A £54 billion cost estimate, no confirmed site, and a very slow timeline — things aren't looking well for a proposed underground nuclear waste facility.
The Guardian reported that the U.K. government's proposal for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) in Cumbria has been rated "red" after a Delivery Confidence Assessment.
A red rating means successful project delivery is unachievable and "the project may need rescoping and/or its overall viability reassessed," as indicated in the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority report.
At stake is the long-term storage of more than 700,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste from previous nuclear programs and future nuclear expansion.
Among the issues raised are the ballooning costs of building the facility, with experts estimating costs could exceed £54 billion — a bill critics warn would fall on taxpayers. Moreover, even if the facility is built, it could take until 2150 before it can take new waste from nuclear reactors — though the organization Nuclear Waste Services clarifies it would aim to begin taking legacy waste by the 2050s, rather than going without any use until 2150, as legacy waste would be the higher priority to relocate to such a facility.
Although officials red-flagged the proposal, the government stands firm that a GDF is a safe solution for radioactive waste. It also benefits host communities with promising jobs and economic growth.
Stay hydrated and refreshed this holiday season — without any sugar or harmful additives Nuun’s zero-sugar hydration tablets are a perfect, guilt-free way to enhance your water throughout the day. You’ll get five essential electrolytes for everyday hydration — with zero grams of sugar. Plus, Nuun tablets are certified vegan and gluten-free, and they’re the perfect size to keep in your car, purse, or anywhere you'll want a healthy, restorative drink. Learn more → |
This issue highlights why nuclear power is both a potential solution and a persistent controversy in the global clean energy transition. Proponents argue that reactors can provide large amounts of low-carbon electricity, while opponents counter that radioactive waste, high upfront costs, and concerns about links to nuclear weapons proliferation pose great risks.
Studies have shown that nuclear energy is among the safest and cleanest sources of energy, accounting for only 6 tons of global polluting gases (a small fraction compared with 440 tons from gas and 970 tons from coal), as reported by Our World in Data. Plus, it results in 99.8% and 97.6% fewer deaths than coal and gas, respectively.
However, fears of disastrous nuclear accidents still leave many wary. Add to this the huge costs nuclear expansion entails.
"The GDF process is fraught with uncertainties and the GDF 'solution' remains unproven and costly," Richard Outram — secretary of Nuclear Free Local Authorities — said, according to The Guardian.
TCD Picks » Upway Spotlight
💡Upway makes it easy to find discounts of up to 60% on premium e-bike brands
|
What's your biggest concern about nuclear energy?
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. |
The possibility of meltdowns ☢️ As the debate continues, the U.K. must decide whether a GDF is an essential climate investment or an unworkable megaproject — one that could echo the controversies around North Sea oil expansion and other costly infrastructure projects that leave taxpayers questioning the long-term payoff.
The uncertainty surrounding nuclear power underscores the trade-offs involved in the transition to clean energy, from cost and safety to energy security and ecological goals.
It also highlights how community conversations and continuous exploration about environmental concerns can inform the path toward long-term solutions.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Cool Picks
