Restart of Redbank Power Station

I have looked into this project and studied it and I believe the wood chip biochemistry is a great step forward to retaining our net zero emissions and it will also create more jobs

I oppose The Re-opening of the Redbank Power Station on the grounds that it will lead to a huge increase in the production of carbon dioxide which is a greenhouse gas contributing hugely to global warming and climate change.

The claim of “carbon neutrality “ is a fallacy because of the time that it takes to grow new trees which could be several years. In this time, top soil will be washed away and entire ecosystems will be destroyed. Our precious native flaura and fauna will be placed at risk through land clearing.

Burning wood to make electricity is a distraction from truly renewable methods of producing energy such as solar, hydro, hydrogen and wind.

In relation to Climate Change, there is now a newly recognised phenomenon called “Duty of Care”.
This has been discussed in the legal and political arenas. It relates to the notion that we, as adults, have a duty to protect young people from the catastrophic effects of climate change such as bushfires, floods and severe weather.

I believe that the NSW government has a Duty of Care to protect its citizens, particularly young people, from the increasing threats being brought about by climate change. As such, burning biomass to create electricity at Redbank power station should not proceed.

Beatrice Naylor.

Burning biomass increases atmospheric carbon.

The credibility of burning biomass to generate electricity as a carbon neutral activity is now being challenged around the world. Burning biomass is a more costly and environmentally destructive process than genuinely carbon positive or neural processes such as solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power generation. (See https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/10/greenhouse-gas-emissions-burning-us-sourced-woody-biomass-eu-and-uk)

Our local community rightly fears that any supply problem that besets the Redbank Power Station in the future will be quickly parried by proposing the use of "forest waste" as defined by the NSW Department of Primary Industries, which can be seen as the product of clear felling state or private forests.

Forests, as such, are a vital bulwark against global warming. Diverse forests are a key carbon sink both globally and in our own immediate environs.

Burning biomass is a problem not a solution.

Repurposing the Redbank Power Station to use 100% biomass fuels is a cost-effective and easy way to deliver renewable baseload power to the electricity grid.
This project will reduce the risks of electricity supply interruptions (i.e. blackouts) during peak summer and assist in maintaining stable energy prices. Importantly, the project will also help drive us towards NSW's goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Verdant estimates this project will create 471 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs, with the majority of these in the Hunter Region and the Singleton LGA. Restarting Redbank will also create or support a large number of direct and indirect jobs in the fule supppy line over the plant's life.

I am in full support of this project as it will assist in our journey to green energy and assist our climate.
Great project, please ensure it goes ahead and provide funding.
Thanks

I wish to support the Restart of the Redbank Power Station on the basis its economic and employment benefits to the Hunter Region and NSW as well as offering a realistic pathway for NSW's energy transition.

It is anticipated that the Redbank Power Station’s commercial and community importance will be future proofed given the significant market changes arising from the Australian and NSW Government’s commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 and resulting climate change adaption policies. It is anticipated the capital expenditure by Verdant Earth Technologies aligns with the policy directives currently underway.

The Singleton LGA has over the past decade experienced low population growth and is forecast to experience low population growth over the next two decades. It is only recently that Singleton LGA has experienced more promising population growth.

The implications of the the attached AEAS analysis indicate a considerable dependency of both the Singleton LGA and the Hunter Region on mining that highlights vulnerability for its community in terms of lost economic activity and employment as Australia inevitably transitions to a less carbon intensive economy.

A key priority for the Hunter Region will be the development and investment in renewable energy technology to enable substantial cuts in emissions but at the same time responding to increased energy demand. Of even a greater challenge will be the Hunter Region’s concentration of coal fired power stations that are inevitably to be phased out and the impact this will have on the regional jobs, the economy and community. Projects like the Redbank Power Station’s reopening will need to occur to help transition the Hunter to a lower carbon future.

AEAS analysis confirms the reopening of the Redbank Power Station is anticipated to be a significant economic project to both the Singleton LGA and the Hunter Region. The Redbank Power Station reopening will provide both direct and indirect opportunities for local businesses during construction and operation resulting in employment.

