Restart of Redbank Power Station

Supporting projects that contribute to fossil fuel emissions will directly impact my way of life on Lord Howe Island. I live on an island NSW that will bear the brunt of climate change impacts and I don’t support the NSW government continuing to support projects that will adversely impact our economy, environment and community.

I have attached a submission objecting to this proposal as an attachment.

Verdant Energy are attempting to revive their Redbank biomass energy project.
They have now decided to take advantage of a loophole to burn native vegetation cleared on freehold land.
This is not acceptable as it will provide a further incentive for land clearing. We are in crisis in NSW, our iconic koalas are about to slip into endangered status due to habitat loss, and other less known animals and plants are also suffering severe declines in population numbers.
Burning more fossil fuels (even timber and biomass), contributes to the climate crisis and will make it harder to reach our targets for net zero and save us all from the worst effects (we are only seeing the start now with extremes in wild weather leading to flooding and bushfires).
For the power station to be able to reopen the means it uses to generate power needs to come from renewable energy, otherwise no deal.

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 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.
Some salient points:
• 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.

I support the Verdant Earth's plan from running on coal to waste timber biomass from land clearing and over time to source the biomass from purpose grown plantation on unused land. This would help with the potential growth on energy needs in future.

This proposal seeks to exploit NSW land management rules that are failing nature and that are currently under review. Loopholes in land management need to be closed, rather than further exploited.
Burning cleared vegetation is very inefficient and would create a new source of greenhouse pollution. This project is an unnecessary distraction from real renewable energy solutions. It will not help, but hinder decarbonisation of the energy system.

I do not support burning of forest residue/products or land clearing residues to generate electricity. These natural and often organic materials should be retained on site to compost and feed the soil and retain carbon on site. Burning forest/land clearing residues is not clean sustainable energy as it is reliant on the removal of native vegetation which is integral as habitat for native species including threatened species, removes vegetation which is storing carbon and removes vegetation which then opens up land to drying out and alters a stable hydrological cycle.

Despite detailed responses to SEARs and other requirements for the proposal to restart Redbank Power Station, it is unfathomable how the NSW Government can contemplate this proposal to use native vegetation cleared from private land as fuel for this proposal.
At a time when clearing of native vegetation in NSW continues at alarming rates, and with it, habitat required to reduce the risk of extinction of growing list of threatened species continues to disappear, the proposed burning of some 850,000 tonnes of habitat as fuel for a power station is unconscionable.
At this time, when there is a need to do everything possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the proposed burning of vegetation proposed for clearing will create new greenhouse emissions, and will, at the same time, remove opportunities for further carbon sequestration by the vegetation removed and that which could be grown on the land into the future.
Furthermore, both the substantially increased truck movements that will be required to transport the proposed fuel to the Redbank Power Station and the increased emissions that will result from burning of the proposed vegetation will reduce air quality in the area, with probable flow-on negative health impacts for residents in the area.
The government's focus must be on the growing opportunities for renewable energy, with a shift away from carbon-emitting fuels, whether coal, gas, or burning of vegetation.
Verdant Earth Technologies Ltd must not be given an approval that will be counter-productive to the globally essential effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - our future and our planet depends on this.

I support the project based on the site looking to utilize a wide range of feedstocks as noted, which none of these would be Native Timber feedstocks.
I believe the re - establishment of Verdant Earth facility at Mount Thorley would create new green jobs within the region & help to stabilize the network in the local area. This site would also potentially deal with end of waste products which would normally just go to landfill.

The Rainforest Information Centre, Inc. objects to the proposal to use biomass to generate electricity at Redbank.

The Rainforest Information Centre (RIC) was born out of the successful struggle to save the sub-tropical rainforests of New South Wales , Australia 1979-1981 followed by our participation in the struggles to save the temperate rainforests of Tasmania in 1982 and the tropical rainforests of Far North Queensland in 1985-86 . Since then we have been involved in campaigns and projects which protect rainforests and at the same time recognise the legitimate development aspirations of rainforest peoples.

This proposal, if approved, would greatly exacerbate carbon pollution, land clearing and species extinction. Seeking to minime these are already active NSW policy. Very substantial sums of public money are already expended to limit these undesired acttivities. To approve this would fly in the face of so much public policy, and of public opinion.

