Britain has begun exploring options to re-establish the production of reactor fuel for defence purposes, work the government says would be fully consistent with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, according to the annual update to Parliament published this week.
The Nuclear Fuels Programme is part of the recapitalisation the Defence Nuclear Enterprise is carrying out simultaneously, which the update describes as covering two submarine build programmes with a further one in design, two warhead programmes, the fuel cycle work, and the infrastructure required to build and maintain those capabilities.
Every British submarine is nuclear powered, with the reactors manufactured by Rolls-Royce Submarines at Raynesway near Derby. The update describes nuclear propulsion as critical to sustaining continuous at sea deterrence, allowing submarines to remain dived on long-range patrols without detection.
Raynesway is one of the two sites receiving a share of the £6 billion committed under the Defence Investment Plan for infrastructure, alongside Barrow-in-Furness, investment the update says will grow the capability of the enterprise to produce a submarine every eighteen months in future.
Britain last enriched uranium for defence purposes at Capenhurst, and the country has relied on existing stocks for reactor fuel since domestic production ceased, which is the position the exploration now under way would change.
The update sets out the rest of the submarine picture alongside it. The Royal Navy has operated the Vanguard class since 1993, and those boats will be replaced by the Dreadnought class, with steel cut for the fourth and final Dreadnought in September 2025 on the same day the King commissioned HMS Agamemnon, the sixth Astute-class submarine.
The Astute class supports the deterrent while also undertaking other defence and intelligence tasks, including work with maritime task groups. Beyond those two programmes sits SSN-AUKUS, the design now in progress, with BAE Systems, the Defence Nuclear Organisation, Babcock and Rolls-Royce Submarines all maintaining teams at Barrow contributing to it.
The enterprise spent £12 billion in the 2025/26 financial year and projects spend of over £100 billion through British suppliers over the next ten years, with in excess of £20 billion more going into it between 2026/27 and 2029/30 than across the previous four years.
It’s insane we stopped but this should be done as part of a civilian nuclear program paid for via the private sector. The government should be combining this with the drive for Rolls Royce SMR.
That was my thoughts as well, Jim.
Given three Rolls Royce Small Medium Reactors (SMR) are on order for commissioning in the mid 2030’s Rolls Royce are going to need fuel for those reactors well before then to build the cores. If the UK is going to uncouple itself from the chaos that is the fossil fuel market we will need many more SMR’s and the site on Anglesey apparently has capacity for up to 8 SMR. With all those SSN-A we are going to build (hopefully) as well our stock pile must be under some pressure by now or at least projected to be so.
Hopefully, they haven’t left it too late…
Cheers CR
I agree. But we act so ruddy slowly. RR also wants all the up side without paying much of the investment. As you both say, private sector needs to fund this, not defence only.
Given the government pays for the PWR reactors for the submarines and the civilian SMR systems any RR investment would ultimately come out of the public purse anyway. Even the Australian Government has recognised this fact of life and paid in a few £billion into the expansion process. Basically, these government investments are down payments on future procurements and they will only get the full benefit of their investments if they buy the planned numbers of reactors… Think of it a bit like the Christmas present voucher schemes and keep yer fingers cross the scheme doesn’t fall flat…
Cheers CR
The civilian SMRs use completely different fuel to the Nuclear boats.. the boats use highly enriched uranium (HEU), 93% to 97% enriched U-235, the SMRs use industry-standard low-enriched uranium dioxide (UO₂) powder pressed into pellets, enriched to about 4.95% U-235…
The Uk already makes a lot of industry standard low enriched uranium fuel at Springfields Fuel Manufacturing Facility near Preston, Lancashire… its just the highly enriched essentially weapons grade uranium the UK no longer produces
For Context the UK has about 22 tons of military HEU.. you’re probably looking at 300kg per PWR3 reactor so it’s probably got enough HEU for about 60-70 submarines.
Hi Jonathon, Don’t forget the other use we have for HEU, as we are transitioning from Holbrook to Astrea we will need to use more of the stockpile whilst stocks are built up.
I’m actually pleasantly surprised they have finally decided to re start production it’s way overdue.
What do you think URENCO make ? Yep commercial LEU and are at present building a HALEU facility which is due to start production in 5/5 years. Tgey just don’t make HEU any more.
They will just use the LEU that’s produced by URENCO
Pmsl every one on this site is now a Nuclear Fuel Rod Engineer/Physicist/Chemist. Capenhurst closed in 1960’s usung gaseous diffusion to get HEU and other functions closed in 1993.
The much vaunted report to Parliament waxed lyrical about the role of the Astute Boats and the recent launch of the latest but said not a jot that none can at the moment put to sea, nor for quite a while. This is an utter disgrace but nobody Senior seemingly not held responsible.exactly what have successive CNS and indeed CDS been doing? Asleep at the wheel or just waiting to draw their pension?
