In September 2025, US and UK companies announced a set of nuclear reactor, site, and fuel-supply proposals. The headline figure is a UK-wide target of 6 GW, linked to X-Energy and Centrica’s plans for up to 12 advanced modular reactors at Hartlepool. These announcements are plans and intentions, not approved generating capacity. Each one still depends on financing, planning, and regulatory approval, and the UK government’s own summary says so.
What was announced
The announcements were not a single deal. They cover five separate proposals at different stages. The table below uses the UK government’s Advanced Nuclear Framework, published in February 2026, which recaps the September 2025 announcements and is the official summary used here. Figures are attributed to that framework and retain their proposal status.
| Project | Companies | Location | What is proposed | Stated figure (attribution) | Stage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hartlepool reactor programme | X-Energy and Centrica | Hartlepool, England | Up to 12 advanced modular reactors, within a wider UK programme target | 6 GW UK-wide programme target; 2,500 potential jobs (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, February 2026) | Reactor-development plan with a fleet target |
| Cottam | Holtec, EDF, and Tritax | Former coal-fired power station site, Nottinghamshire | Redevelopment as a data-centre hub powered by small modular reactors | Described value of £11 billion (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, February 2026) | Site proposal |
| London Gateway | Last Energy and DP World | London Gateway port area | Development of a micro modular nuclear plant | £80 million private investment backing (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, February 2026) | Site proposal |
| HALEU fuel supply | Urenco and Radiant | Supply to the US market; advanced fuels facility planned in the UK | Supply agreement for high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), a fuel used by some advanced reactor designs | £4 million agreement value (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, February 2026); fuel volume and delivery timing not stated | Supply agreement |
| UK site evaluations for Natrium reactors | TerraPower and KBR | UK sites not named in the official summary | Evaluation of UK sites for TerraPower’s Natrium reactor | 1,600 potential construction jobs per project (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, February 2026) | Site evaluation |
Reading the 6 GW figure correctly
The number is easy to misread, so it helps to separate what it measures from what it does not.
- It is a programme target, not a project capacity. The 6 GW figure belongs to a UK-wide programme connected to X-Energy and Centrica’s plans. The official summary does not break it down reactor by reactor, and it does not give output or completion dates for the Hartlepool units.
- Pipeline recognition is not final approval. The framework distinguishes a project pipeline and in-principle endorsement from final project approval. Any government support remains subject to due diligence, a value-for-money assessment, and the approvals each project needs.
- The five items are not comparable as delivered power. Hartlepool is a reactor-development plan. Cottam and London Gateway are site proposals. The Urenco and Radiant arrangement is a fuel supply deal. The TerraPower and KBR work is an evaluation of sites. Compare them by site, technology, announced capacity or investment, development stage, and remaining steps, not by a single total.
The steps between a proposal and electricity
None of the announced projects has a published, dated path from proposal to operation in the official material. The sequence below shows the gates each project would have to pass. Which gates a given project has cleared is not established by the announcements.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
- Pipeline recognition or in-principle endorsement. The government recognises a project as part of its pipeline. This is a signal of interest, not a commitment of funds.
- Due diligence and value-for-money assessment. Any public support must clear this step.
- Planning and site consent. A proposal needs approval for its specific site and design.
- Regulatory licensing. In the UK, the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency are the named regulators. Work on the US side falls to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- Financing and a final investment decision. Projects need committed money before construction begins. The announced figures do not show that this has happened for any project.
- Construction, then operation. Only at this stage does a reactor add generating capacity to the grid.
The policy and regulatory backdrop
The US–UK Technology Prosperity Deal memorandum sets out intended cooperation on advanced reactors, nuclear fuels, fusion, supply chains, licensing, and non-proliferation. It includes target review timelines of two years for reactor design reviews and one year for site licensing. These are targets for cooperation, not a guarantee that any individual proposal will be approved on that schedule.
A separate collaborative initiative between the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the UK Environment Agency aims to reduce duplicated work and speed reviews in the second jurisdiction. It is designed to keep each regulator’s independent decision-making and legal obligations intact.
Rank #2
The Advanced Nuclear Framework covers privately led advanced civil nuclear projects. It excludes defence and military-related nuclear activity, and it excludes large-scale nuclear technologies. The government says it continues to support gigawatt-scale nuclear power through other projects and policy. Patrick Vallance, Minister for Nuclear, described the rationale this way: “Advanced nuclear technology could revolutionise how we power industry and propel the AI (artificial intelligence) data centre boom – delivering more clean energy and jobs.” That is the government’s stated case for the policy, not evidence that the announced projects will meet their targets.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What this means for household money and investors
The official material does not say how these projects would affect consumer energy prices, bills, or the timing of any supply. Do not assume a bill effect from the announcements. The same applies to jobs. The 2,500 and 1,600 figures are potential numbers attached to proposals, not confirmed employment, and they are not a measure of local income.
Rank #3
For investors, the £11 billion Cottam value and the £80 million London Gateway backing are project-level figures. They describe the scale of a proposal or the private money cited for it. They are not a company’s revenue, profit, or return. Before treating any of them as a financial signal, check the following:
- Planning consent and regulatory licensing status for the specific site, from the relevant regulator or planning authority.
- Whether a final investment decision and committed financing have been announced.
- Whether a construction schedule with dates has been published by the company.
- Any disclosures in the regulatory filings of the named companies, if you hold shares in any of them.
Status can change after the framework’s February 2026 date. Verify current company and regulator records before stating a later milestone.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
