Backlash over axed $48bn renewables plan

Massive wind, solar farm in the Pilbara found to pose huge risk to one of the world’s most important migratory bird habitats.

Minister for the Environment Sussan Ley. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

A massive $US36bn ($48bn) wind and solar farm in the Pilbara is in limbo after federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley used rarely exercised powers to knock back the development plan.

The Asian Renewable Energy project, which would cover an area 10 times the size of Singapore, was rejected on concerns the facilities and brine from a desalination plant would pose a “catastrophic” risk to one of the world’s most important migratory bird habitats.

The minister found the development and associated construction of a new permanent town of some 8000 people would affect the feeding areas of birds such as the critically endangered Great Knot and Eastern Curlew.

The decision drew a backlash from environmental groups, who said the decision reflected the federal government’s lack of support for renewable energy.

The project was designed to include 1753 wind turbines and up to 10,800 megawatts of solar capacity, spread over a total area of more than 660,000 hectares. The proponents originally planned to run an undersea electrical cable from the project all the way to Singapore, but have since pivoted to using the energy to crack hydrogen and produce ammonia for export around the world.

The federal government had previously signed off on the original plans and granted the massive proposal “major project status” last October. But it was the ammonia component that prompted Ms Ley to reject the amended plans, finding it would have a “clearly ­unacceptable” impact on the surrounding bird habitat.

In particular, she said the ammonia infrastructure would affect the tidal flats around Eighty Mile Beach, where dozens of different species of migratory birds feed each year.

The brine that would be pumped into the ocean had a combination of “toxically concentrated salts, heavy metals and dangerous pre-treatment chemicals that are warmer and denser than seawater” and which would create a “dead zone” within the Eighty Mile Beach area.

“The risks of this dead zone reaching the intertidal area that supports critical foraging habitat for migratory shorebirds would be catastrophic,” Ms Ley said in her statement of reasons.

Other proposed marine infrastructure would also disrupt tidal movements and processes with a “serious effect” on native species.

Many of the project’s environmental risks – including air emissions from the ammonia plant, light pollution from the town and facilities, and changes to water catchment and the tidal regime – could not be mitigated.

“I do not consider that the attachment of any conditions could render approval of the proposed action consistent with Australia’s obligations under the Ramsar Convention,” she said.

The amended project plans are still the subject of an assessment by the West Australian Environmental Protection Authority. Federal project approval decisions are generally made only after state-based assessments are complete.

Conservation Council of WA director Piers Verstegen said it was “highly unusual” for the federal government to pre-empt a state assessment. He said the hardline approach on the renewables project was in “direct contrast” to the government’s support for large-scale liquefied natural gas projects.

“While the environmental concerns with the Pilbara ammonia export proposal may be valid, it ­appears the commonwealth is applying one set of rules to renewable energy projects and a very different set of rules to giant LNG projects,” Mr Verstegen said.

The project is backed by Intercontinental Energy, CWP Global, Vestas and Macquarie’s Pathway Investments. Development manager Andrew Dickson said in a statement the project represented a significant economic and clean energy opportunity for Australia.

“We are now working to understand the minister’s concerns, and we will engage further with the minister,” he said.