In total, the Redbank Power Station Restart are modelled to directly support 471.5 FTE jobs. In addition, another 538 FTE jobs will be supported from indirect flow-on impacts as a result of supply chain benefits and employee spend within NSW businesses.

In total, the 25 Year NPV of the Redbank Power Station Restart is modelled to provide $901.1 million to the NSW economy.

The creation of economic activity from the reopening of the Redbank Power Station has the potential to support improved social and economic outcomes for residents through increased employment opportunities and resulting livelihoods. The Redbank Power Station offers the strong potential to increase the diversification of the employment and industry profile particularly in the Singleton LGA.

The negative socio-economic impacts from the construction and reopening of the Redbank Power Station are assessed to be low and will be managed responsibly by Verdant Earth Technologies. At the same time the socio-economic benefits such as employment creation, population growth, economic diversity and downward pressure on electricity prices and more reliable supply of renewable energy are assessed to have a high and positive consequence.

In addition to economic and social impacts, the construction and reopening of the Redbank Power Station will create a number of strategic impacts for the Singleton LGA, the Hunter Region and NSW. Both Singleton and the Hunter Region are vulnerable to the consequences of climate change abatement and adaptation policies based on the economic composition of their economies. For example 36.9 per cent of the Singleton LGA’s workforce operate in mining. It is projects like the Redbank Power Station reopening that will be essential in helping transition the Singleton and Hunter Regions to a less carbon intensive economy and offering greater diversification of employment opportunities for its workforce.

One of the most important strategic issues facing NSW is its future energy supply including the availability of reliable baseload and renewable electricity generation. Economic growth in NSW is expected to lead to sustained growth in electricity demand that if left unchecked will potentially lead to a capacity shortfall in the future. The Redbank Power Station reopening is anticipated to benefit NSW community, businesses and industry by improving the reliability of renewable supply in the NEM. The project will support overall downward pressure on NSW energy prices, supporting more affordable electricity costs for households, businesses and industry through NSW and participating NEM jurisdictions over the medium to long term whilst at the same time helping government meet their net zero emissions targets.

For these reasons the Restart of the Redbank Power Station should be approved.

Submission addressing the ‘Restart of Redbank Power Station’
Application number: SSD-56284960

I strongly object to the application:
• The 2020 NSW parliamentary inquiry into ‘Sustainability of energy supply and resources in NSW’ found that the burning of forest biomass for power generation is ‘not economically or environmentally sustainable, and it generates significant carbon emissions’.

• We are living through a climate crisis, and the IPCC’s latest report urges us to stop burning carbon immediately, whether in the form of coal, oil, gas, or wood. Burning wood to make electricity produces CO2, which is a greenhouse gas – in fact, this proposal will emit about 1.3 million tonnes of CO2 per annum. Furthermore, burning wood for electricity also produces CH4 and N2O, whose molecules are respectively 28 and 265 times more destructive in the atmosphere than CO2. Burning wood for electricity is worse than burning coal because it emits 50% more CO2 per MWh of energy produced than coal.

• The claim of ‘near zero carbon’ is a fallacy. Trees do not regenerate in the time it takes to reduce one to ash. The time lag from CO2 emission to sequestration from regeneration can be decades – and the world doesn’t have that time. Verdant Earth Technology Limited (VETL) is proposing to get most of its biomass from ‘invasive native species’ (INS) clearing on private land – so there’s no intention to replace that vegetation. The carbon accounting of this project is highly selective, and does not account for loss of soil carbon at harvest sites, or the extensive use of fossil fuels in harvesting and processing.

