The 3 drivers making UK most expensive place to build nuclear

That’s according to a newly published regulatory review into the sector, led by John Fingleton and commissioned by the UK government.

The report warned that both civil and defence programmes suffer from large cost overruns and schedule delays and called for a comprehensive reform of the regulatory framework in a country that was the first to produce commercial power from a nuclear source.

The report identified three regulatory drivers of high cost and delay in the nuclear sector:

• Risk aversion: The report claimed that the regulatory system punishes failure but cannot reward success and is worsened by “inconsistent and insufficient political risk appetite”.
• Process over outcome: Complex procedures are used as protection to reduce accountability, judgement, and allows poor outcomes to be excused by “excellent” process adherence.
• A lack of incentives aligned with the public interest: Regulators and operators are not incentivised to maxmise social benefits or minimize social costs.

The report’s authors called for a “radical reset” and outlined 47 recommendations for the government to speed up the construction of new nuclear projects at lower cost and on time.

Recommendations include establishing a ‘one-stop shop’ for nuclear decisions and streamlining regulation to remove duplication to avoid overly bureaucratic, costly processes while improving safety standards.

The report also claimed that its recommendations could save tens of billions of pounds in nuclear decommissioning costs alone, as well as cutting energy costs for consumers and driving more investment into the UK.

Among the Taskforce’s recommendations were five root and branch propositions. They were:

• Stronger political leadership, including the government providing a robust strategic direction for the civil and defence nuclear sectors;
• Establishing a Commission for Nuclear Regulation to be a unified decision maker across all regulators, planners, and approval bodies;
• Clarifying risk tolerability and proportionality, bringing Britain into line with the rest of the world;
• Merging the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator into the Office for Nuclear Regulation
• Avoiding regulation which prioritises bureaucracy over safe outcomes – such as reforming environmental and planning regimes to enhance nature and deliver projects quicker.

Taskforce chair John Fingleton said, “This is a once in a generation opportunity. The problems are systemic, rooted in unnecessary complexity, and a mindset that favours process over outcome.

“Our solutions are radical, but necessary. By simplifying regulation, we can maintain or enhance safety standards while finally delivering nuclear capacity safely, quickly, and affordably.”

Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, said, “This report presents an unprecedented opportunity to make nuclear regulation more coherent, transparent and efficient, in turn making projects faster and less expensive to deliver. Too often, costly and bureaucratic processes have stood in the way of our energy security, the fight against the climate crisis, and protecting the natural environment, to which nuclear is essential.

“Our standards of regulation are world renowned, but our processes have sometimes developed in a piecemeal way. The UK’s nuclear sector has a strong safety record, and these recommendations will ensure that continues to be the case while addressing duplication, contradiction and excess complexity.”