KICK NUCLEAR November 2025

 The monthly newsletter of the Kick Nuclear group

UK: NO NEW NUCLEAR SINCE 1995!

As long ago as the early 1980s, the Thatcher government announced an ambitious new nuclear power programme, with an initial intention to build one new nuclear power station for at least a decade starting from 1982 (Which would mean about 10 new plants). These 10 included 2 older AGR (Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors) at Torness and Heysham 11 which were already being built, Both started operating in 1988. Other sites were considered for a newer Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) design. These included sites at Sizewell B, Hinkley Point C, Wylfa B and Sizewell C. Only at one of these sites, Sizewell B, was a new nuclear power station, a single-reactor one, built. It went into operation in 1995.

It was not till 2010 that the plan for building eight PWR nuclear power stations was revived by the government, this time all to be 2-reactor PWR stations.

The sites chosen for the eight were at Bradwell (Essex), Hartlepool (County Durham), Heysham (Lancashire), Hinkley Point (Somerset) Oldbury (Gloucestershire), Sellafield (Cumbria), Sizewell (Suffolk) and Wylfa (Anglesey).

15 years later only at only one of these sites, Hinkley Point C has building progressed far. Building of an EPR (European Pressurised Reactor) there began in March 2017, but it’s date of connection to the grid has now been put back to the early 2030s.

In April 2022 the government committed itself once again to building new nuclear power stations, Again the figure eight emerged, but this time it was for up to eight reactors at four 2-reactor power stations, again to be built one a year, this time till 2030, with the goal of increasing the UK’s nuclear capacity to meet a quarter of its electricity demand by 2050 (in 2024 it produced 14.25%). These new reactors could be large-scale plants or small modular reactors (SMRs) It also set up a new government body, Great British Nuclear (GBR) with the task of identifying appropriate sites.

Three years into the plan all that has happened is that the go-ahead for building a 2-reactor EPR at Sizewell has been given after a final investment decision for the project was agreed in July 2025. The current predicted date for its two reactors being connected to the mains has been put back to the mid to late 2030s, though, given the experience with the few other EPR reactors like Sizewell C that have been built in the world this date is all too liable to slip much further.

At one time Wylfa an Oldbury were next in line for new PWRs, but no firm plans for building these have been followed up. In October 2025, however, the House of Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee asked the government to set out its plans for new nuclear power stations at Oldbury and Wylfa, saying that uncertainty could delay progress on building Britain’s next generation of reactors.

However, as reported in the October edition of this newsletter, it seems the government has largely given up the idea of building new large-scale PWRs in favour of building Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), with GBR’s plans for the Oldbury and Wylfa sites being that one of them should become the site for UK’s first SMR project, with Rolls-Royce SMR appointed as the technology provider. 

Other SMR projects were reported in the October newsletter, though no SMRs have yet begun building in the UK – such projects are currently only at the planning and regulatory stage.

COST OF DEEP STORAGE

The government remains committed to building a deep underground facility known as a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) designed to safely contain nuclear waste for the thousands of years it will take for its radioactivity to decay sufficiently for it to be considered safe.

Building such a GDF represents a monumental undertaking, with what is proposed being the building of a vault situated between 200m and 1km underground, covering an area of about a square kilometre on the surface. In the annual report 2024-5 of the HM Treasury’s National Infrastructure & Service Transformation Authority’s (NISA) published last August, it is assessed that the true cost of building and maintaining a GDF would be up to £68.7bn. NISA concludes indeed that such a facility is unachievable.would to be up to £68.7bn. NISA concludes that such a facility is unachievable.

Many scientists have also argued that burying highly-radioactive waste deep in the ground so that it is out of reach of inspection is dangerous for future generations since one can have no certainty that earth movements over thousands of year will not breach whatever containment the waste is given, meaning radiation leaking out.

CHINA NUCLEAR LEADER

The UK’s inability to complete even one new nuclear power station since 1995 is in extreme contrast with China’s current development of nuclear power. Indeed according to a New York Times report on October 22 report, China already has 58 operable nuclear reactors, plus nearly as many reactors in construction (30) as the rest of the world combined. The paper also predicted that by 2030, China’s nuclear capacity is set to surpass that of the United States.

Meanwhile, China also enjoys world dominance in the solar energy and electric car fields.

But is it wise for China to invest so much in nuclear energy given the high cost of investing in it, the radioactive pollution it produces, the risk of large-scale nuclear accidents and the problem of dealing with high-level nuclear waste which remains dangerous over thousands of years?

ZAPORIZHZHIA AT RISK

The Zaporizhzhia power station is Europe’s biggest, with six reactors. It has had the misfortune of not only being graced by an unpronounceable name, but also being occupied by Russian forces since March 2022 and remaining near the front line of the war between Russia and Ukraine ever since. Russian troops are based in the plant’s buildings and the reactors are in danger of being hit by bombardments, by intention or accident, from either side. This means that they have had to be put in “cold shutdown” to try to reduce the danger from bombs causing catastrophic nuclear meltdowns. However the highly radioactive material in the reactors still needs to be kept cool with water continually run through the reactors to prevent this material in the reactors heating up to the critical temperature at which such a meltdown will occur anyway.

The Independent reported in October that fighting had cut off electricity from Ukraine that had powered the pumps that had heretofore pumped the water through the reactors. This has meant, the Indie reported, that the pumps were having to rely on diesel generators and a skeleton staff to keep the cooling going.

It was later reported that the electrical power lines to the plant had been repaired after a four-week outage through a rare case of cooperation between Russian and Ukrainian forces under a local ceasefire brokered by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Clearly neither side wanted to risk a nuclear disaster. However, the general safety situation at the plant is said to remain fragile due to repeated power line disconnections caused by military activity.