The ‘Midlands’ region of Great Britain is economically diverse, with industrial and manufacturing companies and a skilled industrial and technical workforce. It has a strong heritage of industrial innovation, creating new opportunities in green industries including hydrogen, nuclear, renewables and synthetic fuels. Midlands Nuclear says the region needs increasing amounts of power for electrifying sectors such as logistics, as well as for cities like Birmingham, Leicester and Nottingham. It also needs heat for industry. The Midlands Nuclear Siting Study, commissioned and funded by the Midlands Net Zero Hub, aims to provide an evidence base to support nuclear build in the region: it wants to position the region to lead the UK’s clean energy development, industrial decarbonisation and net zero delivery.
The region has a longstanding nuclear licensed site in Derby (where Rolls Royce is based), and a new fusion project – the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (STEP) – at West Burton, an ex coal-fired station site. It also included, at Theddlethorpe in Lincolnshire, a potential location for a deep geological waste repository, a project that local councils have now rejected. However, the region has never hosted nuclear generation. The closest plants were outside the region – the Hartlepool site well north of the Humber estuary, and Berkeley in Gloucestershire. In contrast, the region has always been a fossil fuel powerhouse, housing over 18 GW of largely coal-fired generating plant, built between the 1950s and the 1980s. This has all now closed – but that does not mean there is necessarily spare grid capacity, and in fact a national project to expand the GB grid includes projects to reduce congestion in the Midlands. Network capacity that was freed up by plant closure was often quickly reconfigured, for example to serve new onshore wind.
However, on a case-by-case basis spare capacity does exist; and for Midlands Nuclear the key is that “The national electricity grid has… developed around the production and use of electricity in the Midlands and is well suited to a return to this status”. Nuclear can be located close to demand for both power and heat, in contrast to GB’s offshore wind, which requires power to be transported sometimes hundreds of miles to customers.
Finding new nuclear sites
With its cities and towns the Midlands has among the country’s most densely populated areas outside London and this is one of the reasons for its lack of nuclear sites. Two changes mean Midlands Nuclear is now advocating for nuclear reactors in its region: new designs for small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactors (AMRs) have smaller requirements for land, cooling water and other resources; and a new approach to site selection, and development consent opens many more potential sites than before.
The new approach, dubbed EN-7, moves away from the prescriptive approach taken by its predecessor (which identified just eight locations in the UK as suitable for nuclear deployment, of which none were in the Midlands), to a goal-setting approach that could enable nuclear deployment in more locations, subject to meeting specific criteria.
The Midlands Nuclear Siting Study foresees the region moving quickly from identifying potential sites to an investment and licensing process. As a result, it aimed to:
- Identify and map potential nuclear energy sites across the regions using a methodology consistent with current planning policy statements;
- Assess the technical, regulatory and social requirements for successful nuclear development, considering modern SMR and ANT deployment needs;
- Engage with local authorities, landowners, and the nuclear industry to validate findings and strengthen regional buy-in;
- Select and appraise two “nominated sites” in detail, including an analysis of benefits, opportunities, and potential barriers;
- Produce an investment brochure that communicates the Midlands’ nuclear opportunities to investors, developers and government.
It does not aim to assess whether a project on a particular site would be commercially viable, which would require further detailed techno-economic assessment on a specific technology and further practical site assessment.
It says there are “no perfect sites”, as all sites will have unique characteristics and some of these require mitigations that may require extra investment, variation or compensatory measures. “This principle should be understood early by all parties. Early action to mitigate known risks may provide a basis to better understand site economics and risks.
It warns that the stock of suitable sites is decreasing. It calls for a strategic plan that recognises that sites with the potential to be suitable for nuclear new build are “strategic assets to the Midlands and the UK” to stop sites suitable for new nuclear being blocked by other developments that could be in other locations.
The Midlands Nuclear team used previous studies for a baseline assessment of site options, followed by a sequence of sensitivity studies. For the most promising sites, subjective guidance was added on four factors influencing their economic attractiveness:
- Cooling water availability, compatible cooling system designs and their effect on thermal efficiency
- Ground conditions and the extent to which improvement works are necessary to provide an adequate foundation
- Flood defences and mitigation, usually with platform raising and sometimes other engineered protection
- Ease of access for bulk construction materials and large loads, avoiding the need for developer investment in new local infrastructure
The study reconsiders some sites previously deemed to ‘fail’ for various reasons, such as outdated assumptions on minimum site area, or the risk of hazards from potential or existing nearby industries, such as petrochemicals, that have closed or are no longer planned.
The current accepted hierarchy for nuclear site development is:
- Adjacent to operating or decommissioning nuclear power station
- Adjacent to other nuclear licensed site
- On or adjacent to brownfield site
- On or adjacent to greenfield site
Over 80 candidate sites across the Midlands were assessed. The result was a shortlist of 21 sites, nine brownfield and 12 greenfield, (theoretically totalling more than 20 GW) for comprehensive impact assessment and appropriate regulatory review and approvals.
Several sites were found to be significantly or marginally developed and were excluded from the shortlist. Site ownership was considered, including whether one or more landowners would be involved and whether they were large corporations. Judgements were made on how bulk and indivisible loads would be delivered to the sites.
