO2, not dramatically increase them as intended by this proposal. The use of solar and wind as alternative power sources need to be considered, rather than just comparing the proposal to coal.

Thank you for your time.
Yours Sincerely
Joe Sparks

Opened in 2001, burning wet coal tailing waste, Redbank Power Station at Warkworth near Singleton gained a reputation as the most polluting power generator in the country. It closed in 2014.
Now there are plans to reopen Redbank to burn native forest waste, bush, grasses and privately owned regenerated (regrowth), or uncleared farming paddocks. Proponents claim there will be no CO2 emissions from burning all this material, whereas it will result in the release of some 1.3 million tonnes of CO2 each year!
The scale of this proposal is absurd and should be refused. The 850,000 tonnes of “wood waste” planned to be burnt is more than the entire native forest logging industry in NSW produces, and much of it will be green wood. Burning green wood waste emits 50% more CO2 per megawatt hour of energy than that produced by coal.
All this woody material needs to be trucked hundreds of kilometers in B-double trucks. At least 56 arriving (and leaving) every day for the life of the generator. It’s not clean, it’s not green and it’s not renewable as claimed by the proponents!
Collecting this amount of material will devastate already at-risk forest ecosystems. Thousands of hectares of native forests and bush within a 300km radius of the Hunter, Central Coast and North Coast risk being cleared to keep Redbank generating in to the future.
I believe this is a completely inappropriate proposal and the application to open Redbank should be reused.

Verdant Energy are attempting to revive their Redbank biomass energy project by proposing to burn native forest from habitat clearing on private land. I am opposed because-
• Native forest biomass must be excluded as a source of renewable energy.
• Verdant Technologies plans to use native forest biomass on private land as a fuel source. Wood biomass emits up to 50 per cent more carbon dioxide (CO2) than coal when burnt.
• Environmental groups and the public have raised concerns that the harvesting of native forest biomass would adversely impact the habitat of native wildlife. Protecting our native forests holds approximately 80% of our biodiversity.
• The combustion of biomass releases toxic air pollution including fine particulates (PM2.5) and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants cause premature mortality, respiratory and cardiovascular disease, as well as low birth weight. Nearby communities will suffer the impacts of this source of pollution plus added air pollution from increased truck movements that will be needed to deliver fuel to Redbank Power Station.
• Prioritising biomass industry will displace genuine renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.
• The proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules.
• We must not allow a biomass industry to compound the impacts of exported wood chipping.
• On the EPA NSW State of Environment website, it says 1043 species are listed as threatened in NSW as of December 2020 with 116 critically endangered species in NSW who also face an extremely ‘high risk of extinction’ in the immediate future. The new proposed fuel source for Redbank power station will create a market to destroy even more native wildlife habitat meaning an increased decline of our animals.

I am strongly opposed to the revival of the Redbank biomass energy project.
Please read my attached submission.

Martin Derby

I would like to raise a number of issues
The proposal is to use cleared habitat and forest biomass from land that has been stripped for farming, not regrowth, meaning there will not be any future carbon sequestration to theoretically reduce the power plant's emissions.
The proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules that are unequivocally failing nature and that are currently under review.
This project is an unnecessary distraction from real renewable energy solutions. It will not help, but hinder decarbonisation of the energy system.
The new proposed fuel source for Redbank power station will create a market to destroy even more habitat.
Biomass has negative and unjust health impacts including releasing dangerous air pollution.