Restart of Redbank Power Station

Why would anyone think it is a good idea to burn, on an industrial level,carbon storing timbers and thereby:
- Releasing previously removed carbon dioxide;
- Releasing other smoke related emissions;
- Encouraging and requiring the felling and clearing of forest and other woody growth; and
- Reduction of habitat for endangered species and biodiverse environments?

Others will have made submissions spelling these issues out in more detail.

I have children and grandchildren and I want them to have a planet they can live in, saved from global warming and its already evidenced extreme weather events and associated supply disruptions. I want them to have nations and communities not collapsing or fighting over resources as their environments degrade. Breakdown in society can happen quickly when disruption occurs and while the strong may survive, the less able vulnerable will suffer.

We already overly clear land and destroy habitat. It has been obvious for years that global warming will cause disruption and that our planet’s resources are finite. It has been clear that our human centred view that resources are there to be used up regardless of what is lost is unsustainable. Our Governments should have been putting transition plans to keep “our nest” clean and healthy but have actively worked against it. They do need to put transitions in place. This project is business as usual exploitation and not transitional, creating additional problems for the future and should not be approved.

Dear Sir/Madam,
Redbank’s plans to use so called biomass at its Hunter power station is an appalling idea.
It is simply bad policy for the following reasons:
This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;
The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN.Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;

There is so much wrong with this proposal
The number1 issue is to do with the source of the fuel
Native invasive species, or regrowth, is stored carbon. Burning it means it is not a carbon sink. This means Redbank would not be carbon neutral. Its would take decades to regrow, while the plant would be emitting CO2 from day one.
There is already a market for this regrowth. Farmers are supplying carbon credits, and being paid to leave it in place.
We are supposed to believe that Redbank can outbid the carbon traders for the trees, harvest and process the material, transport it from Cobar (using diesel, 56 B doubles a day), burn it and sell the electricity onto the market, in competition with existing and much larger and efficient coal fired power stations, and with much cheaper renewables running on free wind and solar fuel during the day, and grid scale batteries.
This woody regrowth of native species also serves as critical habitat for birds and animals, many of which are already hard pressed, and will be more so as the climate continues to warm
Redbank claims it will create 1009 jobs. If true the project will be accompanied by a massive wages bill. But it's not true, it's ridiculous, a number pulled out of the air.
Growing an African grass like Bana on mine sites is also a fanciful idea. Firstly I wonder have Local Lands Services been approached as to advisability of such a scheme. Mines will first need to get approval to modify their mine rehab plans already lodged with NSW Planning. The proponent has not stated which mines have conditionally signed up and started this regulatory process.
Bana grass grows up to 4m high. It is drought tolerant and grows on poor soils. I am a farmer and know that you cannot grow a crop without nutrients. Plants require nitrogen at least. It may grow well for a year or two but will eventually require fertiliser input. I can see no analysis of this cost.
Even Bana grass will dry out in a drought. The resulting fire hazard will be significant. Has modelling been done of this aspect and has RFS been notified
This is a project that requires an enormous footprint of 60000 hectares to grow and harvest the fuel, to run a 120Mw power station. Nearby, proposed the Bowman Creek Wind Farm will have a capacity of 450Mw.
There is no way that this is a viable project. The proponents need to answer some serious questions about the details, few of which have been provided in the EIS.

This proposed project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing, both of which are critically threatening our natural heritage, our native flora and fauna and their environment. In addition the EIS fail to adequately address the impacts or emissions of the project, it is not acceptable. Finally, biomass is not environmentally sound in any form.

I object to the proposed plan by Verdant to restart Redbank Power Station in the Hunter as a biomass power plant due to the following factors.

This project would create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing.

Approximately 1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in the first four years of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of national environmental significance requiring assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species.

The Environmental Impact Statement fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the lifetime of the project.

The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of this project.

The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross levels of emissions attributable to tree removal over the lifetime of this project.

Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not green. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery.

Over time the effects of land clearing through fragmentation and disturbance further degrades the condition and habitat of remaining flora and fauna.

I support the project

At a time when climate change effects are beyond serious, and the only prospect for reining those effects in to a less-than-catastrophic level is to capture Carbon in soil and vegetation, the prospect of burning wood waste at all for any purpose is laughable. Read the science. Act as if our future depends on it. Do not approve this project.

In November 2023 the NSW Government’ Official’ acknowledged in submission 189 to the inquiry into Development and climate Change ( link: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/submissions/82817/0189%20NSW%20Government.pdf)

That “ The impacts of climate change in NSW The climate of NSW is changing due to global warming. The effects of climate change on the people and environment of NSW are expected to become more pronounced as the climate continues to change over this century. Without substantial, concerted action, climate change poses a major threat to humanity and most living systems on earth. Extreme events such as floods, droughts, dangerous fire weather and heatwaves are projected to increase in duration, magnitude and frequency with greater impacts on communities and infrastructure. In NSW the mean temperature is about 1.4°C higher than in 1910, with 2018 and 2019 being the warmest years on record. Following this period of hotter temperatures the Black Summer fires peaked in December 2019–January 2020, causing widespread destruction of landscapes, property and infrastructure and prolonged poor air quality in Sydney and Canberra. Other observed changes include increased seasonal variability in rainfall and increases in some extreme weather events such as storms and intense low-pressure systems. In 2021 the state experienced extensive flooding that inflicted significant damage in a number of areas and in 2022 the state experienced further catastrophic flood events, with 9 people losing their lives. Events such as these have significant long-term impacts on communities and may become more frequent with climate change.”

