DOCSLIB.ORG

Conceptual Modelling for the Hunter Subregion Product 2.3 for the Hunter Subregion from the Northern Sydney Basin Bioregional Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conceptual Modelling for the Hunter Subregion Product 2.3 for the Hunter Subregion from the Northern Sydney Basin Bioregional Assessment Conceptual modelling for the Hunter subregion Product 2.3 for the Hunter subregion from the Northern Sydney Basin Bioregional Assessment 2018 A scientific collaboration between the Department of the Environment and Energy, Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO and Geoscience Australia The Bioregional Assessment Programme The Bioregional Assessment Programme is a transparent and accessible programme of baseline assessments that increase the available science for decision making associated with coal seam gas and large coal mines. A bioregional assessment is a scientific analysis of the ecology, hydrology, geology and hydrogeology of a bioregion with explicit assessment of the potential impacts of coal seam gas and large coal mining development on water resources. This Programme draws on the best available scientific information and knowledge from many sources, including government, industry and regional communities, to produce bioregional assessments that are independent, scientifically robust, and relevant and meaningful at a regional scale. The Programme is funded by the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy. The Department of the Environment and Energy, Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO and Geoscience Australia are collaborating to undertake bioregional assessments. For more information, visit http://www.bioregionalassessments.gov.au. Department of the Environment and Energy The Office of Water Science, within the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, is strengthening the regulation of coal seam gas and large coal mining development by ensuring that future decisions are informed by substantially improved science and independent expert advice about the potential water related impacts of those developments. For more information, visit https://www.environment.gov.au/water/coal-and-coal-seam-gas/office-of-water-science. Bureau of Meteorology The Bureau of Meteorology is Australia’s national weather, climate and water agency. Under the Water Act 2007, the Bureau is responsible for compiling and disseminating Australia's water information. The Bureau is committed to increasing access to water information to support informed decision making about the management of water resources. For more information, visit http://www.bom.gov.au/water/. CSIRO Australia is founding its future on science and innovation. Its national science agency, CSIRO, is a powerhouse of ideas, technologies and skills for building prosperity, growth, health and sustainability. It serves governments, industries, business and communities across the nation. For more information, visit http://www.csiro.au. Geoscience Australia Geoscience Australia is Australia’s national geoscience agency and exists to apply geoscience to Australia’s most important challenges. Geoscience Australia provides geoscientific advice and information to the Australian Government to support current priorities. These include contributing to responsible resource development; cleaner and low emission energy technologies; community safety; and improving marine planning and protection. The outcome of Geoscience Australia’s work is an enhanced potential for the Australian community to obtain economic, social and environmental benefits through the application of first class research and information. For more information, visit http://www.ga.gov.au. ISBN-PDF 978-1-925315-54-7 Citation Dawes WR, Herron NF, Macfarlane C, Rachakonda PK, Henderson BL, Ford JH, Wilkes PG, Marvanek SP and Ramage A (2018) Conceptual modelling for the Hunter subregion. Product 2.3 for the Hunter subregion from the Northern Sydney Basin Bioregional Assessment. Department of the Environment and Energy, Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO and Geoscience Australia, Australia. http://data.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/product/NSB/HUN/2.3. Authorship is listed in relative order of contribution. Copyright © Commonwealth of Australia 2018 With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms and where otherwise noted, all material in this publication is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The Bioregional Assessment Programme requests attribution as ‘© Commonwealth of Australia (Bioregional Assessment Programme http://www.bioregionalassessments.gov.au)’. Disclaimer The information contained in this report is based on the best available information at the time of publication. The reader is advised that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. Therefore decisions should not be made based solely on this information or without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. The Bioregional Assessment Programme is committed to providing web accessible content wherever possible. If you are having difficulties with accessing