Table of Contents
Summary
Britain depends on a quadrupling of its nuclear power capacity to achieve 25% of total energy production – a crucial requirement for reaching its 2050 net zero target.
Instead of keeping pace with previous commitments, nuclear energy production is facing significant short-term decline. Britain is the most expensive place to build nuclear reactors in the world and 82% of the UK’s current nuclear capacity is slated for retirement by 2030. Nuclear capacity is expected to fall until 2031.
Britain should implement a INRA Country Approved Track (ICAT) fast-track for nuclear power plant designs that have already passed stringent inspection from experienced partner agencies. The expertise of world-leading nuclear agencies in places like the United States and South Korea should be shared and leveraged to our advantage.
The ICAT fast-track licence would incorporate all conditions set by the INRA-state approval and include a standard set of conditions addressing site-specific issues.
The licence would be automatically granted unless the ONR specifically objects and proposes additional conditions. However, the ONR would have to give substantial weight to the INRA approval, allowing additional conditions only when strictly necessary for safety.
Primary legislation would be necessary to implement the INRA Country Approved Track (ICAT).
The Challenge and Opportunity
The UK’s energy costs are among the highest in the world. This poses a significant threat for future UK growth. Historical data on energy consumption shows that the economic success of all high-income countries was achieved partly through abundant access to energy, while pro-growth economists have called for boosting energy supply to be one of the top priorities for the new government. The threat of high and volatile energy costs poses a significant risk to the establishment of energy intensive industries and activities. That is especially true of key components of the infrastructure of the digital economy, like data centres, where energy is the largest operational cost. These currently account for 2.5% of all UK electricity consumption and are expected to expand significantly to accommodate the demands of growing technologies like artificial intelligence.
Cheap energy is therefore important for future growth because:
Affordable energy reduces costs across all sectors, particularly in energy-intensive industries, like manufacturing or data infrastructure. This enhances profitability, allowing businesses to reinvest in their workforce and capital, driving economic productivity. If these energy systems are stressed, such industries may face significant challenges in maintaining profitability, potentially threatening the UK’s ability to attract energy-intensive operations.
Lower energy costs reduce the share of household spending on electricity and gas. This frees up income for savings, which fuels investment, or spending in other areas of the economy. Effectively, this increases real disposable income, similar to a wage boost.
Competitive energy prices make the UK a more attractive destination for investment. Companies considering locations for operations, data centres, or infrastructure development heavily weigh energy costs in their decisions. If the UK fails to address these issues, its ability to attract new energy-intensive activities could be severely constrained.
AI offers a unique investment opportunity that necessitates cheap energy. Training AI models requires substantial energy, and data centres are a large share of the sector’s infrastructure requirements. Attracting AI investment could deliver significant productivity spillovers, fostering innovation and economic growth. Stable and affordable energy is critical for maintaining a competitive edge in this sector.
The UK is also on track to miss the 2050 Net Zero target. While we have decarbonised faster than many of our peers, there are limits to relying chiefly on demand reduction (which is unlikely to continue) and intermittent energy sources such as wind and solar. Achieving full decarbonisation will demand a dependable energy backbone—firm power solutions that can flexibly scale to meet demand, especially as it is likely to rise. Failure to secure reliable supply would risk both the development of long-term renewable solutions and more volatile prices as markets adjust to global supply shocks.
The UK desperately needs to produce more cheap, green and reliable energy. Nuclear power must play a central role in achieving this ambition. However, to capture the benefits of this technology at the necessary speed, scale, and cost, our regulatory capacity will need to be strengthened.
By implementing the changes proposed in this briefing, we calculate that fast-tracking designs would generate economic benefits between £24-£66bn in terms of both cost savings from the government’s planned expansion in nuclear capacity by 2050 and increased economic activity by lowering energy costs over the next 30 years by 0.15p - 0.62p/kWh.
The Case for Nuclear Power
Among the available technologies, nuclear power is a proven, scalable, and reliable source of clean, firm energy. It also has the lowest lifecycle carbon, land use, and impact on ecosystems of any electricity source.
Figure 1: Nuclear power is one of the safest and cleanest sources of energy available
Source: Our World in Data
Nuclear power could provide 25% of the nation's electricity by 2050, but achieving this goal requires quadrupling existing nuclear capacity. And this expansion faces an immediate challenge: 82% of the UK’s current nuclear capacity is slated for retirement by 2030 and nuclear capacity is expected to fall until 2031. The Prime Minister has declared nuclear power part of the future, but as it stands British nuclear risks ruin.
How We Lost Our Edge: Ballooning Costs & Degraded Capacity
Nuclear power is part of our British heritage: the UK established the world's first civil nuclear programme in 1956, and as recently as 1965 this country had more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined. But we have forgotten how to build and now the UK is now one of the most prohibitively expensive places to build new reactors (Figure 1). The latest British plant, Hinkley Point C, has been notoriously over budget and overrun. Speeding up and lowering the cost of new nuclear build is essential to reaching net zero, reducing bills, and securing our energy sovereignty.