• NSW is a biodiversity ‘hotspot’, and the main reason is a dramatic increase in land clearing, much of it ‘unexplained’. Habitat clearing on freehold land is now the biggest cause of environmental loss in NSW. Creating a market for biomass from private land will accelerate this alarming trend. So-called ‘invasive native species’ often constitutes high conservation value remnant vegetation, which critical habitat for threatened species. INF shelters, feeds, and provides breeding places for native species. Private native forestry is largely ‘assessed’ by the landholder, who has no financial interest in retention of possibly vital revegetation. Interestingly, the company ‘Western Regeneration’ which is supposedly involved in negotiations with VETL and the LLS for biomass was deregistered by ASIC in 2018.

• Regarding the impact of its project on the environment, VETL has only addressed the impact at the Redbank site- which is comparatively irrelevant as it is not the source site of their fuel. There is no report on the impact of land clearing in the Cobar area – the loss of wildlife habitat, the loss of soil carbon, soil erosion, or the impact on waterways. The proposal to grow Elephant grass as a fuel source to eventually burn with INS is alarming – it’s regarded as an environmental weed in Qld, WA and NE NSW, and a potential weed in other parts of Australia. The last thing NSW needs is another runaway weed on agricultural land.

• Investment in this project undermines investment in genuine renewables such as solar, pumped hydro, and wind. VETL claims that true renewables are not ‘firm or dispatchable’ sources of generation’ - this ignores the huge recent leaps made in battery and pumped hydro technology, rooftop solar, and the spread of localised community power generation. If South Australia’s power generation can be 100% genuinely renewable, there is no reason why NSW can follow suit. Burning biomass for electricity is increasingly discredited overseas - in 2021, more than 500 top scientists and economists issued a letter to leaders in the US, EU, Japan, South Korea, and the UK, urging them to stop burning forests to make electricity in converted coal burning power plants. They pointed to the false carbon accounting employed in calling biomass burning ‘carbon neutral’, and stated that, ‘Forest preservation and restoration should be key tools for achieving (carbon neutrality), while simultaneously helping to address our global biodiversity crisis’.
• Burning biomass for electricity emits a host of toxic chemicals. The Hunter already experiences dangerous levels of air pollution, as illustrated by its above average occurence of childhood asthma related to NO2 emissions from power generation. Air pollutants from burning biomass include high levels of NO2, particulates, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), methane, sulphur dioxide, lead, mercury, and many more.
• The biomass will be transported hundreds of kilometres in B-double trucks – transporting from Cobar involves a whopping 1200 km round trip for each vehicle.
VETL estimates 112 truck movements per day. This will involve a huge use of fossil fuels, and hence emissions of CO2 and other gases – hardly a ‘clean, green’ exercise.

This project is conclusively not a ‘near carbon zero’ project, and so should not be considered a State Significant Development, because of its destructive impact on the atmosphere, the natural environment, biodiversity, and the investment in genuine renewables.


Jane McIntyre
1352 Lorne Rd
Lorne NSW 2439

I have not made any reportable political donations in the last two years.
I acknowledge and accept the Department’s disclaimer and declaration.

we need to be able to reduce the risks from electricity supplies (blackouts / interruptions) and sustain energy prices all without the use of coal.

The burning of any material at all from native forests is against the best interests of NSW residents, whether sourced from public or private land. Releasing carbon from forests is diametrically opposite to the actions we need to take in response to climate change. This project clearly should be rejected. It would be of benefit to very few people and the detriment of many.

Burning wood chips is still a fossil fuel and requires the harvesting of trees which are taking up carbon, so there’s double the effect on climate change. More renewable non fossil fuels please, for our children and earths future.

I support the project. The company has assured me that they will not be using native forest.

I support the project, any project that creates net zero reliable power supporting solar and wind is a good thing.

This project takes advantage of existing infrastructure that will not process coal rejects anymore and creates jobs in an area that will in the future shut down existing coal mines and provide ongoing employment and reliable power to the area.

A literature review shows this sort of facility can treat all different organic waste streams that can be problematic and convert this to power, the treatment of these waste streams will also displace current and future landfill volumes, reducing the ongoing problems that landfill sites pose.

