LONDON: Britain is expected on Thursday to back a new generation of nuclear power plants, adding to the gathering momentum behind atomic energy as part of the solution to the world’s energy problems.

Already, countries like France and Finland are building new nuclear plants and, in the United States, companies have begun filing applications for operating licences.

Even without a government go-ahead, there would be nothing in theory to stop new nuclear plants being constructed in Britain.

But investors need a show of government support and signs that planning obstacles will be overcome if they are to risk the huge sums of money needed.

“The government’s role essentially is to facilitate,” said Alastair Scrimgeour of Deloitte.

“The point about Britain is it’s known as a well-regulated, liberalised market.... It will be relevant, certainly to Europe,” he added.

In its prolonged deliberations over its energy future, the left-leaning Labour government initially described nuclear energy as “an unattractive option”.

But since it made that statement in 2003, surging oil prices, which last week hit a record above $100 for US crude, have made nuclear energy more competitive and the focus on the need to cut carbon emissions has sharpened.

Nuclear proponents say atomic power generation does not produce any of the emissions blamed for global warming — although that is disputed by environmentalists who point to the carbon-intensive uranium extraction and refining process.

“Both for Co2 targets and the growing electricity needs of a major OECD country, there are serious gaps unless nuclear power remains an important feature of the UK energy mix and it is this belated conclusion which will impact the debate in places like Australia, Italy, Germany and even the USA.,” said Gerald Doucet, Secretary General of the London-based World Energy Council.

Around 18 per cent of Britain’s electricity is generated by nuclear power, while in the world it provides around 16 per cent.

The last of Britain’s existing nuclear plants is scheduled to be closed by 2035 and analysts say renewable sources of energy would not be sufficient to replace them.

“It’s very clear nuclear power is one of the realistic energy sources that can contribute very seriously to reducing Co2 emissions,” said Luis Echavarri, director-general of the Paris-based Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA).

“The situation in the UK is consistent ... with the difficulties the energy sector is facing for the future,” he said further.

Those eager to embrace nuclear power still have to contend with major obstacles, even when planning issues and public opposition have been overcome.

Finland’s new nuclear plant, for instance, is already two years behind schedule and 50 per cent over budget.

In its role as facilitator, the British government is passing planning legislation as part of its energy and climate change policy that should make it easier to build nuclear power plants.

But it has said it will not provide any of the financing — around $4.94 billion per plant — that is required.

Oil’s rally could help to motivate potential investors as, according to the NEA, oil prices only need to be between $40 and $45 a barrel for nuclear energy to be competitive.

The cost of uranium has also been rising, but it represents a mere 5 per cent of the total cost of generating nuclear power, whereas gas — which is expected to rise in price in response to costly oil — accounts for around three quarters of the cost of gas-generated power.

Although nuclear generation is increasingly economic, questions remain over who should bear the cost of plant decommissioning and the disposal and storage for thousands of years of the nuclear waste.

British government wording has shifted from saying operators should bear all the costs to them having to bear their “full share”.

For opponents, the thousands of years of toxic waste are one of the powerful reasons to say nuclear is not worth the risk.

Environmental group Greenpeace, last February, won a legal battle to force the government into a full public consultation on new nuclear power. It then withdrew from those consultations in September saying they were biased and has said it might challenge again.

“That is something we are looking at. Our lawyers will be examining the government’s statement closely and we reserve the right to mount a new legal challenge,” a spokesman said.—Reuters