Regarding Bryan’s commentary about nuclear power, I wonder if there is a role
(reluctantly) for EPAC here? And interested in your views.
The role of EPAC is to consider risks for the engineering profession. Bryan’s
contention is that the climate goals provide a risk for the engineering sector (BTW,
the energy generation and transmission sectors are acutely aware of this). But the
majority of the Board agree that the risk of opening the nuclear question is
reputationally risky for Eng NZ.
We could consider whether EPAC has good cause to carry out a preliminary
investigation into nuclear energy, but clearly this is off the top of my head, while
I’m multi-tasking in the Board meeting!!
Say:
· What do we know about nuclear power as an energy source
· What are the risks associated with delivery of nuclear energy
(radioactivity)
· How would it provide better capacity for NZ, in response to NZ’s
climate emissions responsibilities
· What is the social license
· What are the reputational issues that Eng NZ should consider
· What is the Govt policy on it, and how does this reflect the social
license / Kiwi sentiment
· Recommendation on how Eng NZ should deal with this, given our
strategic pillars, in particular our strong goal to build credibility with
the Govt.
If we put together a ‘report’ for the Board, then it could be discussed at a Board
meeting.
We could take a formal decision at the Board meeting which would then be
minuted.
Potentially, we could give it a call up – say ask the Board to reconsider the issue in,
say, 5-8 years
I’m thinking that this could be a largely desk top exercise, and perhaps in the order
of a $10k commission to an ‘expert’ – although likely to need input from a technical
expert and from a governance/CE perspective.
What do you both think of the idea?
Clearly, the above bullet point list needs further work.
Thanks
Sue-Ellen
