The Australia Institute is taking aim again at a nuclear waste plan that backers say would produce billions of dollars in revenue for South Australia, this time with a report claiming the plan makes dangerous cost-benefit assumptions.
South Australia Sen. Sean Edwards is proposing a plan in which the state would take in about 13 percent of the world’s nuclear waste, and turn it into billions of dollars of revenue. Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, in an interim report delivered in December by Jacobs MCM, projected AUS $5 billion in annual state revenue over a 30-year period. A final report is expected in May.
In response, the Canberra-based Australia Institute released its own report Tuesday, stating that the Jacobs MCM assessment exaggerates the proposal, which assumes $257 billion in revenue and $145 billion in costs over the life of the 120-year project. The think tank called the project “risky” and claimed there’s potential for an overall loss.
“Jacobs’ assessment is based on a number of assumptions that overstate the benefits of the proposal and understate its risks,” the report says, adding that the earlier findings border on nuclear advocacy rather than realistic results.
The authors raise concerns with a number of assumptions in the Jacobs assessment, particularly the forecast that 37 countries will send waste to Australia at $1.75 million per ton. That cost estimate is based on budgets for storage in Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the report states.
“This assumption that poor countries including Bangladesh, Vietnam, Nigeria and Ghana would be willing and able to pay a higher price for waste storage than the richest countries in the world is not realistic,” the Australia Institute said. “Still less realistic is Jacobs’ assumption that no other countries would attempt to compete with South Australia and lower the price received for storage. China and Russia are listed as potential competitors, but no consideration (is) made of this impact on price.”
In a similar report issued in December, the institute dismissed Edwards’ plan as an “impossible dream,” claiming that it fails to address 90 percent of the imported waste.
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission spokeswoman Jenny Turner said in a statement Thursday that the commission “appreciates the feedback that has been provided over the five week period in response to the (interim report).
“We are currently considering them to further inform the Commission’s final report to be handed to the Government in May,” she wrote via email. “The Commission will not be making any public remarks about any specific responses at this stage. Once the commissioner has had the opportunity to read and assess the responses in full, he will provide an update on proceedings next week.”
Scientist Tells Australia to Let Tribes Decide on Waste
While appearing in South Australia earlier this month, renowned Canadian scientist and environmentalist David Suzuki told the state to let its indigenous tribes decide the fate of nuclear waste storage.
Suzuki, known for his radio and TV broadcasts on natural science, appeared at the 2016 WOMADelaide festival on March 12 in Adelaide. He told the crowd he had been peppered with questions about nuclear waste since his arrival in South Australia.
“The only group with any credibility on sustainability over thousands of years are the indigenous people everywhere,” Suzuki said. “To South Australians, all Australians, I say if you want to deal seriously with the issue of nuclear waste, let the Kaurna and other indigenous groups make the decisions. They’re the only ones that provide the viewpoint and the perspective to do it.”
