Restart of Redbank Power Station

I am opposed to burning trees for Biomass, this is a very poor way to produce energy.
We in this country have abundant sources for renewal energy and burning trees is not a good source and it is certainly NOT GREEN or CLEAN.
Land clearing of trees has been rampant in this state and to allow more trees to be felled and used to burn for Biomass is one of the most irresponsible actions and I cannot believe it will be allowed to happen.
Please strengthen the loopholes that allows this company to even think of using trees for power.
Thank you
Sally Wilson
Ettalong Beach, NSW

I work in the tree industry and have seen the destruction caused by clearing forests for bio fuels. It is said that it is only from timber that is being cleared anyway but in reality it further promotes the speed and excessive clearing of land and contractors are actively seeking land to clear. We need to do all we can to leave carbon trapped in forests and preserve habitat.
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;

I highly object to this project.
According to an email sent out: "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;"

- 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 restart of Redbank Power Station will create incentives for clearing of significant volume of wood lying in areas where, left undisturbed, this wood provides much-needed habitat for wildlife and generates much needed biodiversity. This proposed clearing of wood in high volume creates a matter of National Environmental Significance which requires assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species.
The impacts of land clearing are insidious; over time, the effects of habitat fragmentation and disturbance degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation.
I object to the restart of Redbank Power Station.

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.
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.
Kind regards
Shirley Foster
Concerned Citizen

Verdant's proposal to use biomass to generate electricity is gob-smacking in the extreme and I strongly object to it. What absolute nonsense, to propose releasing 1.3 million tonnes of CO2 at this stage of global heating. The double whammy is the emissions that will be generated by by the thousands of hectares of cleared land, and the resulting debris. Not to mention the consequent intensification of the biodiversity crisis that is already well underway, to our shame .
Please do the right thing and vote this proposal down. Do the right thing for yourself, your children, your grandchildren, and their children. Also for the millions of souls around the world who don't have aircon, who are defenceless against climate change, and who will die, and are dying, as temperatures and sea levels rise.
Thank you. Virginia White.

This project will generate significant wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
1.48 million dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume of timber is unsustainable. Its harvest makes it a matter of National Environmental Significance and requires assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on Federally listed threatened species;
The EIS fails to identify specific areas and species to be cleared, nor does it reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
The EIS also fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW and Federal Governments have obligations to analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing and other emission producing activities generated over the life 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 degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation and bioregions;
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. Given this undertaking it is ludicrous to approve a project that depends on retaining, not fixing, weak clearing laws.

There is no place for any more destruction of forests for any purpose whatsoever.
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;
I have little faith in the quality of assessments of what creatures are present. I have heard too often that assessments are done by examination of maps rather than ground truthing, and also that they are done briefly, not comprehensively and even at the wrong season of the year to encounter some animals that migrate or hibernate for example.
The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared ;
The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that will take place and which will increase level of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
Biomass burning is not clean or green. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal.
Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery; and the effects of land clearing such as fragmentation and disturbance of the soil will further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation; and will further damage the recovery of iconic endangered species such as greater gliders and koalas.

Are you mad? to even be considering biomass from standing native forests as fuel for energy production when there are significant and viable options available in Australia. Temperatures and CO2 levels are rising as predicted by Climate Change experts, and you think putting more CO2 into the atmosphere by cutting down trees, and then more by the emissions produced when they are burned to produce electricity is not going to have an effect on the health of the planet? We need more alive and actively growing trees to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.
I have a concern for the health of this and future generations, and so will object to large projects that pollute the air we and they are/will be breathing.
Australian Land clearing and deforestation should by now be a criminal offence.