this document please contact [email protected]. Cover photograph Oblique view west of Muswellbrook showing Bengalla coal storage (left foreground) with irrigated agriculture and riparian vegetation either side of the Hunter River and Mount Arthur coal mine in the distance (right background), NSW, 2014 © Google earth (2015), Sinclair Knight Merz Imagery date 16 December 2008. Position 32°17’58’’ S, 150°48’51’’ E, elevation 136 m, eye altitude 1.59 km v20180302 Executive summary Conceptual models are abstractions or simplifications of reality. During development of conceptual models, the essence of how the key system components operate and interact is distilled. In the bioregional assessments (BA), conceptual models are developed to describe the causal pathways, the logical chain of events ‒ either planned or unplanned ‒ that link coal resource development and potential impacts on water resources and water-dependent assets. Methods This product details the conceptual model of causal pathways for the Hunter subregion, following the methods described in the companion submethodology M05 (as listed in Table 1) for developing a conceptual model of causal pathways. It identifies the: key system components, processes and interactions, which essentially define pathways over and through which water can move (Section 2.3.2) ecosystems in the Hunter subregion in terms of landscape classes and their dependence on water (Section 2.3.3) baseline and coal resource development pathway (CRDP) (Section 2.3.4) causal pathways from coal resource developments using an Impact Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) hazard analysis approach (Section 2.3.5). Summary of key system components, processes and interactions The Hunter subregion is a little over 17,000 km2, and contains portions of the Western, Hunter and Newcastle coalfields. The subregion is not considered to have any groundwater connections with areas to the north-east due to the geological basin divides that define its boundary, although the Hunter river basin extends north-east of the subregion boundary. Surface water catchments define the subregion boundary to the south and west of the subregion, but regional-scale groundwater connections with the Sydney Basin and Northern Inland Catchments bioregions may exist where suitable gradients and conductive aquifers exist. Although cross-boundary flows are not expected to be significant to the water balance of the Hunter subregion, suitable margins and boundary conditions are required in numerical modelling to minimise possible edge effects. Regional groundwater systems extend east of the coastline, which defines the eastern boundary. The surface water catchment of the Hunter subregion contains rivers that flow into the Hunter river basin and Macquarie-Tuggerah lakes basin. Salinity of the Hunter River has been a significant issue; however, since the introduction of the Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme (HRSTS), this has improved considerably. The Hunter River lies within an extensive alluvial aquifer, which has exchanges with the river as both a source and sink, and with the underlying fractured rocks where permeable pathways exist. Under HRSTS rules, industries may release saline water to the river under high-flow conditions as long as this does not elevate river salinity above target levels. The use of dam releases and the HRSTS have tended to reduce some of the variability in river flow and stage in the regulated reaches of the river. Conceptual modelling for the Hunter subregion | i Ecosystems The landscape classification describes the main ecological and human systems (including agricultural production systems, industrial and urban uses), and provides a high-level conceptualisation of the subregion at the surface. Most assets are related to one or more landscape classes, which are defined for BA purposes as ecosystems with characteristics that are expected to respond similarly to changes in the groundwater and/or surface water due to coal resource development. The Assessment team refined the landscape classification and high-level conceptualisation of the subregion following discussions at the ‘Conceptual modelling of causal pathways’ workshop held in August 2015. The landscape classes were grouped into five broad landscape groups, defined to reflect different connections to surface water and groundwater systems: ‘Riverine’ ‘GDE’ ‘Estuaries and coastal lakes’ ‘Non-GDE vegetation’ ‘Economic land use’. These landscape groups are expressed as a percentage of the preliminary assessment extent (PAE) area, which in the Hunter subregion coincides with the subregion boundary. Of the approximately 17,000 km2 of the Hunter PAE,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Upper Hunter Economic Diversification Project
