Hunter Power Project (Kurri Kurri Power Station)

Dear to whom it may concern
I'm against this new project because it goes against all the best evidence that Governments supposedly 'encourage', yet ignore and everyone knows it is fundamentally wrong.
The recent report by the International Energy Agency, stated as clearly as humanely possible that no country should invest in any new gas or oil if we sincerely want to meet the climate change goals of the Paris Agreement.

To use the rationale that gas is an interim measure is so painfully obvious a decision of no backbone whatsoever and a lack of understanding that cannot be pussyfooting around for another 50 years. Gas is almost as polluting and expensive as coal, while battery-backed renewable energy is cheaper, cleaner and doesn’t drive catastrophic climate change !

This gas and diesel power station has been designated “Critical State Significant Infrastructure”, whilst other sound and innovative initiatives like those of the Hunter Jobs Alliance- growing strong are not? How can you use an emergency medical term to support such a "critically devastating and injurious to ongoing life on this planet". What century are we living in?
With some recent brave and recognisable decisions being made by the NSW Government and knowing this power station is going to add to the medical woes of children living nearby, not to mention carbon dioxide levels and is so fundamentally incongruous with everything else, please please REMEMBER:
" if the Planning Minister doesn't, the Environment minister owes a duty of care to Australia’s young people not to cause them harm from climate change."
Thank you.

My submission against the Kurri Kurri gas-fired power plant
I object to the new Kurri Kurri gas fired power plant because it will increase the emission of greenhouse gases which are a major contributor to recent climate change.
I am a mother and grandmother who enjoys the Australian outdoors way of life, namely recreational fishing, bird watching, remote camping and exploring our native environment. I would like my grand-children to be able to enjoy the natural bush and its inhabitants before climate change takes a further toll on reducing our native flora and fauna.
The three main reasons I object to the construction and operation of the proposed Kurri Kurri gas fired power station are as follows:
1. If the project commences in 2023 for 30 years, and we are committed to future net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, it does not comply with the EPBC Act. The generation of greenhouse gas emissions is a direct consequence of burning fossil fuels and the Kurri Kurri gas-fired power plant will contribute to further climate change. A recent court ruling which refers to the Duty of Care for our children from the harms of climate change should inform all actions which could potentially harm the health of our children.
2. There is no economic advantage to build and maintain the power station which will only run for about 2% of the time. There are alternative and cheaper ways to supply the required amount energy needed to ensure grid reliability if the need arises.
3. Hazardous air quality such as methane and carbon dioxide by products from gas fired power plants will affect the health and well-being of our communities, especially those living with respiratory issues. Anyone who has witnessed a child experiencing an asthma attack knows the trauma and distress it causes.
To act effectively and adopt targets of zero carbon emissions by 2050 we can reduce the damage caused by climate change by implementing sustainable and environmentally responsible energy generating projects. I urge, for the sake of ourselves, our children and their children, we act to address climate change issues while we have the chance.

I am writing to object to the proposed Hunter Power Project (Kurri Kurri gas-fired power station) to be built and operated by Snowy Hydro for the federal government at an estimated cost of $600 million of public money.

This government intervention in the electricity market follows its doctrine of "gas led economic recovery" and its demand that the energy industry build a gas-fuelled power station in regional NSW. The government argues that a new gas plant is needed to provide firm generation during shortage contingencies in a growing and technologically diverse national electricity network of solar, wind and hydro generators.

But outside of the federal government, Minerals Council and the gas industry itself, the Kurri Kurri proposal is largely regarded as an expensive white elephant. Potential issues with consistency of supply can be reliably and economically addressed by continuing to invest in geographical diversification and strengthening with components such as batteries, condensers and pumped hydro. Energy executives, such as Andrew Stock and economists, such as Nicki Hutley, say bluntly that construction of a new gas-fired power station will only raise prices and makes no economic sense whatsoever.

Critics also include energy experts, such as chair of the Energy Security Board, Kerry Schott. The Australian Energy Market Operators 2020 Integrated System Plan maps out a path from coal to renewables without building any new gas. The government's own greenhouse gas emissions data lends urgency to the problem by showing that Australia's fugitive GHG emissions are increasing due to the expansion of the gas industry.

