Defence Secretary John Healey has announced the UK’s plan to explore options for re-establishing a nuclear fuel cycle dedicated to defence purposes.

This initiative, part of the ongoing modernisation of the Defence Nuclear Enterprise, includes steps toward engaging with industry partners to assess how best to meet the requirements of this programme.

“The UK is exploring options to re-establish a nuclear-fuel cycle for reactor fuel for defence purposes,” Healey explained. He spoke of the Government’s commitment, stating, “The Government is committed to modernising defence nuclear-fuel production under the Defence Nuclear Enterprise. We are commencing engagement with industry to develop options for how this requirement can be delivered.”

Healey reiterated the UK’s adherence to its nuclear responsibilities and international obligations, affirming that, “The UK takes its nuclear responsibilities and obligations seriously. This fuel production cycle will be fully consistent with the UK’s international obligations, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).”

He also clarified that the project would respect the UK’s voluntary moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, a policy in place since 1995.

To further emphasise the UK’s commitment to responsible nuclear practices, Healey pledged that “the UK will continue to maintain the highest standards of safeguarding of civil nuclear materials, ensuring a separation from defence materials and complying with our obligations under the UK’s Voluntary Offer Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

The Defence Nuclear Enterprise is the network of organisations responsible for the upkeep and operation of the UK’s nuclear deterrent and submarine forces. DNE coordinates various entities to ensure that submarines, supporting infrastructure, and specialised personnel are maintained to meet defence standards.

As part of this role, it collaborates with suppliers across the UK, focusing on secure, efficient, and technology-driven support for nuclear capabilities.

DNE’s partnerships are structured to align with its mission to deter threats to national security, which, in turn, supports a wide range of highly skilled jobs throughout the country. These partnerships are emphasised by the collective as critical to delivering the nuclear deterrent while meeting stringent security and governance standards.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

90 COMMENTS

  1. I read of this pretty significant news the other day.
    Didn’t we used to get plutonium from Chapelcross back in the day??

    • Rolls Royce manufacture and fuel the specialised nuclear reactors for UK SSN and SSBN. Plutonium is not used in the fuel rods. The details are highly classified

        • Given the latest talks in Paris, between UK prime Minister Sir Starmer and président Macron, the fact that France resumed production of nuclear material 2 years ago, and the necessity to reassure all European countries, I am especially pleased to see these kind of announcements in UK. « We don’t know what you produce exactly, but it is related to something you don’t want to talk too much about, while still saying it » means you are working on weapons. I hope military bounds will go much further. A stronger alliance between our countries could be the way to go to create a stronger European NATO pillar. Germany, Poland, Nordic states, Italy are watching closely these developments. It does not make headlines, but we can see it through various hesitation, questions, dedicated articles on the web. It make a lot of sense to create such a trend. Many friendship can be build, if we are able to stand together. I don’t see any political party in France having a bad thing to say about United Kingdom, it is obvious that your country benefit from a transpartisan support, since we love to complain all the time, about everything but not about your country. I cross my fingers.

          • Well yes. But how about Macron cuts out the Brexit crap, and all the snubs and politics that has gone on for years.
            All of a sudden, Europe finding it might “need” the UK and lets be friends.
            Well I never!

          • None of those things exist outside leaver lies designed to blame Europe for the debacle Brexit was always doomed to be.

          • “But how about Macron cuts out the Brexit crap, and all the snubs and politics that has gone on for years.”

            It’s right there. Or are you living up to the reputation for being undereducated?

          • That makes no sense. That doesn’t answer my question. You said we are blaming everyone. Blaming everyone for what exactly? Are you saying we are blaming Macron for winning? Who are we blaming for what because us undereducated people need to know what you’re waffling on about?!

          • Calm down, panic attack.

            I’m saying that, since Brexit, every single brexiteer has whined ad nauseum about how everyone else is doing it wrong or boo hoo being mean to us about it (see the macron comment above).

            At no point has any brexiteer made any semblance of an attempt to rebuild bridges or justify the brain-dead decision. They (and you) would much rather point fingers and say “haha you lost”.

            Guess what, Nevis? Everyone lost. You’re just too smooth in the brain to see it yet. That’s why people like Macron don’t bend in deference to us – do you kowtow to the stupid?

          • Oh I see. I understand now. It was just an angry bitter rant at us undereducated people with no thought about it. Well done.

          • I read the first 4 words then came to the conclusion you must be on the scotch because no sober person would be that angry and bitter after nearly a decade. Come back when you’ve sobered up.

          • I wouldn’t bother, he’s just trying to stir it for you. We left the EU because we could. France cannot, neither can Germany. Both are two dependent on each other. Both complain about the EU. We didn’t leave Europe, either. Just the EU. As for the news, good, I hope they sort it out. Sovereign capability in many areas is crucial. For too long we have allowed other countries and organisations (EU) to do the work, we should have been doing. Yes it was cheaper but there is always a price to pay in the long run.