    Upper Hunter Economic Diversification Project Report 3 of 3: Strategy Report Buchan Consulting June 2011 This project is supported by: Trade & Investment Office of Environment & Heritage Department of Premier & Cabinet Final Report Table of Contents Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 A. Regional Economy........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 B. Major Issues.................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 C. A Diversification Strategy.............................................................................................................................................................. 8 D. Opportunities .............................................................................................................................................................................. 10 E. Implementation ..........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Issues Within Australia's Electricity Industry
    Greenhouse Gas Issues Within Australia’s Electricity Industry by: Richard Cumpston & Andrew Burge ã 2003 The Institute of Actuaries of Australia This paper has been prepared for issue to, and discussion by, Members of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia. The Council wishes it to be understood that opinions put forward herein are not necessarily those of the Institute and the Council is not responsible for those opinions. Level 7 Challis House 4 Martin Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Tel: (02) 9233 3466 Fax: (02) 9233 3446 Email: [email protected] Web site: www.actuaries.asn.au Greenhouse Gas Issues within Australia's Electricity Industry Richard Cumpston, MEngSci, MAdmin, FIA, FIAA & Andrew Burge, BSc(Hons),FIAA Richard Cumpston is a director of Cumpston Sarjeant Truslove Pty Ltd, consulting actuaries, Melbourne, and Andrew Burge is a senior market analyst at Tarong Energy Corporation, Brisbane. The Commonwealth government is developing a strategic plan for Australia's long term energy policy. This paper was written as background for an IAA submission to the government. It discusses: · How Australia’s demand for electricity is met now (83% from coal) · Capital and running costs of power generation · Greenhouse gas emission intensities · Current emission levels (96% from coal) · Commonwealth and state emission abatement measures · Expected increases in electricity demand (75% from 2000 to 2020) · Projected emission increases if increases are met by black coal (65% to 2020) · Emission increases using best current technology (28% to 2020) · The emissions trading regime recommended by the recent COAG review of the national energy market. Index 1. SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a Comprehensive Decision Making Framework for Power Projects in New South Wales (NSW)
    Development of a Comprehensive Decision Making Framework for Power Projects in New South Wales (NSW) AYSE TOPAL A dissertation submitted to the University of Technology, Sydney in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Engineering) Energy Planning and Policy Centre Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology University of Technology, Sydney 2014 Certificate of Authorship I certify that the work in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a degree, nor has it been submitted as part of the requirements for a degree, except as fully acknowledged within the text. I also certify that the thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in my research work and the preparation of the thesis itself has been acknowledged. In addition, I certify that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the thesis. Signature of Candidate ___________________________ i Acknowledgements There are a number of people I would like to express my sincerest gratitude, who have supported me during my Ph.D. course. Firstly, I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor Prof. Deepak Sharma for his support, guidance and encouragement during the entire time of my PhD. His assistance during the entire time has provided me with an invaluable opportunity to finish my PhD course. I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. Ravindra Bagia, my co-supervisor, for providing guidance during my study. I would like to thank Dr Tripadri Prasad, for their guidance that helped to improve this study. I would like to give my special thanks to the Ministry of Education (MOE) from Turkey, where I received scholarship for my study.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Regional Development and Innovation
    Sustainable Regional Development and Innovation Karel Grezl BMet (Hons 1), ME, LLB Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2007 I hereby certify that the work embodied in this thesis is the result of original research and has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other University or Institution. (Signed): ……………………………………… Table of Contents Page Abstract 4 1.0 Introduction 6 2.0 Literature Reviews 7 2.1 Sustainable regional development 7 2.2 Sustainability and sustainable development 16 2.3 Regions and regional development 29 2.4 Innovation 51 2.5 Literature reviews reveal conceptual inadequacies 62 2.6 Rationale for use and selection of regional case studies 63 3.0 Regional Case Studies 65 3.1 Italy’s regions 66 3.2 The UK’s regions 90 3.3 The Nelson Region of New Zealand 122 3.4 The Hunter Region of New South Wales, Australia 149 3.5 Synthesis 169 4.0 Discussion 175 4.1 Proving the thesis - not possible with current understanding 175 4.1.1 Breaking through: normative treatment of sustainability plus The Innovation Opportunity 176 4.1.1.1 Sustainable regional development explored 177 4.1.1.1.1 The chasm between ideals and metrics 178 4.1.1.1.2 The dilemma of regional boundaries 188 4.1.1.1.3 Informal economies usually ignored 193 4.1.1.1.4 Sustainable regional development explained 196 4.1.1.1.5 Rationale for inquiring further into innovation 197 4.1.1.2 Innovation revisited 198 4.1.1.2.1 Creativity acknowledged but necessarily ignored 198 4.1.1.2.2 Innovation mechanism mostly unknown 198 4.1.1.2.3 Philosophical
