Learning from Sellafield

Here in Cumbria we probably have a larger number of pro-nuclear supporters amongst the QS community due to the close proximity of Sellafield.

Many of us arrived in Cumbria to work on the large expansion of the plant in the 1980s and then noticed many other benefits of life up North. These QSs have learned, from an intimate acquaintance, the right perspective on the nuclear issues.

Unfortunately, it is not possible for humble QSs to have much influence on the great and the good policy makers in Parliament and outside. However, Davis Langdon's latest move to incorporate a carbon index into its future cost plans is a commendable start, as is Corderoy's Phil Hogsflesh's backing of the QS profession with its good project controls.

The main reasons for fear of any technology is the lack of basic information and sufficient knowledge needed to understand advantages and disadvantages. The nuclear debate suffers from this. Has anyone looked at the true life cycle costs for the coal, gas or oil industries? Let alone the level of fatalities in those sectors.

Has anyone looked at the true life cycle costs for the coal, gas or oil industries?

In 1988 a Yorkshire Television crew came to Cumbria and filmed a critical "anti nuclear" piece which had worldwide coverage and stoked up the fears. Yet they ignored the opportunity of comparing nuclear with other industries along the West Cumbria Coast, which at the time were producing much more cancer causing pollutants but were less closely scrutinised.

In 1997, the Conservative government's failure to support NIREX's plans for rock laboratories to carry out research into waste disposal meant we lost 10 years of useful progress. This was, and is, to the detriment of the need to find an appropriate solution to the waste problem caused by the nuclear weapons and power industries, and also universities, hospitals and many non-nuclear industries. All of these sectors continue to produce intermediate and low level waste, which is currently being stored in Cumbria.

In 2006, the issues are at last being faced up to. We have a problem with low and intermediate levels of waste whether we build more nuclear power stations or not.

The RICS is playing the cautious game by making recommendations to the DTI which fall short of a clear policy for adopting nuclear as part of the future energy supply planning. It is a shame the RICS could not be more proactive in issuing sound advice about the future of a secure and local energy source. Unlike politicians, the RICS does not have to worry about the voters making uninformed choices.

We have a problem with low and intermediate levels of waste whether we build more nuclear power stations or not

James Lovelock, the 1960s green guru who proposed his Gaia earth theory (the idea that the Earth functions as if it were a living organism) has acknowledged that without nuclear power we as a species are doomed (The revenge of Gaia, 2006). So confident is he in our ability to safely handle nuclear waste, he has offered to bury some in his own garden. He understands the risks without the histrionics.

Shutting us out

The difficulty for QSs who have the knowledge of the industry and the belief in the need to proceed cautiously is in how to apply their skills and enthusiasm. Recent tender procedures for the supply chain to the NDA and BNG resulted in an expression of interest from a local consortium of QSs failing at the first hurdle. Once again big is beautiful won the day. Why is that? Information and the ability to use it is a personal not a corporate thing!

A recent survey by the Chartered Institute of Building noted that the most stressed staff worked for companies with more than 500 employees. Any QS who works in a bureaucratic organisation, public or private, will know how inflexible such organisations are, and yet the takeovers continue apace.

Let's hope that the realities of the situation - politics and dubious financial game playing apart - can be recognised by our political leaders and the planning and construction of a new generation of nuclear power stations will start in earnest. As Richard Steer commented Building recently, we are all charged with a responsibility to take a stand and make a difference. I am sure that many willing QSs will play their part.