Atomic Britain: UK plans regulatory reset to boost nuclear power
- Reference: 1773404305
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/03/13/uk_to_push_nuclear_reset/
- Source link:
US is moving ahead with colocated nukes and datacenters [1]READ MORE
The government intends to act on recommendations the [2]the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce published last year . As ever, it wants to slash red tape it believes is holding back the progress of private industry.
Among the recommendations The Register noted at the time are: reforming environmental and planning regimes to make it easier for new projects to get approval; limiting legal challenges to projects deemed nationally important; less conservative radiation limits for workers; and modifying rules intended to protect vulnerable natural sites to cut costs.
The Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, led by John Fingleton, found an "overly complex" and "bureaucratic" system that favored process over safe outcomes, according to the government.
Fingleton, a former CEO of the Office of Fair Trading, runs a company "advising and supporting clients on successful resolution of complex and novel regulatory problems."
[3]
The core of the plan, we are told, is to move towards smarter regulation. By this, the government means proportionate, focused on real risk, rooted in evidence, and designed to effectively protect nature and biodiversity.
[4]
[5]
This plan is touted as supporting "safe, cost effective, and rapid delivery" across the entire civil and defense nuclear operations. Which puts us in mind of the old adage "Good, fast, cheap – you can have two."
Echoes across the pond
In this latest move, Britain's government finds itself oddly in tune with the Trump administration on the other side of the Atlantic. Earlier this year, the US Department of Energy encouraged individual states to play host to new atomic sites, while reports claimed it had [6]rewritten nuclear safety directives to significantly water down the rules.
Nonprofit media organization NPR said "hundreds of pages" of requirements relating to security at reactors were cut, while the level of radiation a worker can receive before an official accident investigation gets triggered has increased, and protections relating to groundwater and the environment weakened.
In the UK, at least, the government wants to get the country off its dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets that have driven up fuel prices, and onto cleaner homegrown power. Both countries see the need for more nuclear in the mix, with an eye on the burgeoning energy demands coming from AI datacenters, plus electric vehicles and the electrification of industry.
[7]
But as noted before, any new atomic generating facilities are unlikely to come online before the next decade. Until then, gas turbines, renewable energy from wind and solar, and the country's existing nuclear sites will continue to generate electricity.
[8]Pentagon AI chief praises Palantir tech for speeding battlefield strikes
[9]TerraPower gets permission to build, not operate, sodium-cooled nuclear reactor
[10]CERN sends AI-trained robot mice scurrying through LHC beam pipes
[11]50 GW of datacenter demand queues up for UK grid access
The Nuclear Industry Association naturally welcomes the move. Chief exec Tom Greatrex said the ambitious regulatory reforms are the most important thing the UK can do to cut deployment times and costs, and rebuild energy security.
"We need more proportionate regulation that recognizes the vital contribution nuclear makes to the nation's core interests, and driving through these recommendations offers our best chance in a generation of achieving that."
Completion of all reforms is expected by the end of 2027, subject to legislative timelines. ®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/13/us_moving_ahead_with_colocated/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/25/uk_nuclear_power_reform/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2abRCszYNZFHy2KAPcRcqcgAAABM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44abRCszYNZFHy2KAPcRcqcgAAABM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33abRCszYNZFHy2KAPcRcqcgAAABM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/29/us_nuclear_campuses/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44abRCszYNZFHy2KAPcRcqcgAAABM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/13/palantirs_maven_smart_system_iran/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/05/terrapower_sodium_cooled_nuclear_reactor/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/05/robot_mice_lhc/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/27/datacenter_uk_grid_demand/
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Translation
Another translation.
>> slash red tape it believes is holding back the progress of private industry.
Privatise the profits, socialise all the costs and clean ups.
Not in the UK
> Good, fast, cheap – you can have 2
Hmmm, has there ever been a government progam that was either fast or cheap?
As for 'good" that only comes about if the politicians keep well the hell away from any decisions, plans or actions.
Re: Not in the UK
Was going to say: UK Gov the most you'll get is quick so they can get things pushed through for their mates.
That's what's happening with Digital ID, and it's happening with this 'Green' energy: They don't care if it works, so 'good' is never a concern to them. And as for cheap: It's an excuse to pay their mates £££ or $$$) so it's never going to be cheap. And definitely not Value for Money. Nope: That's never a consideration.
But quick? Oh yes, it has to be quick. They've got to get it done before someone gets in who might pull the plug...
Half Right
We do need to get more nuclear capacity as well as more renewables, that way we aren't reliant on the toddler tantrums between the orange one and other fossil supplying countries but "private industry"?