Regards

I cant believe that this power generator is offline when we have a shortage of baseline power in the state and shutting more generators down in the future will create a large power shortage. We need to support this green power generation project so we as a country can be at the forefront of clean generated energy. .I support this project and the new technologies that will come out of it. thanks

My Response to the Environmental Impact Statement to burn biomass for electricity at the presently defunct Redbank Power Station:

I strongly oppose this project on the following grounds:
New South Wales (NSW) is recognised by the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage, as a biodiversity hotspot,
This means NSW is in a biodiversity crisis!
One of the main reasons for this is the accelerated rate farmers and urban developers are clearing land.
For proof of this one only has to refer to the latest report from the Department Of Planning and the Environment.
It recently said “379 thousand hectares of native vegetation had been cleared or 95,000 hectares per year “
A massive amount of land which is so poorly regulated that most of the flood of ‘unexplained’ clearings hasn’t been investigated. This project is bound to further accelerate land clear alarms on private land. Habitat clearing on freehold land is now the biggest cause of environmental loss in NSW.
Invasive native species create scrub with habitats. Again, accelerating native species clearing by creating a market for the wood will deny animals shelter, feed, and places to breed.
We’re in a climate crisis, and we must decarbonise the economy immediately. Whichever way you cut it, burning carbon (plants) for electricity creates CO2 (and incidentally, CH4 and N2O which are many times more destructive). In fact, it’s worse than burning coal because it emits 50% more CO2 per MWh of energy produced than coal.
The claim of ‘carbon neutral’ (or ‘near zero carbon’) is a fallacy. It ignores the time it takes to replace the burned carbon, for vegetation to grow back. The time lag from CO2 emission to recapture can be decades – and we don’t have that time. Furthermore, VET is proposing to get most of its biomass from ‘invasive native species’ (INS) clearing on private land, to create more agricultural land – so there’s no intention to replace that vegetation.
The proposal doesn't include any figures for the transport of the woody biomass from its site of origin to the chipping/storage/collection sites. These sites will also need to submit Development Applications in the respective LGAs. There is no discussion of where these sites will be located and no account taken of the time needed to prepare DAs for each site.
The EPA has asked for the proponent to demonstrate numerous aspects of the biomass feedstock to be used e.g. that the required volumes are available locally, and over the lifetime of the project, that the feedstock will have no higher value, that quality control purposes will be effective at excluding illegally harvested material etc. We are relying on the EPA to critically assess the information provided on biomass feedstock to ensure that it meets NSW policies and legislation.
Much of the information provided on biomass feedstock seems to be highly theoretical. Until the proponent has a contract with a farmer with the required knowledge and experience for the required crop, suitable equipment in the area and legal access to suitable land he doesn't have any "purpose grown biomass", let alone 50 000t of the stuff in year 1.
The pricing of "purpose-grown biomass" has the potential to incentivise existing farmers to grow these crops, at the expense of food and fodder crops they may already be growing. The EIS talks about growing biomass on coal mine buffer lands, but once a market is created, there is no guarantee that this is what will happen.
The Singleton Council asked for a Biodiversity Impact Assessment to include "Specific sources and potential sites of the purpose-grown biomass", but instead we have a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report which covers the site of the existing power station! The source of the biomass is the critical factor when it comes to impact on biodiversity, and must be considered in the decision of whether burning biomass should be part of our energy landscape.
The proposal doesn't include any figures for the transport of the woody biomass from its site of origin to the chipping/storage/collection sites. These sites will also need to submit Development Applications in the respective LGAs. There is no discussion of where these sites will be located and no account taken of the time needed to prepare DAs for each site.
The fuel cost of transporting 850,000 tonnes of woody biomass to such depots will be significant and don't appear to be factored into any of the economic, transport or greenhouse gas discussion in the documents.
Investment in this project undermines investment in genuine renewables such as solar and wind.
Burning biomass for electricity is increasingly discredited overseas. In 2019, 800 scientists from across the world signed a petition condemning burning biomass for electricity.
The figures for projected employment created by this project are inflated. They estimate up to 35 full time jobs at the finished plant, plus 56 truck drivers every day and come up with 174 full time jobs. I believe this is a false, inaccurate and improved figure.
There are serious air quality issues with burning biomass for electricity. Air pollutants include particulates, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, mercury, and a host of other goodies.
There’s no limit to the amount of forestry sawmill ‘waste’ they can burn. A potentially unregulated source of forest wood.
Then there is ‘construction waste’ and who knows what happens with it
All the biomass needs to be trucked hundreds of kilometers in B-double trucks. At least 56 arriving (and leaving) every day.
The fuel cost of transporting 850,000 tonnes of woody biomass to such depots will be significant and don't appear to be factored into any of the economic, transport or greenhouse gas discussion in the documcuments.
The idea of farmers planting Elephant Grass as a source of energy is very poorly thought through or researched as it's considered to be an invasive species in Queensland, WA and even in Northern NSW.
What's more no details are provided about what financial incentives will be provided to induce farmers from swapping growing crops such as wheat, barley or rapeseed for producing Elephant Grass.
ALL IN ALL, I BELIEVE THIS PROJECT IS:
BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
A THREAT TO AUSTRALIA'S AMBITIOUS TO BE CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2050
IS A DANGER TO THE NSW FLORA AND FAUNA
BAD FOR RESIDENTS IN THE SINGLETON LGA
IS BASED ON SPURIOUS AND UNPROVEN FIGURES AND CLAIMS
THE FIGURES SIMPLY DO NOT STACK UP.
I AM HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS THERE MUST BE SOME ULTERIOR MOTIVE BEHIND THIS APPLICATION.

