Left:


The Midlands has never hosted a nuclear power plant, the nearest is Hartlepool north of the Humber Estuary Source: NIA


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;


www.neimagazine.com | August 2025 | 27


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50