The burning of biomass is widely recognised to produce more carbon dioxide pollution than does the use of other fuels. The comparison to coal burning is false and misleading, and no comparison to other, actually renewable sources of energy is offered. The assessment does not consider the considerable carbon, and other pollution that would be generated in the destruction, processing and transportation of this claimed 'biomass'.

The fuel plan is a concocted fanasy. The notion that farmers will grow 50,000 Tonne of a new crop, Elephant Grass in the first year of operation is highly unlikely. There is no extant processing infrastructure for this invasive species. To propose that this would increase to hundreds of thousands of Tonnes in just a few years is plainly ridiculous.

The proposal would 'monetize' land clearing, by seeking to provide an incentive to further clear already depleted ecosystems. These, especially Western Lands ecosystems are already under substantial threat, and the dependant flora and fauna are high on the threatened species lists.

If the 850,000 Tonne of 'biomass' were to be removed from ecosystems within the claimed 'economic radious' of 300Km, more names will surely be added to the threatened species register. The cost of managing these, in the slim hope of averting their extinction, will be borne by the public purse and the efforts of volunteers, not the profiteers of this proposal.

The transportation plan appears to be highly theoretical. The claim that already-approved clearing west of Cobar can be economically gatherered, processed and transported to Redbank is unsupported by any credible costings. No planning consent has been sought for the many processing and transportation facilities that will be required. These should be seen as an integral component of this proposal, not addresses in the supporting reports.

The many inconsistencies in the assessment makes is difficult to discount the suspicion that the proposal is actually a 'Trojan Horse', that once approved, would seek variations to burn other materials, the vaguely defined 'sawmill waste' for example, the corrupt misidentification of which might include forests otherwise not to be logged. Examples elsewhere of resource-hungry 'biomass' plants being granted post-hoc approval to burn tyres, chemical waste, etc.

As such, the likely wider impacts of the proposal have not been adequately assessed, and are contradictory of existing NSW policies, so the proposal cannot be approved.

Gregory Hall
for The Rainforest Information Centre, Inc.
-

In a world where we are looking towards a sustainable energy future, this proposal is a slap in our collective NSW faces. It is NOT a clean energy source, it is NOT sustainable and it will promote ongoing destruction of native habitat.

NSW 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 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.

* 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.

Keep the closed Redbank power station closed. It burnt 850,000 tonnes of north-east NSW's forests every year for electricity, but you propose to increase land clearing to meet its needs? Can you think about this as a shortsighted proposal and stop it from going any further. We all have to think using research and experience rather than continuing down a track that is no longer viable. Change is hard but totally within reach. Lets all work together so that the natural environment that sustains our existence is not just sustained but given the support to flourish to levels pre 1940.

Burning Native Forest Wood for Electricity is Not Green, Not Clean and Not Renewable.

I am highly concerned about this project. I do understand the desire to reuse existing plant for economic reasons, and even environmental reasons. I am, however, dubious about the following points:
* It is stated that there will be near nil CO2 emissions - burning fuel of any sort will release emissions. I don't understand how the maths works to net this off to near nil.
* The upgrades to the plant, the transportation of the coal tailings and the removal of biomass from a natural process of carbon sequestering all equals carbon emissions...
* The land that is identified to grow a monoculture of feedstock fuel could support solutions to reduce our climate impact through regenerative reforestation. This would in turn also support the native species of flora and fauna that has been neglected in the environmental impact report.
* Surely the plant upgrade investment would be better put into truely "Green" power rather than a greenwash of a dirty fuel solution.
* The report seems to also be silent on the health impacts of burning biomass.
* I'm concerned about the limited regulations that would control the use of biomass - they've stated it would only be fueled with "ecologically sustainable biomass" and yet it is clear that without diligent controls around what is determined to be ecologically sustainable, financial outcomes (cost savings / profit maximisation) will play a significant role in the decision-making regarding what biomass is used.

There are numerous other ways to achieve 1m megawatt hours of energy which truly support the Net Zero plan without creating other environmental issues. These should be prioritised and this project should be rejected.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Burning wood for electricity is far more polluting than coal.
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.

Re the Redbank proposal.

No! No! NO!
Biofuel is the worst possible use of native vegetation.
We need our forests and woodlands, both public and private,
(1) for the biodiversity they support
(2) because native vegetation is a valuable carbon sink
(3) Burning native vegetation, whether or not it is claimed to be “ waste” is no better than burning fossil fuels. It should not be cleared in the first place
(4) Burning this material will simply accelerate Climate Change.