In the last fortnight the G7 environment ministers agreed that they will deliver climate targets in line with limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees - a higher ambition than the two degrees of warming that was advocated previously. There is wide agreement both internationally and locally on the science and the economics.

The choices made today are very clear. If the world is to reach net-zero emissions by the middle of the century there can be no new coal, oil or gas development from this point on. Proceeding with a gas-fired power station makes an already difficult task very much harder. It squanders both our financial resources and also the time we have left in which to act.

We cannot afford this project if we are to preserve the hope of arresting the damage to the planet's climate caused by our consumption of fossil fuels.

I object to this project
It would be a waste of money as it is simply not needed
Replacing coal with gas is a poor decision not thought through

I am writing to object to the proposed Hunter Power Project (Kurri Kurri gas-fired power station) to be built and operated by Snowy Hydro for the federal government at an estimated cost of $600 million of public money.

This government intervention in the electricity market follows its doctrine of "gas led economic recovery" and its demand that the energy industry build a gas-fuelled power station in regional NSW. The government argues that a new gas plant is needed to provide firm generation during shortage contingencies in a growing and technologically diverse national electricity network of solar, wind and hydro generators.

But outside of the federal government, Minerals Council and the gas industry itself, the Kurri Kurri proposal is largely regarded as an expensive white elephant. Potential issues with consistency of supply can be reliably and economically addressed by continuing to invest in geographical diversification and strengthening with components such as batteries, condensers and pumped hydro. Energy executives, such as Andrew Stock and economists, such as Nicki Hutley, say bluntly that construction of a new gas-fired power station will only raise prices and makes no economic sense whatsoever.

Critics also include energy experts, such as chair of the Energy Security Board, Kerry Schott. The Australian Energy Market Operators 2020 Integrated System Plan maps out a path from coal to renewables without building any new gas. The government's own greenhouse gas emissions data lends urgency to the problem by showing that Australia's fugitive GHG emissions are increasing due to the expansion of the gas industry.

In the last fortnight the G7 environment ministers agreed that they will deliver climate targets in line with limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees - a higher ambition than the two degrees of warming that was advocated previously. There is wide agreement both internationally and locally on the science and the economics.

The choices we must make today are very clear. If the world is to reach net-zero emissions by the middle of the century there can be no new coal, oil or gas development from this point on. Proceeding with a gas-fired power station only makes a difficult task that much harder. It squanders our financial resources while shortening the time we have left in which to act.

We cannot afford this project if we are to remain hopeful of halting the destruction of the planet's climate caused by our consumption of fossil fuels.

Please see attached for our submission to this project. We object to the proposal.

Australia signed the Paris Agreement in 2015 to limit global warming. To achieve this there can be no new fossil fuel projects.
Gas is a fossil fuel and has no scientific backing to be used as a so-called transition fuel. There are so many renewable sources of clean energy already available that for the Australian government, whether State or Federal, to use public money on a poluting new gas fired power station is totally unacceptable. The majority of Australians are concerned about the environment, we have the highest uptake of solar panels on house rooves per capita in the world. There is no economic, environmental or socially responsible reason for this project. It should be denied for all these reasons.

According to the recent report by the International Energy Agency, the world shouldn’t invest in any new gas or oil if we want to meet the climate change goals of the Paris Agreement.

Gas is polluting and expensive, while battery-backed renewable energy is cheaper, cleaner and doesn’t drive catastrophic climate change!

I object to the proposed new gas-fired power station at Kurri Kurri.
To build a new gas-fired power station in these days of climate change is an outrage. The NSW Government should be doing everything in its power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not ramp them up massively like this. The project will encourage the development of new gasfields like the proposed Santos Narrabri one. The greenhouse gas emissions from that will be colossal, according to Penny Sackett, former Chief Scientist of NSW. I object to my hard-earned tax dollars being squandered in this way on a project which will do damage, not good, to my state.
Any power generated by this project would not even be necessary, as renewable power is coming on stream all the time. It can be stored in big batteries like the one being built by AGL at Liddell, and used for peaking power instead of gas. The project will be a white elephant before it is even completed.