Ultimate responsibility lies with politically motivated delays to the investment that was needed for the Vanguard and Astute classes. Maintenance was seen as an east can to kick down the road and past governments quietly kicked that can down the road… total utter stupidity, but politics does that until some sort of effective consensus stop the can kicking emerges. Things are beginning to move in that direction, but oohhh so slowly. Meanwhile the intelligence, we are told, suggests war with Russia could happen by the end of the decade. What no one tells us is what form that war will take. All out conventional war a la Ukraine or some thing else, pipelines, internet data cables, satellites, hacks, etc..
We are already is a cyber war with Russia if you believe the reports, so Russia might decide that they are willing to risk an escalation to a few acts of targeted sabotage to swing the cyber war in their direction. All of which could easily get out of hand and into a kinetic war and we will not be ready in any shape of form.
The country psychologically is totally unprepared for war and that includes our politicians. Some are starting to draw parallels with the innocent Edwardian summers just before the start of the Great War!
Cheers CR
Pmsl every one on this site is now a Nuclear Fuel Rod Engineer/Physicist/Chemist. Capenhurst closed in 1960’s usung gaseous diffusion to get HEU and other functions closed in 1993.
Great post but does not excuse CNS and CDS Iam afraid. They should have resigned on principle. No capability on 5 subs is beyond embarrassing. It is bordering on the criminal I suggest.
Unfortunately, the crisis occurred long after the decisions were made making any resignations in the last two years totally pointless. Far better to get on and try a fix the problems and to be fair that is what has been going on for the last two or three years, but the projects were delayed for so long my guess is that the contractors are digging up all sort of issues because of the long term neglect. If you want retribution go back to the Blair, Brown, Cameron governments for starters. Anything to do with nuclear is a complex task because of the implications of getting it wrong. At least this government seems to have a plan and a budget in mind. We will see if it get delivered.
What we really need is some serious leadership to change the nation’s psychology towards and understanding of the situation as it is developing. Folk need to understand that sacrifices will need to be made now to avoid even bigger and far more horrible sacrifices (not so) later.
Cheers CR
Resigning does not work.
Why should they scupper their careers for her-today-gone- tomorrow politicians (who lie incessantly)?
Raynesway is a road in Derby not a place, the RR site is known as the Raynesway site due to the associated location.
Good news.
UK needs to get back into enrichment and fuel assembly.
Pmsl every one on this site is now a Nuclear Fuel Rod Engineer/Physicist/Chemist. Capenhurst closed in 1960’s usung gaseous diffusion to get HEU and other functions closed in 1993.
Pissing myself Laughing every one on this site is now a Nuclear Fuel Rod Engineer/Physicist/Chemist. Capenhurst closed in 1960’s usung gaseous diffusion to get HEU and other functions closed in 1993.
Jonathan is bang on the button about being completely different types of Fuel and require very different production processes. There are several reasons why you just do not try and combine a Military PWR and Civilian SMR.
1. LEU or HALEU are relatively simple and cheap to produce and we already do this via URENCO at Capenhurst, HEU is way more difficult, vastly more expensive and as it happens to be Bomb Grade requires very serious security, storage and transportation requirements.
2. The technology used in a U.K Nuclear Submarine is covered by the US / UK Nuclear Co operation treaty and that restricts any possibility of cross over. Yes RR builds both products but they are by necessity completely separate entities, different technology, materials, concepts, completely fire walled, separate structures, training, recruitment etc etc etc. Oh and one of them is protected by Plod with guns and Electric Fences. FYI the CEO of RR doesn’t even have access to much more than the exterior of the buildings or foyer at Raynesway.
3. RR will be exporting SMR to non Military Nuclear states so NPT kicks in, zero tech of the tech in UK Nuclear Submarine reactors can be exported unless it’s under very strict restrictions. Hence why the AUKUS boats will have their reactors built here in Derby and the fun of fuelling, commissioning and maintenance begins……details TBC.
IMHO the best way to do this would be to build the reactor hull section here in the UK pre outfitted and then barged over to Australia.
Civilian reactors are moving toward Gen IV technologies, and I think the Russians had experience of molten lead, back in the Soviet era. However, I can’t think of one that’s particularly suitable for submarines. I’m wondering if doubling down on HEU production says anything about our commitment to third-gen PWR technology. Might it be possible, for example, to couple a small molten salt reactor to current battery technology, turning an AIP SSK into something closer to an ultra-quiet SSN? Or will we see civil reactors move on to new technologies and naval reactors stick with the tried and tested? Where lies the future?
Capenhurst shut in 1960s producing HEU for Nuclear, and othrr functions at Capenhurst totally shut in 1993. The comments on this site are unbelieveable