I object this project for the following reasons.
1.) This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing.
2.) 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.
3.) 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.
4.) 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.
5.) 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.
6.) Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation.
7.) 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

Rather than identify specific sections of various codes and statutes, I object in a more pragmatic framework.
Principally, how can any proposal that involves the destruction of any carbon based fuel source by incineration be judged a net reduction to global warming?
the objectives of the NSW government must not be in contrast to the essential requirement that carbon must be captured and retained - not released. On this basis alone the application is illogical to the global requirements.
the use of "offsets" should have no place when considering environmental impacts. For example " to consume recourse x, we will plant 10 trees" where is the fundamental reduction in the net effect on the environment as opposed to a mere mathematical equation that can be presented by any chosen academic in support of a given proposition .
For example "water rights" - the extraction of water from ANY natural source, based on some form of offset is also illogical. If you remove water , you remove water - full stop.
Possibly the most insidious aspect of the proposal is the "biomass" itself. References to burning weeds, for example, is appalling. Growing "crops" to burn to produce electricity? how about growing crops for something called food instead?
I pray that my beliefs are acknowledged by the decision makers and the proposal is refused.
Finally, I appreciate that I have not addressed any specific environmental law directly, however any legislation that does not consider a value (eg fiscal, societal, environmental) on raw material inputs (eg water, soil, plants, air) is flawed and lastly, I have no vested interest any outcomes, as after nearly 70 years on the planet, I am unlikely to suffer too many consequences of the outcome of this application.

To whom it may concern, I am writing to strongly object to this proposal based on the following points:
• 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.
Sincerely
Sandy Cameron

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.
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;
The 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.

I support the restart of the Redbank Power Station ("RPS") for numerous reasons including the following:
1. The RPS will be beneficial to the state and people of NSW.
2. The RPS will create jobs in the local area and contribute to the NSW economy.
3. The RPS will provide additional renewable electricity which is not subject to weather conditions.
4. The RPS will provide green power to many homes.

I would like to register my objection to the proposed restarting the Redbank Power Station by Verdant Earth Technologies (VET), using a biomass feed, for the following reasons:

• VET has failed to appreciate that Australia is currently experiencing a climate emergency that can only be avoided by the complete de-carbonisation of Australia’s energy generation methods.
• VET incorrectly claims that because trees sequester carbon when they grow, burning them is ‘net zero’. However burning green wood chips emits 50% more CO2 per megawatt hour of energy produced than burning coal. The proposal is to use biomass from land that has been cleared, not in forests that are going to regrow.
• The amount of biomass needed to power a power plant is massive – 850 000 tonnes is more woodchips that the entire native forest logging industry produced in NSW. The negative impacts on nature will be massive, with thousands of hectares of native forests and bush being cleared.

The decision on this application should go to the Independent Planning Commission , rather than being rubber stamped by the Minister or a delegated staffer.

See attached document

Dear Madam/Sir,
I am writing to strongly object to the NSW Government's unconscionable proposal to reopen Redbank Power Station to burn biomass.
It confounds me that a Government which acknowledges that we are in a climate crisis and professes to be committed to reducing CO2 emissions and to protecting wildlife habitat, could entertain such an idea . The proposal is a recipe for increasing land clearing and wildlife habitat destruction. The burning of biomass emits more greenhouse gases than coal!
This proposal may have been thought to be a good idea two centuries ago, but it is not now. We are in the renewables age!
I urge the Government to "get real" and to rapidly ditch this crazy idea.

Yours sincerely
Ian Higgins

Hi there
I’m fully against this proposal it’s reckless and will impact the wildlife and people.
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.
Why are the laws sooo incredibly weak when it comes to the government making these crazy decisions.
It’s time you all made some enormous moves towards fixing our climate instead of constantly killing it.
Why are you willing to just kill our wildlife for the sake of profit.
If you don’t want your grandchildren dying of serious lung complications and have no water to drink that isn’t full of salinity.
Then just think before you make environmental decisions that affect the wider population and wildlife.
Without wildlife there is no us .
Thank you
Diane Reeves

This proposal should be refused for the following reasons.

· 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.

I object to this proposal and I urge you to refuse it once and for all.

Yours sincerely,
Cindy Charlton Shick