          • I gave up at panic attack. He’s far too over educated for us undereducated people. I cannot compete with such wisdom.🥴

          • It’s a common slur.
            Ignore. I did.
            What I observed about Macron still stands.
            And yes, we need to be close to our fellow Europeans. We do not need to be in the EU for that.

          • Indeed. I put it down to ignorance.
            And yes we should have closer ties to Europe. Nobody has suggested otherwise.

          • Sorry, I didn’t know that bad feelings were brewing deep in UK people minds. As far as we are concerned, no such things exists in France. We are of course sad that UK is no longer part of EU, but it is not a day to day topic. People here tend to see very positively UK, it’s King, the young prince and the princess. We felt sorry to see them sick. Of course, we know that here and there were some shortage, but I did not think people would have been mad at us. We definitely are not mad at you. Quite the contrary. We respect the sovereign choice of Britain and feared for the unity of the EU. Something that does not change is that we consider UK as our best ally. And still do to this day. You were here in good times and bad times. Many French people were please to move and live in London in the past decades. Of course we love to « hate » you (especially England) in Rugby or for Eurofighter vs Rafale but we also have respect for UK people. Many English people live or have lived in south west of France. They are appreciated.
            Have a nice day

          • Hi Math. You seem like a decent and sensible individual. Please could you explain to me why you think I have bad feelings towards the people of Europe? I have never suggested that, only questioned the decision making of some of its leaders. Please explain why you have made that assumption?

          • It is just… The general tone on Brexit discussions that made me feel this way. Not implying much to be honest, just a general feeling that people might be angry toward us. Nothing more. I would be very pleased to be wrong on that one 😄 Decision maker come and go, they are not here forever, just to say.

          • If you spend any time here, you’d realise that isn’t an assumption at all.

            Plus, it’s related to Brexit – statistics following the referendum showed that people with higher education (typically degrees) were significantly more likely to vote Remain, people in higher earnings brackets were more likely to vote Remain, and younger people were more likely to vote Remain.

            So your average brexiteer will skew less educated, less prosperous, and older.

          • Everyone has an opinion, that’s democracy .There was a vote and it went in favour of those who had not voted on joining the EU Where was the democracy then in 92 . I myself and many others were serving in the RN and found ourselves being sent to the coast of Croatia, was it the UN or NATO that sent us ? . No it was the EU ,The UK had given over its sovereignty of the Armed forces to Brussels .When I left the RN I sent my children to Boarding school , took a degree in psychology, counselled Veterans with PTSD and substance missuse , voted leave . I have no regrets over my life’s choices ,neither do my Sons one is an NHS consultant the other is a master craftsman carpentry .Both voted leave.

          • “Democracy is when 51.8% of the population can make an existential change to a country and force the other 48.2% to go along with their stupidity.”

            I’m very glad that you were totally isolated from the effects of Brexit, but multiple people I know got kicked in the teeth by it. In fact, I am repeatedly bashed in the jaw when I try to take a job in an EU country. I now have to go through a whole visa process because a bunch of boomers decided that the EU somehow took our sovereignty (PS: This isn’t true. It was never true. It was a lie peddled by the very people you were too much of a sucker to doubt).

            Frankly, your small selection of peers means nothing when the stats say it clearly – Brexit voters are less educated, less prosperous, and older. And now, people like me have to pay the debt of that idiocy.

          • Unfortunately you are wrong, I’d have thought with your self appointment title as the smartest person here, if not the entire UK, you would have done some basic research, if you had, you would have discovered that peer reviewed studies by the university of Edinburgh after the Brexit referendum confirmed that of the two groups, leave voters were the higher educated of the two groups.

            There is also a great many studies from universities across the globe,that conclude, that people who repeatedly tell everyone how smart and educated they are, tend to be nothing of the sort

          • “your self appointment title as the smartest person here”

            Show me, with quotes, where I said that, David.

            And provide me your peer reviewed papers.

          • This exchange started because I commented on the irony of Macron now needing the UK having been as obstructive as possible previously on the choice that was made.
            Nothing more.
            Which is true whichever way you view the B word.
            But there is such bitterness still in remoaners, as we see in these examples.
            I don’t engage with it.

          • Depends on perspectives. UK going out, leading to a general breakdown of all ties, China and Russia kicking in, USA kicking out… What about that if it went for a smooth transition?
            What about the shoes of the other parties involved in this decisions? Would you really be better of? Nothing is that simple.
            I’m not sure though it is a luxury we can really have now. Situation is a bit worst.