    [Show full text]
  • WARKWORTH COAL MINE WEST PIT EXTENSION MODIFICATION (DA 300-9-2002-I MOD 6)
    WARKWORTH COAL MINE WEST PIT EXTENSION MODIFICATION (DA 300-9-2002-i MOD 6) 1 BACKGROUND Warkworth Coal Mine Warkworth Mining Limited (Warkworth) operates the Warkworth Coal Mine, an existing open cut mine located approximately 9 kilometres southwest of Singleton in the Hunter Valley (see Figure 1). The mine has been operating for over 30 years, with operations commencing in April 1981. Figure 1: Location of Mount Thorley-Warkworth Mine Complex 1 Although they are in different ownership, since 2004, the Warkworth mine and adjacent Mount Thorley mine have been managed as a single integrated mining complex, known as Mount Thorley Warkworth (MTW). Under these arrangements, the mines share employees and surface infrastructure - and are now connected by a series of haul roads (with bridges over Putty Road) and pipelines. They also have highly inter-dependent mining operations with coal, overburden, tailings, and water being moved between the two mines. However, the two mines operate under separate development consents, with the Warkworth mine currently operating under a Ministerial consent granted on 19 May 2003 (DA 300-9-2002). The 2003 consent has since been modified on 5 occasions, including: • MOD 1 – approved on 19 October 2004, involving minor infrastructure changes to the coal and coal rejects bins, rejects conveyor and equipment storage; • MOD 2 – approved on 2 February 2007, involving correction of minor administrative errors related to land details; • MOD 3 – approved on 31 October 2007, involving upgrade of the electrical switchyard; • MOD 4 – approved on 15 September 2008, involving establishment of up to 6 gas wells and a range of associated infrastructure; and • MOD 5 – approved on 28 October 2009, involving relocation of ancillary infrastructure, including the explosives reloading station and vehicle wash bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Looks Like This. Immediate, Real-World Impacts of Supporting
    Recovery looks like this. Immediate, real-world impacts of supporting Australia’s clean future industries. To accompany Bioenergy Australia’s recent proposal for a series of economic stimulus measures for clean energy and bio industries, we have gathered a sample of real-world projects to highlight prospective impacts of stimulus measures. These projects, identified by our members, are all shovel ready and can be quickly deployed under the right conditions. Queensland Glycell Biorefinery stage 1 The project: 100,000 dry tonne per year biomass input Estimated capital ~AUD$200 million Impact of stimulus: Support second generation technologies and provide momentum and funding to get the project progressed. Anticipated outcomes: » 60 direct plus 264 indirect jobs » GHG advantaged carbohydrate feedstocks for advance biofuels and/or chemicals. This leads to emissions reduction and valorisation of agricultural biomass streams not available today. 60 direct plus 264 indirect jobs Mt Alexander Bioenergy, community bioenergy project, VIC The project: Anticipated outcomes: 1MWe (biogas) and 6MWt (biomass) with capital cost » Approximately 22-30 jobs created for stage 1. of approx. $20m. This project embraces a circular » Annual emission reduction is 88,000 tCO2e (based on ARENA LCA methodology) for stage 1 economy approach with closed loop and zero waste design principles. It is a behind-the-meter project and increasing proportionately as stage 2 and 3 develop. for a large regional food processing facility (Dons) » Boosting regional economy, environmental outcomes through reduced waste to landfill, that employs around 1600 people. upskilling of staff, energy security and demonstrating how circular economy principles can be embodied and delivered via a closed loop model.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculation of Energy Costs for the 2011-12 BRCI