Figure 2: The UK is one of the most expensive countries in the world to build nuclear power
Source: Britain Remade
A common strategy for reducing plant construction cost is to build various identical copies of the same reactors – this typically leads to learning curve effects that reduce costs. Recent cost increases around the world result chiefly from indirect costs like design, planning, support service, and installation expenses – not components and materials. Indirect costs that are not recurring (i.e. for design and licensing), can be reduced with serial construction. This cost breakdown is why building “first-of-a-kind” (FOAK) reactors is typically more expensive than building fleets of “Nth-of-a-kind” (NOAK) – the so-called “fleet strategy”.
The most effective way to quickly reduce construction costs is to implement a nuclear programme that maximises efficiency through serial construction, whether by building multiple units on a single site or standardising reactor designs across several sites. This explains the success of new nuclear projects in South Korea where they focus on building fleets of the same reactor design.
The UK’s nuclear energy policy has been marked by long periods of inactivity. From 1955 to 1979, 17 nuclear power stations were approved. In 1987, Sizewell B was approved and became operational in 1995. There then was a 21-year gap before the next new build—the European pressurised reactor (EPR) at Hinkley Point C—was approved in 2016. This intermediary in policy has made it difficult for the UK to benefit from efficiencies of NOAK reactors and at least partially explains the skyrocketing cost of Hinkley Point C.
Companies like the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) are building reactors around the world. There is no reason why standardised reactor designs could not be replicated, leading to associated cost savings from building NOAK reactors. But regulatory heterogeneity impacts the overall cost of building more nuclear capacity as each country demands different designs to satisfy their requirements. Different interpretations or applications of the same fundamental safety requirements often result in design changes without improving the overall safety of the nuclear power plant.
The UK is failing to capitalise on the valuable expertise manufacturers have gained from building reactors overseas. Frequent design modifications for UK projects turn these reactors into bespoke models, undermining the advantages of prior construction experience and the efficiencies of standardisation.
Consider the Hinkley Point C project. The European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) design used for Hinkley Point C has already been built and is operational in China’s Taishan 1 & 2 reactors and Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 reactor. Another design based on the EPR, France’s Flamanville 3, is expected to begin operation this year. Yet, the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) required extensive design modifications for Hinkley Point C, despite its design being based on that of Flamanville 3. This approach, proven through deployments in France, Finland, and China as part of a fleet strategy, should have enabled EDF and the wider industry to leverage prior experience, cutting costs and speeding up timelines.
But the UK’s bespoke regulatory requirements disrupted this opportunity. The EPR design reactor at Hinkley Point C is now colloquially called the ‘UK EPR’ due to the extensive modifications required for compliance. These bespoke changes have contributed to costs ballooning to up to £43 billion (in real terms), over twice the initial £18 billion cost estimate, and the construction timeline stretching to 2030, 45% longer than China’s Taishan 1 & 2.
“In a letter to staff, seen by the BBC, Stuart Crooks, the managing director of Hinkley Point C, said there were 7,000 substantial design changes required by British regulations that needed to be made to the site, with 35% more steel and 25% more concrete needed than originally planned.” – BBC
The UK’s nuclear regulators mandate design changes that effectively make every new reactor design built here a first-of-its-kind project. This prevents us from leveraging the extensive work South Korean, French, Canadian, and American companies have invested in designing, manufacturing, and optimising reactor models. Without a regulatory framework that allows fleets already proven abroad to be constructed in the UK, costs will continue to escalate. The advantages of standardised designs are evident at Hinkley Point C, where the two identical reactors being built benefit from efficiencies in construction and planning.
“EDF said work on the second reactor base benefited from experience gained building the first, which is virtually identical in design. (...) According to EDF, steel was installed at a 46 per cent-faster rate for Unit 2 than for Unit 1 a year earlier” – Construction News
The overextension of the "UK Relevant Good Practice" framework contributed to the 7,000 substantial design changes for Hinkley Point C. This framework aims to adapt reactor designs to align with Britain's historical nuclear operational expertise. However, regulators for Hinkley C faced significant challenges, as the only comparable example—the light water reactor (LWR) at Sizewell B—began construction 37 years ago. Many of the lessons from Sizewell B have since been lost to time, leaving regulators with limited experience to draw upon. As a result, the framework, rather than enabling progress, has become a constraint.
The United States, with over 100 operational light water reactors (LWR), has achieved world-leading efficiency and safety standards. France has operated nearly 60, Japan operates 33, and South Korea 26. In contrast, the UK has operated only one LWR in the past 37 years and now faces a decade-long delay in commissioning its second. As argued by others, this is a clear situation where turning to international regulatory expertise would have made more sense than relying on outdated national capacity.