          • I wasn’t mentioning NATO but the push for an EU Army which Macron is pushing for and Starmer is looking at closer ties with the EU

          • Given the beating our fleet took many times, I’d rather see them under the command of an English admiral; it would be less expensive. For the land army, things can be discussed… We had good times and bad times.

          • As long as it’s a NATO commander and able to do the job I’m not concerned about the nationality.
            I have no issue whatsoever over British forces under a French or German commander.
            Traditionally, SACEUR is always an American. That may need to end.
            Deputy SACEUR is a Brit.
            Navy wise yes a RN commander double hatted at Northwood.

        • For most of the Cold War the UK produced its own U235 HEU at Capenhurst, it’s now reliant on the USA and we do have a considerable stockpile.
          However we now have the little complication of needing to build and fuel reactors for Australia in addition to our own requirements. And there’s the problem as even the US has taken its foot off the gas.
          Here in Derby the reactors and cores are assembled and the fissile material is turned into the fuel pellets necessary for fuelling the cores.
          The exact process is highly classified and has to be carried out to the very highest standards of manufacture and control. All the stages of manufacture have to be done in a manner that ensures complete fail safe methodology at all parts of the process.

          The devil of this will be in the detail as how they fund it, when and where. Like most of the UK nuclear industry Capenhurst has been semi privatised, it’s part of URENCO which co owned by the U.K & NL governments plus 2 German companies (E.on and RWE). So that could make things a bit complicated due to security and NPT (HEU is bomb grade U235).

          At present it’s being repurposed to make HALEU fuel for the new generation of reactors. Which breaks the stranglehold Russia has had for nearly 3 decades.

          If I were a betting man I’d say they may well set up a separate facility (possibly at Capenhurst) to enrich the Oxide up to HEU.

          FYI there are some really good articles about all this stuff on FAS website.

          • Morning mate.

            I knew of Capenhurst, but more for the “research tower” that GCHQ plonked there in the late 80s early 90s.

            It’s all ramping up nicely.

            As ever, conventional defence barely gets a look in beyond supply lines.

          • Good Morning, I’m just trying to get used to seeing a big yellow thing in the sky after nearly 3 weeks of Grey gloom.
            So in the plain light of day we need to “sit upon the ground and tell sad tales upon the death of Kings”.
            Conventional warfare has been neglected to such a degree it would take an uplift in budget that no U.K Government will provide.

            Army is gutted and its supporting industry has been obliterated. No ability to even design or manufacture small arms (except AI), artillery, Tanks, IFV, uniforms, boots etc etc. IMHO and to my great regret it’s time to just accept most of that is unrecoverable. That’s due to the size of our home market and the presence of German, American and S Korean competition.
            Realistically the sensible thing would be to just bite the bullet and build as many CR3 as possible and join the German Tank bandwagon.
            RAF is recoverable but its main issues are lack of mass but it wouldn’t be too hard to regenerate a reasonable force level. I actually think 24/36 new Typhoons and say 48 F35B would do for starters, but also 2 extra Wedgetails and drones to supplement the P8.
            Navy (surface) is recovering slowly but steadily back to what is admittedly an inadequate force level. It needs to be increased in size but until we start to get T26/31 into service and see if Norway is going for 5 T26 I’d sit tight with what’s in order. But FFS sort out the RFA it’s the key force multiplier to European NATO being able to operate in the Northern seas.

            Then we get to RN (sub surface) and why it and the DNE are getting so much attention. We actually have great 2nd largest nuclear Submarine force in the Western World and the industry to expand it if required and properly funded.
            We no longer stand alone, we are a part of NATO and are European so what is the best way we can contribute to collective security and at a manageable cost ?
            Yep expand the SSN/SSBN force to say 5 SSBN and 10/12 SSN, it would cost roughly £1billion pa for 10 years to do it.

            If I were in a room with Macron yesterday there would be 2 things to discuss.

            1. Both RN & MN to build a 5th SSBN each, operate an integrated deployment schedule and start talking about a future Air Launched Tactical Nuclear missile for both countries.
            2. An integrated Missile Defence system !

            That doesn’t mean we don’t re equip the Army or RAF, but realise that we can provide forces that others can’t so concentrate on those.

          • Just as a point of interest, France have the Air-Sol Moyenne Portée (“Medium-Range Air-to-Surface” or ASMP). Which is a supersonic air launched tactical nuclear cruise missile, with a dialable yeald thermonuclear warhead.

            It is going to be replaced by the Air-Sol Nucléaire de 4ème Génération. Which will use a Scramjet in place of the ASMP’s ramjet. The range requirement has tripled over ASMP to greater than 1000km.

          • Not really any different to my RN RAF Intell first philosophy and desire for more enablers and niche assets.

