GOING NUCLEAR: Advancing Advanced Technologies

February 2026 saw the publication by DESNZ of the Advanced Nuclear Framework, a significant step for those looking at promoting projects involving advanced nuclear technologies.

The Ministerial Foreword is accompanied by a face familiar from TV screens in 2020 during the pandemic months, that of Lord Vallance, now Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear.  In his very clear introduction Lord Vallance makes the point that new nuclear technologies offer “new opportunities to deploy capacity more quickly, at a lower cost, and with greater flexibility, helping us to meet rising demand whilst cutting emissions” and will support skilled jobs and reinforce Britain’s energy security. The Advanced Nuclear Framework (“the Framework”) sets out how the government will support this and introduces the UK Advanced Nuclear Pipeline (“the Pipeline”), which provides a route for privately led projects, “helping projects unlock private investment and creating an environment that bolsters developers’ confidence to undertake nuclear projects at their own commercial risk.” Additionally, the government is looking to strengthen what are termed the “foundations for growth”: regulation, planning and siting reforms, investment in fuel cycle capabilities such as High‑Assay Low‑Enriched Uranium (HALEU), and support from the UK’s national laboratories and research institutions.

This is potentially a very important development and the Framework and Pipeline will be read carefully in months to come by promoters of new technologies and their advisors.  It involves essentially a new government‑managed process through which projects can submit detailed plans across five core areas (technology and supply chain; developer capability; finance/funding/investment; siting; and operator/end‑user arrangements). DESNZ and GBE‑N will then conduct eligibility checks and a structured Project Readiness Assessment. Projects may be invited to join the Pipeline, subject to ministerial approval and agreement to Pipeline terms. Pipeline Membership confers “… a Statement of Limited, In‑Principle, Endorsement, signalling that government considers the project credible and potentially deliverable in the UK, thereby helping developers and investors progress financing and due diligence”.

Pipeline projects may then engage with DESNZ on potential revenue support in various forms on a case-by-case basis, raising issues such affordability and value for money. In parallel, companies can approach the National Wealth Fund to explore investment with the Fund acting as a catalytic investor, alongside private capital. Part Two of the Framework sets out wider enablers that the government is putting in place to support nuclear deployment, reforming the planning system, grid connection process, and regulatory process, to ease and accelerate deployment of new plants.

The process therefore provides a sort of government sponsored “reality check” on the feasibility of new nuclear projects. Getting a tick does not guarantee further support but provides a foot in the door for this opportunity, and will be an important credential when seeking investment from the private sector.

A number of other points merit mentioning. The government plainly wants to see new developments on public land: GBE‑N sites such as Oldbury and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority locations such as Pioneer Park in Cumbria and Trawsfynydd in North Wales are mentioned specifically. Secondly, DESNZ appears to be tooling up to assist in delivery: a dedicated business-focussed team in the Department will be established to act as “a concierge-style service for companies to help them navigate the UK system”. An Advanced Nuclear Business Engagement Unit will act as “… facilitators for projects, helping them progress, and supporting wide-ranging engagement with government and other key bodies in the UK such as the Office for Nuclear Regulation, National Wealth Fund, and local authorities”.

It is important to understand what is meant by Advanced Nuclear Technologies for this purpose.  The term includes established and next generation reactor designs SMRs, AMRs and MMRs.  SMRs are designed to produce less than 500 megawatts (MW) of electricity using low‑enriched uranium fuel up to 5% and based on existing light‑water and boiling‑water reactor technology already widely deployed around the world. AMRs are modular reactors where vendors propose to change one or more of the fuel, reactor coolant or neutron spectrum of the design compared to common water‑cooled reactors. MMRs (Micro Modular Reactors) represent the smallest class of advanced nuclear technologies, typically generating around 20MW or less.  However, the government recognises that some advanced nuclear innovations present risk as well as opportunity and has stipulated that eligible projects must be fuelled by Uranium‑235 enriched to less than 20%.  Also, in view of the fact that some forms of deployment can raise unique regulatory, legal, safety, or strategic challenges the framework specifically excludes offshore or floating nuclear platforms, civil nuclear propulsion, space‑based reactors and transportable nuclear solutions.

An additional challenge identified by stakeholders is investor concern over risks that are difficult to insure and the absence of clear pathways to achieving reliable returns. The framework makes clear that government may consider insurance and revenue support for credible private projects, provided such support offers value for money and economic risk remains with the developer.

Detailed guidance has been published alongside this framework on GOV.UK to provide greater clarity of the information required and the engagement expected during the PRA process, with the following high‑level principles:

• Projects must support land‑based, non‑mobile, fission technologies that are either SMRs, AMRs or MMRs fuelled by Uranium-235 enriched up to 20%.
• Projects must be seeking deployment on mainland sites in England or Wales.
• Projects must be seeking to commence construction within 10 years of joining the Pipeline.
• The project proposer must be a registered company.
• Other criteria around solvency and international sanctions.

Developers will need to understand the limitations of successful applications to the Pipeline.  The “small print” makes clear it is not intended to, and will not, limit the discretion of ministers, DESNZ or UK regulatory bodies in the exercise of existing or future powers, such as in relation to policy, legislation, licences and codes. Furthermore, the Framework (including the Guidance) and the Pipeline are not intended to, and will not, create any expectation as to any other future procedure, policy or support mechanisms (including financial) that may or may not be established, including as to whether a project is or is not completed and over what timeframe or in what form. The description given is that:

 “Membership of the Pipeline is a signal of limited, in‑principle, endorsement. This endorsement denotes that, through the structured due diligence of the PRA process, DESNZ has determined that the proposed project appears credible such that DESNZ believes the project developers could feasibly deliver the project in the UK. This endorsement does not guarantee that a Pipeline project will be successfully deployed, including over what timeframe or in what form, which are matters subject to relevant UK statutory and regulatory approvals. The UK government’s limited, in‑principle, endorsement does not constitute investment advice. Anyone considering investment in a Pipeline project should seek independent investment advice and carry out due diligence.”

Nevertheless, the Pipeline seems likely to be an essential prerequisite to access to the various finance and funding support policies that the government is willing, in principle, to offer to credible private advanced nuclear projects: these include revenue support, risk protections, national Wealth Fund capital, and protections for uninsurable risks.   It makes clear that the final structure of any such mechanism will depend on the agreement of a risk-sharing arrangement between government and a developer, where the developer bears most of the economic risks and costs of the project. Any offer of support will be subject to full government approvals including, but not limited to, affordability and value for money assessments.

Finally, it is important to note what the framework has to say on waste, and spent fuel echoing advice given to government over the past couple of years by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. Developers using novel coolants, moderators, or other reactor materials should demonstrate that waste and spent fuel can be managed and disposed of safely. This means that developers may need to fund research and development regarding the disposability of any novel wastes within a UK Geological Disposal Facility (GDF and also plan for and allocate resources to any pre‑disposal infrastructure necessary to process or manage wastes ahead of storage in a UK GDF. This will include storage facilities for spent fuel and for waste that is not suitable for disposal in the UK’s current radioactive waste disposal facilities.

All in all, this is an important step forward in achieving greater levels of investment certainty for these potentially very important new types of nuclear technology.