Restart of Redbank Power Station

I support the Biomass, BioEnergy, Biomaterials sector and agree that the re use of this facility would be a bonus to the community and local businesses.
Ample evidence of surplus Biomass (that is not Native) is available, incl from Govt own agencies.

I thoroughly support this project. The longer we bury our heads in the sand and think wind and solar energy is going to save the world, the further behind the eight ball we are to maintaining a stable energy grid once coal is finished.
Not a sod of soil has been turned to replace the energy that was lost from the grid when Liddell closed down. With a few modifications, Redbank has the infrastructure ready to go.
I work in a coal fired power station and the stability of the power grid with frequency fluctuations from solar and wind are becoming quite large, we need as much spinning reserve connected to the grid as possible to combat these frequency fluctuations and keep the grid stable for everyone.

I fully support this restart. Redbank is a great site for biomass. Don’t waste an asset with this capability!

Most consider it imperative to reduce nett carbon dioxide emissions. In order to stabilise the global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, the aggregate carbon dioxide sinks must be capable of absorbing as much or more carbon dioxide than is being emitted.
In moving toward a world that operates according to strict carbon budgeting, projects where the inputs and outputs can demonstrate nett zero carbon dioxide emissions will be fundamental to our collective well being.
Clearly a preference will exist for the expanded use of renewables such as wind and solar. However, biomass will continue to accumulate (grow) and this must also be carefully managed to produce a range of biogenic products (such as reductants, chars, etc) that may also include energy generation.
In a world where the emphasis will increasingly focus on nett zero at a project, regional and international level, carefully managed and auditable projects such as the restart of the Redbank Power Station are considered crucial.
I would hope the consent conditions would be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure the claims around nett zero can be verified to gain the maximum social good from the project.
Many agricultural scientists (including those in NSW) are turning their attention to examining which botanic species provide the most rapid uptake of carbon dioxide. This is important work as identifying those species that can provide maximum benefit to the atmosphere is vitally important. The question then becomes how do we appropriately manage these plantations to maximise atmospheric carbon dioxide extraction. Appropriately managed projects such as the Redbank Power Station restart will be important to the management of these biomass plantations into the future.
I would implore the NSW consent authorities to take a considered view regarding the potential medium to long term benefits of endeavours such as Verdant Earth Technologies current Redbank Power Station project. There may be short term populist benefit in being tough on business, cracking down on all carbon dioxide emissions, etc. However, if we are to collectively navigate through the current climate crisis, I would suggest short term opportunism as being the most sure path to ultimate failure.

I object to the Restarting of Redbank Power Station as I find the promotion of the notion the project will be of environmental benefit unconvincing.
It seems highly improbable that trees wasted by infrastructure, chipped and B-doubled to Redbank from as far as 300Km to be burnt can be truly sustainable or economic.
Similarly, growing 60,000Ha of energy crop within a 300k radius of Redbank, as the Table in Appendix V suggests, appears unrealistic. That the suggested energy crop, Bana Grass, is not mentioned in the Bushfire Assessment, Appendix V looks to be a serious oversight. Claims of this grass growing quickly to 4m height is would be a concern to anyone living near such a crop in a hot dry summer.
I am concerned "biomass with no higher order uses arising from invasive native species control on agricultural land" might see landowners selling their regrowth for no other purpose than to cash it in.
Also "Other sources of eligible waste fuels with no higher order uses" rings alarm bells.

I support the restarting of Redbank Power Station to utilise residual biomass that is currently being burnt or landfilled in Australia, driving GHG emissions. This includes residues from sustainable forestry, invasive weed management and agricultural crop residues. Also, these residues can be carbonised to increase the calorific value using pyrolysis technology and then burnt to create electricity to the grid. In my opinion, this feedstock is a renewable carbon source that should be recognised as a critical material by our government.

We need to STOP destroying native forest.
The clearing of natural habitat on public and private lands should not be allowed without a full investigation.

I would like to post my support for this project for the following reasons:
- I think that while coal fired power stations should be reduced, I'm worried about not having enough renewable power generated in NSW to run the populations power requirements including electric cars
- We need a number of solutions in renewables, and the Redbank Power Station appears to be a viable option if they use surplus wood which would otherwise rot of be buried. In addition I believe they are proposing additional renewable sources such as wind and solar.
- The power station will provide numerous jobs for the local community. In country areas, and areas with young families it is important to have an oppportunity for local skilled labour to work
- In all honesty this appears a great project which should be fast tracked into production.