    • Chapelcross was one of many. The Magnox reactors generated huge amounts.

      We actually have one of the largest stockpiles of plutonium on earth..

      • The Magnox reactors were designed primarily to produce plutonium. Power was a desirable by product!

        Which is why, as you say, the UK has plutonium coming out of its ears.

        However, that is zero use for a submarine’s compact propulsion reactor!!

    • Correct but Plutonium is only used in A bombs, and Fast reactors not in maritime nuclear reactors. Although these reactors use Uranium which is enriched to a far higher degree than civil reactors,

      • A lot of it shipped in from other countries. I’m not sure how much Britain is allowed to use for our own purposes through. Through we control it so apart from suing us for breach of contract their not a lot a country could do to stop us from using for what ever we want.

  2. Given the current issues with Russia the UK government should be supporting nuclear fuel production for both military and commercial use.

    • True but to the best of my knowledge they have been running on straight uranium for many years. There is no non military source of plutonium in the U.K. since the Fast Reactor at Dounreay shut down.

      • We don’t need any more plutonium for anything!

        We need refined uranium for sure.

        I think we contracted most of the civilian reactor fuel production out to Russia actually. Going forwards as we are going nuclear electric again we need to secure that.

      • This has nothing to do with plutonium production or use. Submarine reactors run on highly enriched uranium and the UK has more than enough plutonium for weapons use (~3t). The military even transferred excess weapons grade plutonium to the civil sector.

        The primary reason for UK extraction of plutonium from fuel waste was for MOX production (it was reactor grade plutonium, not weapons grade).
        Most UK plutonium is held by civilian agencies. The latest figures show some 116t of plutonium in civilian hands (with a further 24t of Japanese owned stock held).

          • “There is no non military source of plutonium in the U.K. since the Fast Reactor at Dounreay shut down.”

          • I don’t believe there is a production source of plutonium in the UK at the moment, not on an industrial scale at least.

            I suspect that we may be at crossed purposes. The reintroduction of fuel manufacturing could be for one or more of four purposes.

            1) The production of high enriched uranium (HEU) and/or high assay low enriched uranium (HALEU) for military propulsion purposes.

            2) The additional production of low enriched uranium (LEU) for use in commercial reactors.

            3) The reprocessing of spent fuel for the recovery of plutonium for use in the manufacture of MOX fuels and potentially breeder-reactor fuel processes.

            4) The production of weapons grade plutonium.

            It is my understanding that the intent of the decision is to re-establish capability 1. The reassurances wrt non-proliferation suggest the exclusion of 4.

            The intent of my original post was that I would like to see the project extended to include 2. The west needs to remove its reliance on Russian fuel and the UK has the knowledge and potential capability to assist with this.
            Further, I would like to see at least pilot capabilities in 3 re-established, if only to further research in alternative fuel cycles.

  3. Given Russia’s demonstrated willingness to sustain serious manpower and materiel losses in support of its objectives I would have thought a re-evaluation of what constitutes a ‘minimum deterrrent’ would be appropriate at this point.

  4. On another tack, triggered by the headline picture, is there any more information on the recent fire at Barrow? I haven’t yet seen any theories linking it to the recent spate of alleged Russian interference, but I suspect it may only be a matter of time.

  5. The irony here is that for as long as I can remember, it was the Conservative Party who were big on nuclear, and Labour were either lukewarm or against it.
    Here we now have the Labour government seeming to be ready to embrace nuclear with open arms, after the last Tory government spent their time back stabbing each other as they lurched further and further away from “conservative” values and thinking.

    • To be fair the last Labour government had come around to the idea of nuclear and had proposals for up to ten new sites. Unfortunately those plans were scuppered by the incoming coalition government; Liberals being opposed to nuclear on ideological grounds.

      • I think they have finally realized that they can’t rely on solar or wind power to provide 365/24 power. Plus gas is now seen as a no-no, if they want to go green.

  6. It’s fine to ramp up UK attack nuclear, but consider UK land mass drop target area, over an enemy zone, the stats on population area, tells us that defence strategy is not defence of the UK but possibly an industry that has no interest in safety of its people.

    • Just be careful not to get your hopes up. You’ll notice all announcements are couched with expressions like “exploring options” and “consulting with industry”

  9. Yet another arena where the naïve presumption probably was that we’d buy what we needed from the US (because so many people in our government get kickbacks from the American military-industrial complex), but now that the US is showing its true colours & proving to be dangerously unreliable the rapid realisation is occurring that we need to be more self-sufficient.

    Next, we need to develop a home-grown replacement for Trident. Maybe use the ungodly amount of plutonium we’ve got stockpiled to construct a more varied assortment of “physics packages” too, including some more compact tactical devices for use in gravity bombs & torpedoes…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here