This is a bad and unacceptable proposal.

Please, just REFUSE it.

I object to the restart of Redbank Power Station using Biomass as fuel for many reasons including these:
• We are in a climate crisis, and need to reduce our emissions of CO2, not dramatically increase them as intended by this proposal
• Calling the burning of 850,000 tonnes of Biomass for electricity every year ‘clean energy’ is nonsense - the power station will release more than a million tonnes of CO2 each year, with increased emissions at the clearing sites, and from processing and transporting the Biomass
• Burning Biomass for fuel releases even more CO2 into the atmosphere than burning coal per MWh of energy produced, and to do this instead of investing in true clean energy in a climate crisis is a bad decision for us all
• It is a fallacy to claim it is ‘çarbon neutral’ or near zero carbon based on vegetation regrowing – we don’t have the decades needed to recapture all that carbon through regrowth, and VET is proposing the clearing of ‘invasive native species’ for Biomass supply will create more agricultural land, so replacing the vegetation longterm isn’t even planned
• Creating a market for large volumes of Biomass will provide an economic incentive to clear land of sequestered carbon in vegetation that is currently habitat
• NSW also has a biodiversity and species extinction crisis due mainly to land clearing and habitat fragmentation and loss - this project will further accelerate land clearing on private land where most clearing is unapproved and the approval process requires no surveys to identify habitat of threatened species, and where there are already a deluge of unexplained and uninvestigated clearings

The problems with this ridiculous proposal are many and very obvious...
• The source will create a market to destroy even more habitat, which is already being destroyed at an unsustainable rate by private land holders and at the hands of the NSW Forestry Corporation.
• This project is a distraction from real renewable energy solutions. It will hinder decarbonisation of the energy system.
• Burning cleared vegetation is not carbon neutral, as the proposal is to use cleared habitat and forest biomass from land that will be used for farming, not long term regrowth of native vegetation. There will not be any future carbon sequestration to theoretically reduce the power plant's emissions. and the project would create a new source of greenhouse pollution.
• 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 urge the enquiry to reject this proposal entirely, without any concessions to the proponent.

BURNING FORESTS FOR SO CALLED " GREEN ENERGY" IS MADNESS.
The community has campaigned may times agaiunst this stupidity and thankfully each proposal has been cancelled. I cannot believe that another project has reared its ugly head. We are already in an extinction and biodiversity crisis with so much of NSW being relentlessly cleared and logged. Now Verdant want to burn 850 000 tonnes of habitat and woodchips per year – more than the entire native forest logging industry in NSW produces. This is totally unacceptable.
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. Australia is already a leader in land clearing with millions of hectares of precious wildlife habitat disappearing every year. In fact an MCG sized area of bushland is cleared every 2 minutes ! We should be preventing this destruction not compounding it. No wonder our unique species such as koalas are facing extinction.
This project is wrong on multiple levels and should never have reached "Major Project" status. Australia is signatory to international agreements aiming to protect biodiversity to help combat dangerous climate change. Clearing habitat and releasing more carbon hardly measures up to this global imperative.

This video features a protest against burning "biomass" for power from 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjc-40hWtrI

Dear Madam/Sir,

I hereby lodge my submission to the New South Wales Planning Department on Verdant Energy's plan to burn the bush for electricity.

Verdant Energy have now decided to take advantage of a loophole to burn native vegetation cleared on freehold land.

New South Wales 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 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 New South Wales produces.

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. The New South Wales Government must be investing in green energy generation and infrastructure at every available opportunity. Projects, like Verdant Energy’s, must not even be considered.

Burning cleared vegetation is not carbon neutral and the project would create a new source of greenhouse pollution. This will destroy any chance of the New South Wales Government has of meeting it’s net zero ambitions. Last week’s rain bomb and flooding in Sydney and the south coast demonstrates that climate change is a real and very present problem here in Australia. The government should be doing everything in it’s power to eliminate carbon emissions and projects, like Verdant Energy’s, which aggravate the problem.

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 to affected communities.

The proposal seeks to exploit New South Wales land management rules that are unequivocally failing nature and that are currently under review. While this review is underway no proposed projects can be approved.

Biomass has negative and unjust health impacts including releasing dangerous air pollution.

