When Queen Elizabeth II opened the UK’s first nuclear power station, Calder Hall in Cumbria on 17th October 1956, it represented not only post-war optimism but also a technological milestone.
Thousands of people stood patiently behind makeshift fences in the autumn sunshine, wanting to catch not only a glimpse of Her Majesty but also of what was at the time, the world’s first – and only – full-scale nuclear reactor.
For the electronics and engineering industries, it was a moment that positioned the UK as a global leader in applied nuclear science, systems engineering, and industrial-scale power generation. According to a government report published this week, by the mid-1960s the UK had more civil nuclear stations than the US, USSR, and France put together.
This position, however, did not last long and, according to the report, published by the government’s recently established Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, the country is now in the position where it hasn’t built a new nuclear reactor for thirty years and where it has become the most expensive country in the world to develop nuclear power.
The implications for the wider electronics sector are significant. Nuclear programmes influence demand for advanced controls, sensor systems, high-reliability components, digital instrumentation, and power electronics. A stagnant build pipeline restricts the domestic market and limits opportunities for innovation and exports.
Led by John Fingleton, a former head of the Office of Fair Trading, the taskforce highlights nuclear output peaked in 1998 in the UK and has declined steadily as older plants retire. Meanwhile, Hinkley Point C—often cited as one of the most expensive nuclear projects worldwide—illustrates the scale of cost escalation, with overruns potentially reaching £28 billion.
Fingleton identifies three interlinked problems that he believes are driving UK costs higher than those of international competitors:
- The current framework penalises failure without rewarding efficient delivery. For contractors, engineering consultancies, and electronics suppliers, this environment discourages innovation, delays approvals, and inflates compliance costs. Political inconsistency deepens the challenge: ministers promote nuclear power rhetorically, yet often avoid decisions on safety communication, planning, or public engagement.
- Layers of regulatory procedure have accumulated over decades, creating a system in which adherence to process is prioritised above project performance. For the technology supply chain—where on-time delivery and integration are critical—this results in uncertainty, duplicated effort, and long delays before equipment specifications can be finalised.
- Neither regulators nor developers are incentivised to maximise social benefit or minimise total system cost. Instead, caution dominates. In an industry with high capital expenditure, long build timelines, and intense scrutiny, the resulting delays discourage suppliers, suppress domestic capability development, and push specialist SMEs to seek opportunities overseas.
To address these issues, the Taskforce calls for a “radical reset” of nuclear regulation. Its 47 recommendations include creating a Commission for Nuclear Regulation to streamline decision-making, reduce duplication, and clarify responsibilities.
It also proposes merging the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator into the Office for Nuclear Regulation, reforming environmental and planning processes, and aligning the UK’s approach to tolerable risk with international norms.
Fingleton also argues that current safety limits for radiation exposure are more restrictive in the energy sector than in medical settings, creating distortions that affect engineering choices and project timelines. “Motorways wouldn’t be very useful if we all drove at five miles an hour,” he told the BBC, “but that’s sort of what we’re doing in nuclear safety.”
Unsurprisingly, the proposals have drawn criticism. Community groups and some nuclear specialists argue that the report presents no evidence that safety regulation is the core barrier. They point instead to fragmented planning, financing challenges, and slow decision-making by both industry and central government. Moreover, memories of the previous nuclear disasters which prompted such regulations run deep – especially in the areas affected by the devastating 1957 Windscale fire.
Others warn that Western countries, including the UK, are falling behind international competitors. China’s long-running, state-supported programme—typically maintaining 20 to 25 reactors under construction—allows engineering teams to refine processes through repetition, cutting costs and improving reliability. Russia’s export-driven model offers similar advantages.
For UK electronics and engineering firms, this growing gap poses risks. As well as supporting further investment in cutting edge electronics, proponents argue that a sustained domestic nuclear programme is vital to powering the country at times when renewable sources are not available, ensuring energy security, and powering next gen AI data centres.
In his letter to the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, Fingleton stresses that political leadership is essential. “Our recommendations are radical and span multiple departments. Only determined and persistent direction and pressure from the very top of government will be able to cut through these obstacles,” he writes. “You will be told you need time to consider, consult, and dilute. I encourage you to resist. The time for action is now.”
“A safe and well-regulated nuclear sector is vital for the UK’s future: to lower energy prices, achieve net zero, strengthen national security, and support nature and planning,” he adds. “It encourages investment, builds a domestic industry, and grows exports. We cannot be an AI and technology superpower if not a leader in advanced nuclear technologies.”
