Restart of Redbank Power Station

I am concerned that this project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing due to the weak land clearing laws with about 1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood which 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. Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation. Many species of flora and fauna will not survive this clearing.

The NSW Government is supposed to have 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.

Dear Sir/Madam
RE: OBJECTION - RESTART OF REDBANK POWER STATION - SSD-56284960
Please see the attached submission from No More Incinerators Inc
Yours sincerely
Chris Hanson
No More Incinerators Inc

I have just toured down the west coast of far north Western Australia and swam with the largest fish on the planet "Whale Shark" - Ningaloo Reef is a World Heritage Area but more importantly it is a nursery for many sea creatures and it is currently protected but it took along time to get everybody on board and the surrounding areas are not as protected as what they need to be - whilst swimming out there you realise how small we are yet how much destructive power we have - to not object to this proposal is me not giving a fuck about the environment and just allowing another area to be decimated for what - the proposal has been knocked back already so stuff the loop holes - close the idea down - shut down the unrealistic idea and generate more compatibility with the wildlife of this magnificient country stop raping the land and the homes that do not have a voice - enough already - change the agendas and make the country safe for all creatures that call this part of a very small planet home - we only have one !!!! But we have a responsibility to share and look after those that do not have a human voice

The proponents claim that 70% of the fuel for the power station would be "purpose-grown biomass within managed plantations." (p12/51 of Life Cycle Assessment). This is patently unrealistic - there is no such industry of sufficient scale in NSW at present. It is inevitable that much of the fuel would come from old-growth forestry operations (thereby further subsidising a destructive and economically unsustainable industry) and from both unauthorised and so-called "permitted" land clearing. It will result in further habitat loss for all species and will be a net carbon emitter, since it will subsidies the destruction of biomass that would otherwise be undisturbed. It is not essential for security of electricity supply: there are and will be many alternatives, including better management of demand. I strongly oppose the proposal.

The proposed Redbank Power Station Restart would require large amounts of timber over an extended time.
NSW is already suffering a serious native forest biodiversity loss. Habitat is already being lost for gliders, possums, koalas, birds and plants. The broadscale forest clearing required for this project will make this loss even more serious.
The required logging also converts many tons of timber into many tons of carbon dioxide, exacerbating our contribution to global warming.
There is no real justification for this project while we are in a major period of transition to renewable energy use. It seems to simply be an opportunistic grab for community resources, at a significant cost to our environment and our economy.
I have spent considerable personal resources to add solar panels and storage battery to my home and to modify my property and behaviour to assist the transition to renewables. I would be very disappointed if the NSW Government undermined my efforts (and the efforts of many other NSW residents and voters) by approving this Restart proposal.

I'm a former NSW resident and frequent visitor. I care about the world as a whole and NSW in particualr. Please don't allow Redbank Power Station to restart.
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.
Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation.
I spend much of my time on a revegetation project so its heart breaking to see native vegetation being destroyed.

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.

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 Redbank Power Station should not be restarted.

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;

-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.

I object to the restarting of the Redbank Power station for the following reasons.
The forests of Eastern NSW are part of the worlds 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 logging are not in the public interest - they do not have social licence. Land clearing has rapidly escalated over the past decade, making NSW part of one of the worlds 24 deforestation fronts!
Creating a market for large volumes of biomass will provide an economic incentive to clear land that otherwise would not be cleared. This must not be allowed to happen.
Land & forest clearing needs to stop, not expand.
We need to reduce our emissions of CO2, not dramatically increase them as intended by this proposal.
The use of solar & wind as alternatives need to be considered instead of this proposal.
Refuse this proposal please.
Yours sincerely,
Jack Shick

The Federal Govt has already made the burning of biomass illegal as it is not considered a renewable energy product, so why are we now revisiting this?

This goes totally against any sensible principles. It destroys native forest and adds to global heating. No government in its right mind would approve this project. It is surprising that the proponent has the chutzpah to try it on.

To Whom It May Concern,
Having traveled the country, attending many events & understanding the push for energy transition, I feel this project ticks the key boxes:
- Diversity from the usual generation methods such as wind, solar, pumped hydro, coal fired, gas fired.
- 24/7 operation, to meet increasing load demands.
- Will assist in 80% renewable energy by 2030 - every bit helps!
- Use of invasive tree species as it's fuel source, otherwise destroyed & wasted.
- Most infrastructure in place; the plant is in good order, so it can be quick & easy to implement generation onto the grid.
- Personnel in charge know the plant like the back of their hands, to prevent unforeseen issues, notably environmental.
Only negative I see is the transportations of Biomass from western NSW with the additional truck movements.
Happy to answer any questions.
Regards, Malcolm Rumbel
Associate Diploma of Electrical Engineering, Health Coach, Renewable Energy Advocate & Planet Saver

I strongly endorse the Verdant Energy Project, recognizing its innovative approach to addressing both energy needs and environmental concerns. By sourcing biomass fuels from approved land clearing operations and invasive species control, Verdant is not only providing a sustainable alternative to traditional power sources but also actively contributing to habitat restoration efforts. Their commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the use of waste wood residues and their meticulous planning for stormwater management highlight their dedication to environmental stewardship.
Furthermore, the project's comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement, which includes assessments of air quality, noise, and human health risks, demonstrates Verdant's commitment to transparency and accountability. Their proactive measures to mitigate potential impacts on air quality and noise levels, coupled with their adherence to strict regulatory standards, set a commendable example for responsible energy development.
Verdant's vision for the future, characterized by the integration of renewable energy sources and sustainable practices, represents a paradigm shift in the energy sector. By leveraging existing infrastructure and forging partnerships with suppliers that share their values, Verdant exemplifies forward-thinking leadership in the transition towards a greener economy.
In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support the Verdant Energy Project and encourage others to join me in endorsing this transformative initiative. It represents a promising model for advancing sustainability, demonstrating how environmental protection and energy production can be effectively integrated.

Since arriving in NSW in the 18C we have cleared and degraded most of the forests that had been managed and sustained since time before memory.
To approve yet more exploitation of our native forests is shortsighted and foolish; let those who want forest to exploit find suitable land which has already been degraded and plant their "crop" for harvest later.
Yours for a long future,
Ian

I strongly object to the burning of native vegetation to produce power. This will increase carbon emission production and significantly contribute to the ongoing destruction on native vegetation.
I am opposed to laws which allow landholders to self-assess the ecological value of land they wish to clear, and then approve its destruction.
I am opposed to laws which allow landowners to deem native habitat “invasive native species” and then clear it without oversight.
provide a range of allowances to clear habitat that is known to be of ecological importance, including koala habitat, hollow-bearing trees, and wildlife corridors
I support an increase in penalties for illegal clearing and invest more finding in compliance.

The proposal is to use cleared habitat and forest biomass from land that has been stripped for farming is not conserving carbon at all, This should be composted instead (at the expense of the land-clearers) and returned to the land. Biomass has negative health impacts locally when burned and globally with the CO2 produced.
This is a silly idea.

Hi,

I am a 41 year old Engineer who is constantly dissapointed by the NSW governments willingness to clear land for the profits and advantage of a few businesses with little consideration for the environment, and other citizens.

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 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.

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.

Please don't allow this backwards project to go ahead.
Regards, Matt

Find attached a submission from the North Coast Environment Council.