{"id":56841,"title":"UK nuclear expansion proceeds without permanent waste disposal site","publisher":"Stockmark.IT","author":"Stockmark.IT Website","published":"2026-08-18T05:45:54+00:00","modified":"2026-08-18T05:45:54+00:00","canonical_url":"https://stockmark.it/special-investigation-uks-nuclear-waste-a-calamity-for-future-generati/","markdown_url":"https://stockmark.it/special-investigation-uks-nuclear-waste-a-calamity-for-future-generati.md","json_url":"https://stockmark.it/special-investigation-uks-nuclear-waste-a-calamity-for-future-generati.json","category":"Companies","categories":["Companies","Economy","Nuclear"],"featured_image":"https://i0.wp.com/stockmark.it/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/uk-nuclear-expansion-proceeds-without-permanent-waste.png?fit=1536%2C1024&quality=80&ssl=1","format":"news","language":"en-GB","content":"The United Kingdom is advancing plans for a new fleet of nuclear reactors despite the absence of a confirmed repository for high-grade legacy waste. The search for a location for an underground nuclear waste burial site has stalled, leaving the government to rely on interim storage measures that were originally designed as temporary solutions. New energy secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh is required to review two remaining areas in Cumbria after three other potential sites were abandoned following community pushback. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority confirmed that the sites of Mid Copeland and South Copeland, located near existing nuclear waste storage facilities at Sellafield, are currently being assessed for permanent storage in a planned geological disposal facility.\n\nThe situation has drawn criticism from experts and industry figures who argue that the government is deferring difficult decisions to future generations. Former energy secretary Ed Miliband pledged in 2025 to deliver a golden age of nuclear, yet the lack of a determined burial site has led to accusations that the administration is kicking the can down the road. Chris Gadomski, an adjunct professor of energy at New York University, warned that the storage of nuclear waste in containers and dry casks at Sellafield was only ever intended as a temporary measure. Sellafield, which is now 79 years old, was initially estimated to operate for only a century as the UK’s main warehouse for nuclear waste. Professor Andrew Blowers, co-chair of the NWS/NGO Exchange, stated that the new build programme is costly and risky, adding that the wastes from such a programme will add calamity to future generations rather than helping to deal with climate change.\n\nFinancial considerations have also been scrutinised, with reports indicating that the National Wealth Fund did not factor long-term waste disposal into its decision to invest in Sizewell C. The state-owned body backed the UK’s new 3.2GW nuclear power station in Suffolk with £36.6 billion in debt finance. Ian Brown, the chief investment officer of the National Wealth Fund, acknowledged during an interview that the proposal currently assumes waste material will remain on site, noting that it will take time to determine where in the country the waste can be buried, if ever. The upper cost threshold for Sizewell C was reported to be £47 billion, a figure compounded by cumulative inflation. Gadomski described the project as the most expensive nuclear project in the world, warning that there is no really good solution for waste and that the industry faces significant uncertainty regarding economics.\n\nThe Office for Nuclear Regulation stated that National Waste Services, a subsidiary of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority created in 2022, needs to find a suitable site and a willing community to host nuclear waste. Of five potential sites previously considered, three have been ruled out. Allerdale in Cumbria was withdrawn due to insufficient suitable geology, while Theddlethorpe in Lincolnshire and South Holderness in Yorkshire voluntarily withdrew from the process. The National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority has marked the UK’s geological disposal facility plans as code red, with an estimated cost ranging from £20.3 billion to £53.3 billion in 2017/18 values. Despite these costs, nuclear waste is not factored into economic models for project risk by nuclear investors, a gap attributed by economist Olivier Darmouni to a lack of data and hard numbers to weigh the waste costs against other factors.\n\nThe technical challenges of managing nuclear waste are substantial. High-level waste is vitrified, or turned into glass, to prevent it from moving, then placed into concrete and barrels. This process does not eliminate radioactivity, which can persist for several tens of thousands of years or more. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority plans to dispose of all high-level nuclear waste by 2104 and aims to retrieve all legacy magnox uranium metal by 2045. Spent fuel ponds at Sellafield mainly store legacy waste from the 1950s and 1960s, and while these ponds are well controlled, the timeline for storage is being stretched. Gadomski noted that the reliance on interim storage reflects political inertia, as it is often easier and less expensive to implement temporary solutions than to address the long-term problem. Globally, the process for identifying geological sites remains delayed and political, with local opposition often complicating efforts to develop new facilities."}