Makes total sense to rely on private industry from other countries to build our nuclear capacity :facepalm:
Re: Half Right
Going by the timing, I suspect this is part of the list of requirements for rolling out the planned Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactors. There's no point in designing reactors which can be built and installed more quickly if the planning and consent process still drags on for years.
Does it Windscale?
Let's hope we never find out.
Re: Does it Windscale?
Anyone who tries it should get fired.
Nuclear ?
I'm sorry, where are all the eco-friendly Earth-First warriors ?
Or did they they finally get a clue that windmills and solar won't actually be able to recharge their fucking smartphones, battery vehicles and keep the heating on ?
Re: Nuclear ?
Yo do realise that yes we can keep the heating on...
I suppose you'd have claimed that cars will never work because they don't run on oats.
And nuclear is neither the answer to all problems, nor in itself a massive problem.
"Planning"
What's needed is getting rid of the crazy planning regulations. Once something has been approved, there should, unless there are exceptional circumstances, only be one "right of appeal"; it is not sensible for planning cases to drag of for years (or decades) with huge costs mounting up and solicitors on both sides getting rich.
Next, stop the crazy "what about the newts" brigade from adding billions onto the costs to save a few fish/bats/whatever. That doesn't mean that environmental concerns should be ignored, but they need to be considered with more reasonable exceptions on outcomes.
And then there's the general "why does it cost 5 to 10 times more to do X in the UK than elsewhere" that needs to be understood and corrected. Again, I expect a lot of this comes down to the "value" added by "consultants".
One example of the craziness - steel from gas production is mildly radioactive due to radon in the gas that is processed. This is not considered to be radioactive waste, but steel that is considerably less radioactive coming from a decommissioned nuclear plant is (yes, the isotopes do need to be considered).
Re: "Planning"
One common example in the US is that the main train station in New York City would not meet the radiation limits required for a nuclear power plant. The building is made of granite and so is naturally radioactive to a degree higher than allowed for a nuclear power plant. This is apparently OK for a public building that millions of people go through, but not for a power plant.
There are probably plenty of historic buildings in the UK in a similar situation. Just look for anything made of granite.
Re: "Planning"
"Just look for anything made of granite."
A lot of Cornwall...
Re: "Planning"
And, famously, Aberdeen.
"In the UK, at least, the government wants to get the country off its dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets that have driven up fuel prices,"
No, they want to force everyone to use increasingly cheaper to produce electricity whilst insisting on the price being pegged to an inevitably rising price of gas.
This maximises fat-cat-class profit for little effort ...
The day they remove that price constraint is the day I consider that they may be doing something sensible rather than simply greasing their own palms.
No, they want to force everyone to use increasingly cheaper to produce electricity whilst insisting on the price being pegged to an inevitably rising price of gas.
A situation where it's proven that two Eds aren't better than one, ie Ed Davey & Ed Millibrain's role in architecting 'renewables' subsidies. Gas goes up, so does the cost of 'renewable' energy. That whole subsidy is in urgent need of reform and removal of those subsidies. US & Israel blow stuff up, wind & solar electricity rockets in price for reasons best known to lobbyists.
Or my favorite example.. Fagflation. Government keeps hiking up the price of tobacco via duty increases, tobacco's a component of the RPI & CPI basket of goods. Every above inflation increase in tobacco duty makes it ever more expensive, so we've got a bizarre situation where tobacco makes 'renewable' energy more expensive because they've got indexed contracts, so the costs self-inflate. At some point, Rachel from accounts might realise this and halve tobacco duty and bring inflation down. Or more likely, just quietly remove it from the basket. But then at the moment, inflation helps create the appearence of economic growth, even though it's artificial.
Planning regulations watered down with a lot of help from genAI...
... what could possibly go wrong?
The article doesn't state that genAI is going to be used, but given it's being rammed into anything that sits still long enough you can be sure it'll be part of process.
However there's one thing guaranteed to scupper projects of this nature and that's the unbelievably fragile state of our politics.
Labour will either be booted out in the next GE or, if lucky (and the UK is lucky), it'll join forces with the Lib Dems and Greens to keep Farage and what's left of the Tories out.
Either way any long term plans made will just end up like HS2 - hugely over budget, massively scaled back and massively behind schedule.
The UK can't do projects the way that China can due to all the red tape we have, the human rights we have, huge declines in skilled workers,capitalist style corruption and of course that pesky political instability. Six prime ministers in 10 years isn't a good look and six prime ministers means six cabinet reshuffles which equals a total f0rking mess.
So instead we do fantasy planning - "say it and it's done" - grand announcements followed by decades of dithering.
Translation
is pushing ahead with nuclear planning and regulatory reforms, aiming to accelerate atomic projects
government is whimsically making nuclear planning and regulation more complex aiming to completely stall atomic projects.