I repeat, on all of the above mentioned grounds i strongly against this project.

John Stewart MacLennan
Islington NSW.

I support any renewable base load energy sources because it is evident that wind and solar will not be able to produce enough stable electricity due to their intermittency.
We need a strong base load energy to back up & create stability for the grid when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. Hopefully SA will get a technology similar to this once people see that biomass is a viable fuel for producing the renewable base load energy we desperately need.

This decision should go to the Independent Planning Commission, rather than being rubber stamped by the Minister or a delegated staff
Australia is one of the few countries that has not gone down the biomass burning path and we need to keep it that way! If you think about how long it takes to burn a tree and how long it took to grow that tree, you can easily see that this can never be sustainable!

Burning biomass is even worse than burning coal. Biomass can be re-used in a much more effective manner to help food security by recycling it through livestock, enhancing the soil and the environment. Third world nations and desperately poor people use biomass to heat their homes and cook their food. Is Australia now so impoverished that we need to use biomass to make our electricity? AND if it is used to produce our electricity are we going to get SIGNIFICANT price reductions to our power bills?
The Hunter Valley's grazing pastures are already being significantly destroyed through housing development where millions of trees annually are also being torn down and a tiny number being replanted as a "gesture" to "replace" these losses. Is this restart going to use these trees and make demands on the local environment to waste even more of our native bush?
The thought of relighting the fires at Redbank are just a sad indictment that this government hasn't the foresight to plan and develop sustainable long-term renewables, which are not only expected by the locals and all Australians but also needed to help save this tiny planet and its FINITE resources survive into the future.

As a former resident returning to NSW, we are very supportive of major projects that will reduce the cost of energy to NSW consumers whilst not relying on taxpayer funds or being harmful to the environment compared to previous coal based fuel sources. Frankly, I am amazed that this Project has been delayed so much though NSW Government bureaucracy. The Government and Public Service are letting down the citizens and voters of the Hunter Valley and of the NSW generally. It is a damning indictment that a country so rich in energy as Australia faces energy shortages arising from government policies and inaction. Time is now for this major project in the Hunter Valley.

Great renewable energy project. More projects like this should be rolled out throughout australia

The recommissioning of Redbank Power Station which has been an idle asset for some time now, will provide many benefits into the future. It will provide both direct and indirect full-time employment; supply additional base load power which cannot be fully relied on with renewables, and provide an alternative beneficial reuse option for suitable timbers separated from construction and other waste streams. For these reasons I support this project.