In response this project goes against all the evidence and is in conflict with the NSW constitution section 5 “ peace, welfare and good government..”
The actions of vested interests and unconscionable lobbyists have undermined the public interest.

There are many grounds on which this should not proceed, including but not limited to the above an those detailed below:
*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.
*Land-clearing 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. This is deceitful!
*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. No doubt possibly libelous!
*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.

The economics of alternatives to this destructive practice are out there for the government to act on. As ‘ employees of the people’ we expect due diligence and politicians and government agencies to act in the public interest not vested interest.

The Australian Institute and many other organizations have extensive documentation on alternatives for both our economical sustainable development and ecological survival .

Here’s one project:

https://nb.australiainstitute.org.au/end_logging_in_nsw_native_forests?utm_campaign=nsw_logging_open_letter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=theausinstitute


The Minns minority government has before it a wealth of information. Some lobbying bias ( which they followed) and other professional and ethical which they should have followed in the public interest.
I request the heavy lifting to find alternatives be exercised with ‘due diligence’ . Links :
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/Pages/inquiryprofile/climate-change-net-zero-future-bill-2023.aspx#tab-submissions

This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;
The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;
The NSW Government has committed to reigning in excessive land clearing and acknowledges that the State’s environment laws fail to protect biodiversity, including our endangered Koalas and Greater Gliders. It is ludicrous to approve a project that depends on retaining, not fixing, weak clearing laws.

I support the project, clean energy for Australians.

This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;
The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;
The NSW Government has committed to reigning in excessive land clearing and acknowledges that the State’s environment laws fail to protect biodiversity, including our endangered Koalas and Greater Gliders. It is ludicrous to approve a project that depends on retaining, not fixing, weak clearing laws.

• This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
• 1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;
• The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
• The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
• Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
• Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;

The NSW Government has committed to reigning in excessive land clearing and acknowledges that the State’s environment laws fail to protect biodiversity, including our endangered Koalas and Greater Gliders. It is ludicrous to approve a project that depends on retaining, not fixing, weak clearing laws.

This objection is due to my fraustration with the ever increasing absurdity of such ill-conceived proposals which are supported by ill-founded and unproven science.

We are in climate and extinction emergencies and
need to urgently protect our forests and reduce our carbon emissions. Forests are worth more standing: for biodiversity, carbon storage and water catchment integrity.

Burning wood produces more CO2 than coal to produce an equivalent amount of electricity. Converting a coal fired power station to wood uses more fuel, generates more pollution, has widespread environmental impacts on forests, and involves tens of thousands of truck movements through rural towns and on local roads.
Air and water quality and healthy ecosystems will be forever destroyed if this proposal is approved. I view this DA as a sinister attempt to produce "clean" energy for which large companies gain "green energy" credit and feel good about themselves all the while in reality, they are destroying the planet. This proposal is just plain stoopid, burn the proposal instead of healthy trees which will be of far greater benefit to all.

This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;
The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;

10/04/2024
To the EIS body,
I Object to the proposal to use biomass to generate electricity at Redbank, before

Burning native forests for electricity is not green not clean and not Renewable for the trees’s themselves, that have kept the ecosystems in place for Eons.
Science shows us, respecting this is essential for the circle of life to continue mindfully, Not only for our native forests and native animals but for the survival of the human race as a whole, as our planet is warming, Because of actions like this, in the past, there is no excuses now we know, caring is the key, There are the choices that work with nature, For
Please consider this before making your decision.

Sincere regards,
Karen Henry.

We are in climate and extinction emergencies and need to urgently protect our forests and reduce our carbon emissions. Forests are worth more standing: for biodiversity, carbon storage and water catchment integrity.

Burning wood produces more CO2 than coal to produce an equivalent amount of electricity. Converting a coal fired power station to wood uses more fuel, generates more pollution, has widespread
consequences . We cannot allow this archaic method of energy production to continue.

nsw need new energy project

It is ludicrous to use forest timber to produce power when we have so many renewable alternatives to choose from.
Decimating our forests is tantamount to criminality.

Dear Madam/Sir,

I hereby lodge my submission to the New South Wales Planning Department on Verdant Earth Technologies’ proposal to re-open the Redbank Power Station near Singleton, New South Wales.

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 project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing.

1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood are anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1 - 4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for it’s impacts on federally listed threatened species.

The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project.

The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The New South Wales Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project.

Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery.

Over time, the effects of land clearing, through fragmentation and disturbance, further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation.

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.

The proposal requires 850,000 tonnes of biomass required each year, requiring a major increase in the rate of land clearing, in regions where there are threatened plants and animals and plant communities that require increased protection and the conservation reserve status in these regions are some of the lowest in Australia. It is not ecologically sustainable to approve this project. Solar and wind as alternative power sources must be considered, rather than just comparing the proposal to coal.