There is no social license for burning our native forests. Verdant Energy has a terrible idea that will devastate New South Wales bushland at the very time we need to be protecting and revegetating it.

I ask the New South Wales Department of Planning to oppose this proposal.

I thank you for this opportunity to express my opinions on this matter.

Dear NSW Government
Verdant Technologies plans to use native vegetation cleared on freehold land. Destroying our bushland and burning native vegetation will contribute to increased climate change because this burning pollutes our air and decimates bushland that are carbon capturers and an answer to address climate change.
Using vegetation and bush biomass as a fuel source to create energy will increase greenhouse emissions. Vegetation biomass will still emit carbon dioxide (CO2). 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.
Our trees, vegetation, and bush store carbon, and as more are destroyed, studies have projected a reduction in the amount of carbon stored in this sector by 2030 due to projected future increased harvest rates whether that is on public or private land. The community do not support this industry because of its adverse impacts on nature in NSW. Therefore, burning cleared vegetation is not carbon neutral and the project would create a new source of greenhouse CO2 pollution.
The Paris Agreement clearly stated that we must limit and not expand or open up new projects that will increase CO2 emissions and keep global warming to 1.5 degrees C. Scientists have said we have already passed this level. And as this is a new industry, it should and must not be considered as it violates the Paris Agreement which was not to open up new projects that will contribute to climate change.

Opening up this project at Redbank Power station will be seen as a ‘green light’ to open up even more sites. It is inconceivable for me why the government would even consider this proposal in the first place.

Verdant Technologies’ plan to burn the bush to create electricity is wrong. Creating more markets will destroy even more habitat. Let’s not forget that over 1000 native plants and animals are currently at risk of extinction in NSW. 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. That data is already over 3 years old. We have already lost billions of animals in the horrific bushfires of 2019-2020. Nature is still recovering its bush habitat for native wildlife. To support an industry that will kill more animals is morally wrong.
Biomass burning and the massive increase in truck movements to deliver fuel to Redbank is another source of CO2 emissions and producing more contaminating air pollution and will have negative and unjust health impacts for people and worsening effects for those with pre-existing conditions such as allergies and asthmatics. Increased air pollution will affect the quality of people’s lives and their health, as well as the health of nature. There will be less and less healthy nature available to absorb the increased CO2 pollutants.
Nature- trees, forests, bush, vegetation all store carbon, and as more are destroyed studies have projected a reduction in the amount of carbon stored in this sector by 2030 due to projected future increased harvest rates whether that is on public or private land.
Interestingly, a proposal to ban biomass fuel in NSW created by burning our trees in our state forests was recently part of an e-Petition over a year ago, which received over 21,000 signatures and was debated in the NSW Legislative Assembly. Due to the increased destruction of NSW native forests, through the logging industry by NSW Forestry Corp, cutting down our trees and burning them for energy was refused. Verdant Technologies now wants to burn native vegetation cleared on freehold land instead to revive their Redbank Biomass energy project. These negative impacts to people and nature is all for monetary gain. The community do not support this industry because of its adverse impacts on nature in NSW, its wildlife, the climate, and people. Burning our bushland and vegetation is wrong and will represent poor decision-making by the NSW government if it goes ahead. The government is encouraged and urged to consider all the ramifications that this will cause harm to everyone and everything.
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 new proposed fuel source for Redbank power station will create a market to destroy even more habitat. This will open up more industries to apply for a license to destroy and burn vegetation on freehold land. This is a terrible idea that will devastate NSW bushland at the very time we need to be protecting and revegetating it, especially after terrible natural disasters.
NSW land management rules are failing nature and are currently under review. They are not fit for purpose to properly protect nature. With 115 ecological communities currently listed as threatened under NSW legislation, opening up another destructive industry will cause further environmental decline.

This project is an unnecessary distraction from real renewable energy solutions. It will not help, but hinder decarbonisation of the energy system. This 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. For the NSW government to even consider approving the burning of vegetation on private land is absolutely reckless and does not support their own climate targets.
I am therefore strongly opposed to the revival of the Redbank biomass energy project that will burn our bush for electricity.


Thank you,

Lucia Smith

Using biomass for power generation is not sustainable. We must reduce emissions and conserve biodiversity and forests. Please do not allow this industry to progress - we have to be smarter than that.