    Calculation of energy costs for the 2011-12 BRCI Includes the calculation of energy purchase costs, LRMC, and other energy costs Prepared for the Queensland Competition Authority Draft Report of 16 December 2010 Reliance and Disclaimer In conducting the analysis in this report ACIL Tasman has endeavoured to use what it considers is the best information available at the date of publication, including information supplied by the addressee. Unless stated otherwise, ACIL Tasman does not warrant the accuracy of any forecast or prediction in the report. Although ACIL Tasman exercises reasonable care when making forecasts or predictions, factors in the process, such as future market behaviour, are inherently uncertain and cannot be forecast or predicted reliably. ACIL Tasman Pty Ltd ABN 68 102 652 148 Internet www.aciltasman.com.au Melbourne (Head Office) Brisbane Canberra Level 6, 224-236 Queen Street Level 15, 127 Creek Street Level 1, 33 Ainslie Place Melbourne VIC 3000 Brisbane QLD 4000 Canberra City ACT 2600 Telephone (+61 3) 9604 4400 GPO Box 32 GPO Box 1322 Facsimile(+61 3) 9600 3155 Brisbane QLD 4001 Canberra ACT 2601 Email melbourne@aciltasman com au Telephone(+61 7) 3009 8700 Telephone(+61 2) 6103 8200 Facsimile(+61 7) 3009 8799 Facsimile(+61 2) 6103 8233 Emailbrisbane@aciltasman com au Emailcanberra@aciltasman com au Darwin Suite G1, Paspalis Centrepoint 48-50 Smith Street Darwin NT 0800 Perth Sydney GPO Box 908 Centa Building C2, 118 Railway Street PO Box 1554 Darwin NT 0801 West Perth WA 6005 Double Bay NSW 1360 Telephone(+61 8)
    [Show full text]
  • Mike Fenton Planner Scheduler.Docx
    RESUME MIKE FENTON PLANNER/SCHEDULER www.scpsolutions.com.au RESUME- Mike Fenton QUALIFICATIONS 2005 Deakin University Bachelor Degree of Technology (Mechanical Engineering / Management) 1997 Newcastle TAFE Contract Engineering 1997 Newcastle TAFE Maintenance Engineering 1997 Belmont TAFE Small Business Enterprise 1996 Newcastle TAFE Mechanical Engineering Associate Diploma 1995 Newcastle TAFE Energy Management 1988 Newcastle TAFE Mechanical Engineering Certificate COMPUTER TRAINING: Microsoft Office (advanced) Primavera P6 (advanced) Primavera Contractor MS Project (advanced) ProjectView (ARTEMIS) OPEN PLAN Professional SAP MAXIMO Compass Contract EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Atlantic and Peninsula Australia (Dec 18 – Feb 19) – Project Scheduler Subcontracted through Kinexus to support A&P Aust develop a master schedule to control multi projects for maintenance and modifications on HMAS Choules [SEA3030]. The master schedule was developed to mirror and build from the WBS established by the Commonwealth during the initial Gate Reviews. The schedule contained over 40 projects ($159M) from design phase to execution. Costs were also added to the schedule to allow forecasting and financial tracking of the projects through their life cycle. This also enabled tracking of invoicing and costs to be collected and forecast by fiscal year. To assist management during these preliminary stages, project management plans and project control procedures needed to be written and added to the project management plan. I wrote the plans, which were later approved, for the scheduling, project controls and reports sections within the PMP. As my contract with A&P was of fixed term, I took the initiative to document my role and produce a comprehensive step by step procedure for the next incumbent. SCP Solutions Pty Ltd (March 2012-current) – Planning /Scheduling Consultant Company Director and service provider within the company.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019-2020 “Planetary Health Leads to Our Health.”
    Annual report 2019-2020 “Planetary health leads to our health.” DEA Scientific Advisory Committee member Prof Fiona Stanley, Epidemiologist Doctors for the Environment Australia’s members live and work around Australia. We would like to acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Traditional Owners of these lands, in the spirit of reconciliation. We recognise that First Nations peoples have cared for Country and lived sustainably for millennia, and that sovereignty of this land was never ceded. We pay our respects to First Nations Elders past and present, and to emerging leaders. 2 Contents 4 Co-chair’s letter 6 Executive Director letter 7 Year at a glance 8 Strategic framework Campaigning & public awareness 10 There’s no time for games 12 Emergency declaration campaign unites medical sector 14 Protecting our environment one Act at a time 16 COVID recovery and gas 18 Building DEA’s campaigning capacity Public & political influence 21 Educating for a better future 23 Issues: Lobbying for climate action 25 Responding to bushfires and preparing for the future 27 Collaborating for better air quality 29 Two wins against coal and oil expansion 31 Making healthcare more sustainable 33 DEA’s voice reaches across the political spectrum 34 Social media analytics 2019-2020 Organisational Transformation 36 Governance review and restructure helps DEA grow 37 Membership growth reflects commitment to climate action 38 Our members 39 Students get creative in lockdown 40 Our people 42 Treasurer’s report 43 Statement of Financial Position Appendices 45 Submissions 46 Presentations 48 Publications 51 Media mentions 58 Radio and television interviews 61 Thank you 3 Co-chair’s letter The past year has been one of unprecedented health A Climate Health Emergency petition signed by emergencies, with the COVID-19 pandemic following several thousand doctors was launched before the so soon after the prolonged drought, heat waves Summer of fires, and resulted in several major and devastating bushfires of the 2019/2020 summer.