Figure 3: Britain is behind in producing light water reactor (LWR) designs
Sources: NEI, World Nuclear Association
We Should be Leveraging the Regulatory Expertise of Our Partners
The International Nuclear Regulators Association (INRA) are our regulatory allies with the common goal of joint exchange global-best practice and standards. Established in 1997, INRA brings together nations with mature nuclear programmes to exchange expertise. The heads of regulatory agencies from the UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Spain, and Sweden have met annually for nearly three decades. Members of the INRA are recognised for having equal outcomes. Considering the best-practice expertise of members of INRA, we should be working with our allies to increase regulatory capacity and strengthen our nuclear approval process.
Plan of Action
The ONR should be leveraging INRA partner country regulatory processes to increase their capacity. To optimise the regulatory process for reactor designs, the ONR should introduce the INRA Country Approved Track (ICAT)—a streamlined pathway for designs that meet three specific criteria:
Full regulatory approval from at least one INRA member country.
Operational status for a minimum of 12 months in the approving country.
By focusing on pre-approved designs, the ICAT would eliminate redundant regulatory steps designed for novel designs, expediting deployment without compromising safety. The ICAT fast-track licence would:
Incorporate all conditions set by the INRA-state approval.
Include a standard set of conditions addressing site-specific issues.
The "standard conditions" would be established after enacting primary legislation and could draw from ONR’s existing published frameworks. Developers would apply for the ICAT licence, which would be automatically granted unless the ONR specifically objects and proposes additional conditions. The ONR would have to give substantial weight to the INRA approval, allowing additional conditions only when strictly necessary for safety. The ONR would have a four-month window to issue objections or propose conditions. Developers would have the right to respond, with the Secretary of State making the final decision if disputes arise.
If the ONR proposes new conditions for an ICAT-approved design, these should follow a backfit framework similar to that of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This framework mandates that any significant modifications:
Result in a substantial increase in overall safety.
Justify the safety benefits against the costs of implementation, factoring in broader benefits such as enhanced grid energy availability for the public.
This approach allows the ONR to focus resources on site-specific considerations while maintaining robust safety standards. By introducing ICAT, the ONR can streamline approvals for proven designs, reduce bottlenecks, and focus its efforts on areas where its expertise is most impactful—accelerating the UK's transition to a secure and modern nuclear energy future. To implement the INRA Country Approved Track (ICAT), primary legislation would be necessary.
FAQs
Will this approach compromise the UK's rigorous nuclear regulatory standards?
No. The UK's world-leading ONR will not be required to cede any regulatory sovereignty or decision-making authority. The change would be in-line with British Nuclear safety practice, legislation and international treaties. The Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050 government report articulated similar proposal changes whilst simultaneously placing safety considerations at the forefront of the report.
What economic benefits can this approach enable?
Hinkley Point C was 63% more expensive per MW than a nominally identical reactor in France (Flamanville 3), owing largely to substantial edits made from the ONR. This mostly isn’t due to increased construction frequency generally — France also went 25 years without building a new nuclear reactor — but learning from building the same design repeatedly. Directly approving the design could thus capture much of the cost difference.
How much money would this save in practice? Building nuclear reactors becomes cheaper with experience. Studies show that the fourth reactor of a design costs 10-50% less than the first. This cost reduction comes from two sources: improved construction practices and learning in component production. In construction, following best practices typically reduces costs by 8% for each doubling of output. In manufacturing, costs historically fall by about 40% when production doubles. NEA analysis referenced in an Institute for Progress report suggests that a cumulative cost savings of 20% over the construction of a fleet of plants is a plausible assumption over what cost savings this might generate.
What exactly is unilateral recognition in this context?
Unilateral recognition in this context means the UK's Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) would recognise specific design assessment procedures, safety standards or licensing decisions from regulators in select trusted partner countries as equivalent to their own domestic process.
For example, unilateral recognition of a US NRC-certified SMR pressure vessel design could allow it to receive an expedited Generic Design Assessment review from the ONR, based on the shared design and safety parameters.
This recognition can cover entire reactor designs or specific components/processes. Recognising approvals from key partners would help streamline overlapping regulatory requirements while still allowing the ONR to protect UK-specific standards where necessary.
Acknowledgements
Our thanks to Mustafa Latif-Aramesh, Nicholas Kruus, Pedro Serôdio and David Lawrence for invaluable comments, editing, and research.
Tym Syrytczyk is a research intern at UK Day One. Previously, he worked on a Labour parliamentary campaign and was a researcher of international tobacco regulation for a health policy non-profit. He holds a degree from the University of Oxford.
Julia Willemyns is the founding co-Director of UK Day One. She previously worked in the philanthropic and science & technology sectors.
Duncan McClements
Duncan McClements - is a research associate at the Adam Smith Institute and student at the University of Cambridge. With Jason Hausenloy, he writes the blog “Model Thinking.”
Jason Hausenloy