This is Part 2 of KC VICE’s investigation into BERC vs Stapylton and the waste supply risk behind BERC. Read Part 1 here.
The proposed Bromelton Energy and Resource Centre (BERC) is often discussed as though it exists in isolation. One project. One facility. One decision.
But what if it doesn’t? What if another major waste-to-energy facility also receives approval?
That question deserves attention because the economics of waste-to-energy facilities are built on one critical requirement. Waste. A lot of it. Every year. For decades.
Feeding The Beast
BERC is proposed to process approximately 760,000 tonnes of residual waste annually. Over a 30-year operating life, that equates to approximately 22.8 million tonnes of waste.
The facility’s operation depends on securing a continuous stream of waste capable of supporting those volumes. Supporters point to South East Queensland’s growing population and increasing waste generation as evidence that future supply will be available.
But there is another question. What happens if multiple facilities are drawing from the same regional waste stream?
The Stapylton Factor
If a major waste-to-energy facility at Stapylton were also approved, South East Queensland could find itself supporting two large-scale facilities seeking access to the region’s residual waste.
That changes the equation.
The question is no longer “Is there enough waste for BERC?” It becomes “How would waste be allocated between multiple facilities?”
At present, no publicly available information appears to explain how future waste streams, council contracts, commercial waste volumes, or industrial waste sources would be distributed if multiple facilities were operating within the same broader market.
Yet those waste streams form a critical component of any waste-to-energy business model.
Lessons From Western Australia
Western Australia currently provides Australia’s largest operating waste-to-energy example. The Kwinana and East Rockingham facilities together process waste volumes broadly comparable to the annual throughput proposed for BERC.
Those projects experienced a range of challenges during development and commissioning, including construction delays, refinancing requirements, cost escalation and corporate restructuring.
That’s not an argument against waste-to-energy. Rather, the experience demonstrates the importance of long-term certainty.
Certainty of waste. Certainty of contracts. Certainty of revenue. These factors are regularly identified as key considerations in major infrastructure projects.
The Public Interest Question
This raises a legitimate question for communities and decision-makers. If multiple facilities ultimately seek access to the same regional waste streams, how has that competition been factored into long-term planning assumptions?
Today that question may appear theoretical. Tomorrow it may become highly relevant.
Waste-to-energy facilities are long-life infrastructure assets that rely on decades of operational planning, contractual arrangements and waste supply forecasts. Understanding those assumptions before approvals are granted is a reasonable public interest consideration.
Follow The Waste
The future viability of any waste-to-energy facility ultimately depends on three things: waste volume, waste contracts, and waste transport.
Until those three factors are clearly understood, it remains difficult for communities to independently assess the long-term assumptions underpinning any proposed facility.
Questions Worth Asking
Before any approval is granted, the community deserves answers.
- How much waste has already been contractually secured for BERC?
- How much remains dependent on future agreements?
- What impact would a Stapylton approval have on BERC’s feedstock assumptions?
- Have modelling scenarios examined multiple waste-to-energy facilities operating within South East Queensland?
- What contingency planning has been undertaken if projected waste volumes differ from current forecasts?
- How would competing facilities affect council waste contracts and commercial waste arrangements?
These are not anti-development questions. They are risk management questions.
The Bigger Picture
The debate should not be reduced to whether one project is good or another is bad. The larger issue is whether South East Queensland’s future waste strategy is being planned as a coordinated system or as a collection of individual projects.
Because if multiple facilities are ultimately seeking access to the same regional waste streams, the public deserves to understand how that system is intended to operate.
The question is no longer whether waste exists today. The question is how future waste streams will be managed, allocated and contracted over the decades ahead.
That answer hasn’t been made publicly available.
This is Part 2 of KC VICE’s investigation into BERC’s waste supply risk. Read Part 1: The Stapylton Waste-to-Energy Competition.