Brownfield sites are considered more likely to be developable. This would not preclude a determined regional entity and developer in pursuing a greenfield site, however where there are other options available, such a developer would have to justify its choice, especially as some potential greenfield sites were located near brownfield sites. There may be pressure, including public pressure, to use the brownfield option. Experience with a potential deep repository bore this out (see below).
Of the brownfield sites:
- Two initially failed on proximity to hazards but were reinstated because the hazard was lower than expected or could be mitigated;
- Six were in planning or development of commercial or domestic property, or have alternative plans in place;
- Three were near internationally designated ecological zones, which could require mitigations;
- Two had complex make-up water cooling flows;
- All would require indirect cooling, with less favourable plant economics than direct cooling water.
Following a detailed comparative appraisal, two sites were selected as the Midlands’ most strategic, near-term opportunities and a detailed appraisal process was undertaken for these.
The detailed appraisal phase built upon this initial evaluation and expanded the level of assessment considerably to develop a robust understanding of each site’s true potential and challenges, the scope of which included:
- A site-specific assessment, identifying any caveats or limitations affecting development feasibility;
- Precise location and boundary definition;
- Confirmation of total available site size;
- Site history and legacy industrial uses;
- Commentary and qualification against the planning siting criteria;
- Estimation of the site’s electrical generating capacity potential and identification of any constraints, including land area or cooling water limitations;
- An assessment of the number of reactor units the site could support, with appropriate space allowances for construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning;
- Environmental and planning considerations, including flood risk analysis, potential impacts from coastal processes (where relevant), proximity to hazardous facilities, civil aviation activities, military activities, and proximity to internationally and nationally designated ecological or heritage sites;
- Mitigations required on the sites;
- Potential effects on areas of landscape, cultural, or recreational value, access to reliable cooling water sources, and any economic challenges that could impact site development.
Finally, a summary assessment was produced for each site, highlighting the distinctive characteristics that made these sites stand out as the Midlands’ most strategic opportunities for early, investor-ready nuclear development. Midlands Nuclear did not reveal the sites reviewed, because any process of local engagement for nuclear development has to be carefully planned by the development consortium engaged in the project. But to make the region attractive site for nuclear, the report calls on Midland authorities to:
- Engage with national system operators to align nuclear plans with plans for national energy infrastructure
- Develop a Midlands nuclear supply chain strategy, including capability mapping, SME engagement programmes, nuclear certification readiness support, supplier development initiatives and signposting of forthcoming contract opportunities.
- Invest in skills and workforce development with apprenticeships, technical education, retraining programmes, and specialist skills academies in partnership with universities, colleges and industry.
- Strengthen planning and infrastructure readiness by proactively engaging with regulators, planning bodies and network operators to identify and address potential planning, permitting, environmental, and infrastructure challenges early.
- Maximise nuclear’s economic and industrial legacy with clear plans including supply chain growth, skills development, community benefits and regional innovation.
Although the Siting Study does not assess economic viability, it sets out some fundamental requirements for any project that would have that viability, as well as being technically feasible and socially acceptable. The site and the project (including the technology) must be supported by committed, capable and well-funded organisations. Coordination and commitment between the developer, technology vendor, operator, investor, engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) company and other organisations is crucial.
Add to that “secure political and community support” that is visible and co-ordinated, with strategic engagement with government and other stakeholders. It says regional organisations that are approached to support nuclear new-build proposals have to find out which proposals are serious and likely to progress, and which are less credible and could take longer or even block sites.
The need for local support in the long term and through changes of local and national government was demonstrated during a two-year effort to investigate a site in Theddlethorpe, Lincolnshire as a potential geological deep repository (GDR).
The area, along with two others in northwest England, was named as potentially geologically suitable in a 2023 strategic plan published by Nuclear Waste Services (NWS), GB’s recently restructured waste management organization, and potential host communities had been approached in 2021. NWS planned to site this facility in England or Wales “with a willing host community and location that has a suitable geology to assure long-term safety and host the engineering structures required to build the facility”.
The area saw investment of £1m (US$1.35m) annually, which was set to rise to £2.5m (US$3.4m) when NWS passed a planned milestone to start deep sub-surface borehole investigations, planned in 2029.
But by the start of this year one district council, East Lindsey, had already pulled out of the process. In March this year Cllr Martin Hill, leader of Lincolnshire County Council, said the council was also expected to pull out. As highlighted by the siting study, above, a switch from a brownfield to a greenfield site was a key change behind the council’s decision. The council statement said that initially, “the site earmarked for the development was an old gas terminal in Theddlethorpe – a brownfield site. Since then, the area that NWS is considering for the entry point to the GDF has shifted to open farmland, a couple of miles up the coast and further inland. This changes the very nature of the proposal and, understandably, raised further concerns within the local community”.
He also highlighted the transport issue separately identified by the siting study. He said “Whilst we have tried to maintain an open mind towards the plans, we are now several years on from this first being suggested, and big questions still remain to be answered about the scale of the development and how this waste would get there.”
Hill added that “the community is getting frustrated with the uncertainty and slow pace of this process.”
The council’s withdrawal was considered on 3 June, by which time, following council elections, the majority party had changed. However, a vote confirmed the council would withdraw from the process.