• We’re in a climate crisis, and we must de-carbonise 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.
• NSW is a biodiversity hotspot, which means we’re in a biodiversity crisis. The main reason is accelerated land clearing, which is so poorly regulated that most of the flood of ‘unexplained’ clearings hasn’t been investigated. This project will further accelerate land clearing 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.
• Investment in this project (whether public or private) 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. Doing what?
• There are serious air quality issues with burning biomass for electricity. Air pollutants include particulates, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur 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.
• And then there is ‘construction waste’ and who knows what ends up in that!
• All the biomass needs to be trucked hundreds of kilometres in B-double trucks. At least 56 arriving (and leaving) every day.
• It’s not clean, it’s not green and it’s not renewable!

I support the proposal for the following reasons:
• The restart of the Redbank Power Station using sustainable biomass fuel will help increase the production of green baseload electricity in NSW;
• The proposal will be the first power station in the Hunter Valley to produce green electricity and completely move away from coal, which should be supported;
• The proposal will help to drive down emissions from the electricity generation sector and help achieve the NSW and Australian Government's target of net zero emissions by 2050;
• The proposal will result in minimal environmental impacts to local communities;
• The production of local fuel crops, by growing them on formerly mined land will help restore and bring these sites into productive use, with environmental and economic benefits;
• The proposal will create 471 direct jobs for the Hunter region community, being critically important as coal mining in the region declines as the Australian economy transitions to net zero emissions.

This project can in a very short time, with relatively low capital and lead time requirement, deliver ~1,000,000MWhr of renewable firming power to the state, with no transmission infrastructure requirements, and it should be approved immediately.

See attachment.

Please advise receipt of submission

Availability of low-emissions power from Redbank, re-fuelled with sustainably harvested waste biomass, would be helpful to NSW and the wider National Electricity Market. The most recent AEMO Electricity Statement of Opportunities makes clear that there is a risk of electricity reliability standards being breached when existing coal fired electricity generation closes, unless an adequate set of new resources is made available. This transition is necessary and will be easier to manage with more firm generation assets available.

Every potential option involves risks and tradeoffs; but a biomass-fuelled Redbank would be lower-emissions than extended coal or new gas generation (both under consideration), and can be available faster than the pumped hydro projects underway or contemplated. The proposed use of waste biomass from approved land clearing and road maintenance, and some level of plantation biomass, seems unlikely to create new environmental concerns. Competition for available biomass may be significant in the longer term given decarbonisation pressures elsewhere in the economy, but that is not an issue the planning process is well placed to address.

Verdant’s investment in re-commissioning and ongoing operation of thermal power generation assets in the Hunter Region should also support retention of critical engineering jobs and skills, as the region transitions away from coal fired electricity generation.

This project will provide great benefits to businesses of all sizes in the local region. I manage a medium sized service business (~ 15 FT staff) that was assisting Redbank Power Station with their water treatment and chemical requirements when they closed in 2013. I believe that there are many businesses like ours which could benefit greatly with the re-opening of the power station and long term "Green" jobs it would provide.

I fully support the project to re-commission Redbank Power station using biomass fuels. I think it will provide sustainable 24/7 power with near net 0% CO2 emissions and many benefits for the local communities.

The proposed Redbank project will ultimately cause the destruction of more species of plants and animals in N.S.W. It is 2024 and with the election of the Minns government i thought the terrible record of the destruction of our unique flora and fauna may change. The Redbank proposal will cause extinction of more species of plants and animals in N.S.W. The Federal list of threatened species grows by the day. And this project will only contribute too this. This project will not contribute to N.S.W, it is just another example of the total disregard your government has for the natural environment. The Biodiversity act 1993 has been watered down too such a point its not worth the paper it is written on.And why does logging continue in N.S.W, when the other progressive states have banned it ? The minns government thinks it can side step all planning law, by pretending that projects like list are of state significance
. That sounds like a dictatorship not a democracy. The people of nsw deserve better .

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.

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.

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

The restart of Redbank Power Station using sustainable biomass fuel will help increase the production green base-load electricity.
This proposal will be the first power station in the Hunter Valley to produce green electricity and provide employment for regional NSW. Additionally provide 'green conscious individuals'with another option of electricity, which I think may help with the competitive pricing in the power network.
The proposed station will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and produce highly skilled workforce in the green industry.
The restart of Redbank will provide a steady income for regional NSW, I also envisage the proposal will assist with the noxious weeds in western NSW and will allow the land to become more productive.

I support the project