    [Show full text]
  • Gas Stations Output (Gwh) 2015 2016 2017 NSW Colongra Power Station
    Figure 1: Gas stations Output (GWh) 2015 2016 2017 Colongra Power Station 16.5 23.0 8.1 Smithfield Energy Facility 862.9 905.3 521.7 NSW Tallawarra 2477.4 850.0 1629.0 Uranquinty Power Station 479.7 731.9 723.0 Barcaldine Power Station 5.6 3.2 3.2 Braemar 1566.0 785.6 701.2 Braemar 2 1899.2 632.4 375.1 Condamine Power Station A 524.5 828.8 1058.9 QLD Darling Downs Power Station 4118.4 3036.7 2467.8 Oakey Power Station 720.6 271.7 160.6 Roma Gas Turbine Station 114.0 84.2 52.1 Townsville Gas Turbine (Yabulu) 52.5 350.1 379.6 Yarwun Power Station 1059.5 1114.2 1150.8 Dry Creek Gas Turbine Station 4.7 10.2 6.8 Hallett 29.6 38.6 19.9 Ladbroke Grove Power Station 184.9 170.9 194.6 Mintaro Gas Turbine Station 10.5 17.3 34.0 SA Osborne Power Station 1269.0 873.6 1256.6 Pelican Point Power Station 552.7 435.4 2481.6 Quarantine 161.9 161.1 204.6 Torrens Island Power Station A 414.2 677.9 522.0 Torrens Island Power Station B 1620.7 1917.4 2236.1 Tamar Valley Combined Cycle Power Station 0.0 540.2 1058.2 TAS Tamar Valley Peaking Power Station 16.1 212.2 119.5 Bairnsdale Power Station 143.4 150.0 277.1 Jeeralang A Power Station 11.5 11.8 16.1 Jeeralang B Power Station 25.9 45.7 89.0 Laverton 8.8 15.1 206.3 VIC Mortlake Power Station 586.6 418.9 1646.4 Newport Power Station 191.1 206.2 881.9 Somerton 2.9 21.6 79.1 Valley Power 3.6 11.3 13.6 Source: NEM review; Australian Energy Council analysis Figure 2: Percentage change in gas generation output % change in 2016 % change in 2017 Colongra Power Station 40% -65% Smithfield Energy Facility 5% -42% NSW
    [Show full text]
  • Redbank (CFBT) Power Station Warkworth, Hunter Valley
    Redbank (CFBT) Power Station Warkworth, Hunter Valley Redbank is currently Australia’s only generator with circulating fluidised bed technology (CFBT) recognised for its emissions control capability and it’s proven ability to operate on 100% biomass. Redbank commenced power generation in 2001 at a cost of $200m Current estimated cost to restart Redbank is $60m1 (including and had a major $14m upgrade in 2014 - the existing plant has an contingencies) and is planned to take six to eight months. estimated life expectancy > 25 years. Estimated replacement cost of the plant is $563m2 and, prior to shut-down in 2014, the plant operated profitably generating ~$28m EBITDA per annum over a nine-year period. Upon restart, Redbank will be one of the largest green baseload renewable energy providers in NSW and the ONLY existing facility capable of providing continuous green 24/7 power with Net Zero CO2 emissions, adding to grid stability. Verdant has options to build other renewable energy sources on the current Redbank site and when combined with Redbank will form the Redbank Green Energy Hub capable of generating 261MW of renewable energy – the second largest renewable generation Click To Waste Biomass feedstock will be obtained from a variety of facility in NSW behind the snowy mountain hydro scheme. Watch Video sources, including forestry waste residues with a medium-term goal of operating on waste biomass sourced from mixed waste timber – provides an important alternative to landfill. Commercial-In-Confidence 1. Plant refurbishment cost estimate provided by Downer EDI – appointed as preferred contractor 8 © Verdant Technologies Australia Ltd 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme Working Together to Protect River Quality and Sustain Economic Development a World-Class Scheme for Protecting Waterways
    Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme Working together to protect river quality and sustain economic development A world-class scheme for protecting waterways The NSW Government’s Hunter Before the scheme there was River Salinity Trading Scheme significant conflict between leads the world in using economic primary producers and mining instruments for the effective operators. Discharges from protection of waterways. The industry increased salt levels in scheme has been responsible for the river at times making the restoring the waters of the Hunter water unsuitable for irrigation. to an unprecedented level of Primary producers responded by freshness. Water salinity1 is more seeking tighter regulation of Photo: DIPNR stable and lower—the river is now emissions. To address strong as fresh as many bottled mineral community concerns about new waters. discharges, new mine proposals were facing extremely high costs. A community working The scheme allows agriculture, together to protect mining and electricity generation The scheme is a huge win for the to operate side by side, sharing entire Hunter River community. river quality and sustain the use of the river. Agriculture benefits from fresh economic irrigation waters while miners It wasn’t always like this. development. and electricity generators can make controlled discharges of excess waters. It protects the region’s most precious natural resource, provides for diverse interests to work together, and allows continued economic development, providing a secure future for the region. 1 Water salinity is estimated Electrical conductivity at Singleton 1980 to 2002 (monthly means) by measuring electrical conductivity. The more salty salinity target salinity water is, the more it mean Electrical Conductivity (mS/cm)(µS/cm) trial 2000 conducts electricity.
    [Show full text]