Gas is a fossil fuel that adds methane and carbon dioxide emissions during mining, processing and distribution before it even gets to the use of generating electricity or used directly for heating, cooking and hot water. It is no longer considered to be cleaner than coal in the light of the true accounting of emissions throughout the process. Gas was previously considered more energy efficient because it was used closer to the end use and there was less loss of efficiency in transmission. This proposal will sink emissions into the construction of pipelines and the generation plant itself and will be generating electricity to be lost in transmission. It will, on what we are told, only operate for a few hours a week. There is a private industry proposal for a smaller gas and hydrogen generation plant in the Illawarra which one is told will meet any NSW shortfall of supply. The IEA points out gas should be phasing out after 2030. Why is the taxpayer paying out so much money for this power plant that will directly employ so few and generate so little and have such a limited life span. Meanwhile natural gas is not natural in the way it is procured. It produces overly saline water at best and toxic water at worst, it contaminates acquifers and depletes them when we are facing increasing demands on decreasing water, it breaks up and destroys habitats, requires pipelines through those habitats and through valuable farming land. Why are we using taxpayer money to increase the dangers and costs to the community of increased extreme events associated with climate change.

This project would further lock gas into our energy future. It is not necessary to do so when renewables with battery storage are ready investment to ensure there are no security issues when Liddell closes. There is simply no need to increase our greenhouse gas emissions by millions of tonnes over the life of this plant. Please listen to the climate science - there is no scope for new fossil fuel mining and infrastructure if we are to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050, which is NSW government policy right? Government intervention such as this will disrupt the market to the detriment of our energy future. Pushing more gas onto the market won't reduce the price of energy - increasing production of a commodity only works when there are no cheaper alternatives available, which is not the case for gas. There's no business case - please listen to the economists and don't foist this polluting project onto the people of the Hunter. Pollution levels there are already far too high without more diesel and gas damaging community health. The claim that the plant would be ''hydrogen ready'' is dishonest - it's not ready if the plant would need modifications for hydrogen.
Please reject this project in line with NSW policy and the public interest. The people of NSW deserve a government prepared to work hard towards a rapid and just transition to renewable energy and a liveable future.

I am totally opposed to the new gas and diesel fired power station in the Hunter.

I have read a considerable amount of documentation regarding Fossil
Fuels and climate change. The scientific information informs us that gas, a fossil fuel, is in fact more harmful to the environment than coal when considered from extraction to useage. The amount of leakage, fugitive emissions and length of effect of methane is unacceptable, let alone to be incorrectly marketed as a transition fuel. It is such an uneconomical venture now that renewable green energy is cheaper, that it is immoral for the government to spend tax payers money on this project. I know I am speaking for my peer group when I say this is an incredibly inappropriate project and if any government is involved they do not deserve their positions.

I object strenuously to the Hunter Power Project proposal. This facility is not required when we know that clean battery-backed renewables can fill the energy gap that this project is meant to provide, even if just built as a transitional backup power station using new gas and dirty diesel. It is a waste of funds that should be put to better use, including renewable energy projects that will provide more jobs and a cleaner environment. If built, it will keep us stuck in old polluting fossil fuel energy production which is wrong and unethical when the International Energy Agency has stated that governments must not invest in any further technology using new gas or oil if we are to meet the Paris Agreement climate mitigation goals which Australia and other countries have committed to. Minister Stokes should reject this planning proposal to avoid catastrophic climate change for this and coming generations. The NSW government is better than this and needs to keep showing the alternative way forward with renewables!

I object to the adequacy of the EIS to justify this project as detailed in my submission.

This project will result in greenhouse emissions both from the burning of gas to generate electricity and from fugitive emissions of methane from the coal seam gas extraction areas from where the majority of the gas will ned to be sourced. This project is the wrong way to secure our power supply if we want to restrict climate warming to 1.5 degrees.

