Going nuclear

At the end of January, the government launched a three-month public consultation on how to maintain Britain's energy needs over the coming decades. To the shock and horror of many - and to the satisfaction of others - nuclear power was presented as a distinct possibility. The government's chief scientific advisor Sir David King is gunning for it, and Tony Blair himself is reported to like the idea.

If a new generation of nuclear plants gets a green light, this could be good news for construction. There would also be work upgrading some existing facilities. But meanwhile, the industry is already gearing up for a major programme of decommissioning existing plants, all of which raises questions about construction's capacity to cope.

The public consultation ends on 14 April 2006. It is part of a larger energy review carried out by Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks, who will report to the government by the summer of 2006. It is expected that he will suggest either a clear green or red light on nuclear energy.

Britain needs to rethink how it obtains its energy supply in the future (see pie chart). Coal powered stations pump out carbon dioxide. And since the UK signed up to the Kyoto Protocol, it is committed to reducing those emissions. The UK's North Sea gas supply is running out, with Russia set to provide 90% of its gas by 2020, this is a dangerous position. In addition Britain's ageing nuclear reactors, made unpopular by public fears over deadly waste and high capital costs, are spluttering to the end of their life spans. By 2023 only one will be operating.

Renewable energy sources are on the rise with the use of wind power doubling in 2005 compared to the previous year. Many want to push clean sources as the way forward - with a fair amount of belt-tightening and lifestyle changing thrown in. But the government, in an apparent shift since 2003, is doing its best to keep the nuclear energy option on the agenda.

So what could be nuclear energy's likely contribution to UK power? The Nuclear Industry Association (NIA), a trade body which represents over 100 contractors and suppliers, is taking a fairly moderate line. Believing the UK should not be dependent on any one source, the NIA wants nuclear power to contribute 25% of the country's energy, up from its current contribution of 19%. The remainder should come in equal measures from renewables, oil, gas, and clean coal.

Construction programme

In order to ensure energy supply in the coming decades, a new-build programme is required, because the current stock of reactors is in its twilight years and decommissioning has already begun. The NIA believe that 10 new reactors should be built, in pairs, on or adjacent to existing nuclear power sites.

A nuclear reactor is a big, complex thing to build, which is why the NIA is recommending a phased programme. It will take 25 years to build 10, with two reactors under construction at any one time. The NIA reckons each costs in the region of £1bn, and takes four years to build. If this summer's report prompts immediate government approval, the first concrete would be poured in five years, which allows time for design and local planning.

If such a programme were to get the nod, it could raise capacity issues for the industry. Bill Bryce, who chairs the NIA's new-build working group, says that apart from the actual reactor, housed inside a containment building, the specialist element of a nuclear power plant is actually quite small. Certain components, such as turbines and pressure vessels, require forging on a scale beyond current UK manufacturing capability. But apart from that, a new-build programme would eat up the same management and trades resources as any other large, civil-oriented project. Companies like Costain, Sir Robert McAlpine and Balfour Beatty could be expected to bid for them.

At peak activity, Bryce says, there would be around 2,000 workers on a single site. He estimates that a new-build programme would require a 4% to 5% increase on the industry's current UK capacity. He acknowledges the current skills shortage, and notes that future mega-projects after the London Olympics could alter the resource landscape, but he is confident the industry could deliver.

"If we got the signal today, we've still got five years before construction starts," he said. "We'd see that as a training period. And it often happens that when you've got a forward plan people come out of the woodwork." He added that skilled workers from eastern Europe could be invited to help get the job done.

Getting it right

it is not the death of an industry but the start of a whole new one

Terry Gilbert, business development manager, AMEC Nuclear Projects

Can the industry cope in the key areas of design, cost and programme management? The last generation of nuclear power stations, dating from the 1950s and concluding with Sizewell B, which started operating in 1995, racked up terrific overruns in time and cost. Some projects, such as Hinckley Point B, came in at a mere 30% over the estimated cost, but many went over the 100% mark and some escalated by 200%.

It is important to point out that the construction industry was not primarily to blame for this. These power stations were publicly funded and little hard financial risk was allocated to anyone except the taxpayer. There was also a high level of technical novelty in the last generation. Reactor types were mixed and designs from overseas were ‘Britonified', causing many wheel reinventions. Intense battles at local public enquiries also caused long delays. Construction companies could exert very little control over these conditions.

It is not a question of whether the industry could handle a new-build programme but more whether it would want to. In answer to this, the NIA recommends a range of measures, some of them highly controversial, which could make the process much smoother this time round.

For design, the NIA are calling for a strict, off-the-peg approach. They want the new plants to be a homogenous fleet of Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs), a common design developed by the American firm Westinghouse. There are a number of these under construction around the world right now. Apart from tailoring the plant for specific ground locations, this would minimize the amount of bespoke engineering required.

The NIA also wants a streamlined regulatory framework. The body in charge of approving new stations is the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) an agency of the Health and Safety Executive. Industry watchers say the NII is currently tied up with decommissioning the current civil nuclear stock, and without a significant boost in resources, an approval bottleneck could arise if a new-build programme ever came on stream.

The NIA also wants the inspectorate to recognise that common reactor designs like the PWR have been approved in other countries, and to accept that as a reliable body of evidence instead of starting from square one.

On 4 January this year, Westinghouse's AP1000, a new PWR of the kind touted for this country, received approval from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission certifying it as a standardised design. "If the Americans think it's OK we should recognize that," Bryce said.

Most controversially, the NIA wants government to limit the scope of local enquiries to strictly local issues, leaving aside the bigger questions of safety and environmental impact. The NIA hopes this would stop each application becoming a pitched battle between those in favour of nuclear power and those against it. For example, the public enquiry into Sizewell B went on for six years.

However, this ‘pre-licensing' suggestion worries anti-nuclear campaigners. Hugh Richards, head of the Welsh Anti Nuclear Alliance, told The Guardian: "Pre-licensing is a trojan horse. It sounds innocent but the objective is clear. It would shield consideration of nuclear safety from public scrutiny and that is extremely worrying."

The debate will be fierce, and the conclusion is anything but foregone. The government appears to favour nuclear power, and has already asked the HSE to examine the safety, expense and suitability of existing plants, which anti-nuclear campaigners read as a way of clearing the path in advance of a green light this summer. But unprecedented parliamentary defeats over terrorism laws and education mean that Tony Blair will have to listen more carefully to this public consultation than any other since 1997.