I strongly object to this proposal to build a gas/diesel powered power plant. Both gas and diesel are fossil fuels and it is essential that the use of fossil fuels is scaled down and eliminated as soon as possible. A recent report by the International Energy Agency found that the world should not be investing in any new gas or oil if we are to meet the climate goals of the Paris agreements.

This gas power plant, with a projected lifespan of 30+ years will still be producing greenhouse gasses well after the 2050 deadline being mandated by most other countries. The argument that gas is good because it can produce lower carbon emissions when burnt does not stand up when emissions over the life cycle of extraction and transport to end users are included. Leakage of unburnt methane is 80 times more polluting and dangerous to a warming climate than CO2 which means gas as polluting as coal. Diesel also produces CO2 and other noxious emissions both gaseous and particulate which will add to the already poor air quality in the Hunter Valley. Particulates are particularly damaging to human health as are nitrous oxide, sulphur oxides unburnt hydrocarbons and other volatile organic compounds emitted by burning fossil fuels for power generation.

It is stated that this power plant is needed for firming and ancillary services when renewable power is insufficient. Battery power is far more efficient for this purpose as proven by the outstanding performance of the 'big battery' in South Australia. With the cost of battery power and renewable energy coming down all the time this gas plant will quickly become a 'white elephant' and an expensive stranded asset.

Furthermore I object to taxpayers' money being used for this antiquated and polluting technology when the private sector have not seen it as a good investment. Why can the NSW and Federal governments be planning to waste our money on this 'white elephant' without social license? We the public have not been asked if this is acceptable.

It is stated this gas plant is needed to fill the gap left when the Liddell power station closes in 2023 whereas it is an overkill being far larger that what might be needed.
And last week AGL announced further plans for transitioning the Liddell plant, so there will not be a gap at all. To quote from the ASX website - [ https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/media-centre/asx-and-media-releases/2021/may/agl-continues-transition-planning-for-liddell-powerstation#:~:text=In%20August%202019%2C%20following%20an,the%202022%2D23%20summer%20months ] "AGL will undertake another important milestone in converting the Liddell site to an Energy Hub, today beginning twelve weeks of transition planning for the Liddell power station, in preparation for the station’s closure in 2022-2023.

Through a competitive procurement process, leading diversified engineering contractor, Delta Group has been awarded the tender for the first stage of closure, decommissioning and demolition planning for the Liddell power station.

AGL Chief Operating Officer Markus Brokhof said this is an important milestone as we prepare for Liddell’s retirement."

I therefore call on the planning minister to reject this proposal. It is definitely unnecessary and not suitable for purpose. NSW must not succumb to the Morrison government's continued push for a gas fired recovery from the Covid pandemic when the way forward is a speedy transition from fossil fuels and prioritising zero emissions well before 2050. Thank you.

I vehemently object to this project. If Australia is serious about the climate change goals endorsed in the Paris Agreement and doesn't want to be quite justifiably regarded as a knuckle dragger, pariah and climate change laggard, this project must not be allowed to get off the ground.

It is hugely disappointing that so far as Australia is concerned, the recent report by the International Energy Agency which clearly states that to have any chance of meeting already extremely challenging carbon reduction goals, there must be an immediate global cessation of investment in new fossil fuel projects (in particular oil and gas), has clearly fallen on deaf ears.

Blind Freddy can see that gas is not only polluting but is hugely expensive to extract, transport and use.

If we are concerned for the survival of our planet, our children, grandchildren and future generations, we must begin the transition to renewable battery-backed energy which is significantly cleaner, much less expensive and doesn’t drive catastrophic climate change.

To meet climate change goals, International Energy Agency found the world should not invest in any new gas or oil.
Gas is polluting and expensive.
Renewable energy is cheaper and cleaner.
New gas and oil projects are being fazed out internationally and further investment will be a waste of money that could have been spent on green energy for the future.
The money saved should be used by gas and oil companies to invested in green industries and to train workers for a future in these industries.

As indicated in the attached submission, we are strongly opposed to any new fossil fuel infrastructure. We believe the proposed power station is unnecessary, will cause significant health problems to nearby citizens, and will exacerbate the climate crisis.