FAMILIES will have to pay a 'nuclear tax' for decades to help fund up to 20 new atomic power stations, it was warned last night.

Britain's 25million households could face a Pounds 150 a year levy on their electricity bills.

Tony Blair signalled yesterday that he is pushing ahead with the plans, despite doubts in his own Cabinet and the protests of a large number of Labour MPs.

Opposition MPs predicted families could have to pay Pounds 3,000 over 20 years or Pounds 150 a year to fund the project.

Building power stations and dealing with the radioactive waste they produce will be massively expensive and the Treasury will not want to pick up the bill. The Prime Minister's scientific adviser Sir David King who has urged him to press ahead with nuclear energy is said to have proposed a levy on consumers.

According to reports at the weekend, the charge would encourage private nuclear operators to build plants by giving them a premium on every unit of electricity generated.

Mr Blair was given a glimpse of the protests which lie ahead yesterday as he launched a major review of Britain's energy supplies.

As he confirmed the review would look specifically at the prospect of bringing in a new generation of nuclear power stations, the Prime Minister's speech to about 1,000 business-leaders in Islington, North London, was disrupted by environmental campaigners.

Mr Blair said energy policy was 'back on the agenda with a vengeance'.

'Energy prices have risen. Energy supply is under threat. Climate change is producing a sense of urgency,' he told the Confederation of British Industry.

The Prime Minister warned that by around 2020, the UK is likely to have seen decommissioning of coal and nuclear plants that together generate over 30 per cent of today's electricity.

Though Downing Street insists Mr Blair will wait for the review, most in Westminster have little doubt that he has made up his mind that nuclear power is the best route to securing energy supplies and meeting targets for reducing carbon emissions.

Critics pointed out that a major Government review only two years ago concluded that the focus should be on renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power.

They said there would be no point in another inquiry unless Mr Blair was determined to get a different answer.

Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, warned the move could lead to a household levy. He said: 'Gordon Brown won't pay so it is likely we will have a nuclear tax.' According to the LibDems, the Pounds 150 a year bill over two decades will come in if households are forced to pay the whole amount.

This would be made up by the cost of nuclear cleanup, at Pounds 56billion or Pounds 2,240 per household and the likely cost of ten new nuclear power stations, at Pounds 15billion or Pounds 600 per household.

Ministers admitted yesterday that the cost of going nuclear would be huge and suggested the taxpayer might have to pay some of the bill.

Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks said: 'What is clear is that Her Majesty's Treasury is not going to write cheques.' The Prime Minister's pledge again put him at odds with many of his MPs.

Forty-one have already signed a Commons motion warning that a major nuclear power project would require 'massive public subsidies'.

Many feel the money could be better spent on renewable energy sources.

But Ministers are under pressure because North Sea gas is running out and they need to cut back carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050.

To generate electricity without burning fossil fuels, the alternatives are nuclear and renewable energy sources.

Mr Wicks insisted nothing had been ruled in or out. 'This is a wide-ranging energy review. It is not a nuclear review. There is no foregone conclusion.

'We will examine the evidence and the wide range of options. It is certainly not a case of nuclear versus, say, renewables.' But environmental groups fear a decision has already been made.

Director Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: 'We are deeply worried that the Prime Minister has fallen for the nuclear spin, and has already made up his mind.

'Nuclear power is dangerous, expensive and unnecessary. It is time to abandon this white elephant and embrace sensible and sustainable energy solutions for the 21st century.' Tory trade and industry spokesman David Willetts said Labour had stalled on making crucial energy decisions.

He said: 'It has taken a gas supply crisis and rocketing fuel bills to force the Government finally to act.'

Ruling by review

MR Blair's energy inquiry is the latest example of Labour's ' government by review'.

It follows a trusted New Labour method of dealing with a tough issue: when in doubt, commission a review. If still in doubt, commission another one.

To complicate matters, Gordon Brown has also ordered a review of the 'economics of climate change', which could reach an entirely different conclusion about how Britain should produce its energy.

Lord Turner's hotly anticipated report on the future of pensions, published today, is the latest in a long line of reviews and consultations commissioned since 1997.

Experts remember at least seven, but even the Government is not sure of the precise number.

It has said a complete list could only be provided at ' disproportionate cost'.

So far this year, the Department of Health has ordered reviews on pathology, independent sector treatment centres, expensive drugs, ophthalmic services, ambulance trusts, community pharmacies, learning disabilities and mental health nursing.

The Treasury has set up 21 independent reviews, including investigations into housing, higher education, skills and the NHS.

Q A

What has the Prime Minister announced?

A major review of Britain's energy needs. He insists he hasn't made up his mind, but most expect it to pave the way for a new generation of nuclear power stations.

Renewable sources wind, solar and tidal power could fill some, but not all, of Britain's so-called 'energy gap', Mr Blair said. The review will conclude by the middle of next year.

Don't we already have nuclear power stations?

We do. Britain has 14 stations, with 31 operating reactors: half operated by British Nuclear Fuels and half by British Energy.

But they are ageing badly and, within two decades, most will have been decommissioned.

By 2023, unless more plants are built, only 4 per cent of Britain's electricity will come from nuclear power.

How do they work?

Nuclear power is produced using uranium, a metal mined around the world.

Energy is produced by splitting the uranium nucleus in a reactor, producing large amounts of heat.

This turns water into steam, which drives a turbine that spins to produce power. The reactor is encased inside concrete and steel to prevent the radioactive gases and fluids that are a by-product of the process escaping.

How much energy do they produce?

Around 20 per cent of Britain's electricity comes from nuclear sources, about 40 per cent from gas, 30 per cent from coal and the remainder from oil and renewable sources.

But only around 4 per cent of our total energy demand which includes gas, coal and petrol for transport actually comes from homegrown stations.

Why does a decision need to be taken now?

Nuclear reactors take around a decade to build and energy demands are expected to rise. Fossil fuel burning power stations are also ageing: overall, half of our electricitygenerating plants will need replacing by 2020 and 75 per cent by 2030. There is also concern about relying on imported oil and gas.

So why a review and not a decision one way or another?

The last major review of Britain's energy needs finished only two years ago. That report, which took three years to complete, appeared to have closed the door on the nuclear option due to the cost of new power stations.

Instead, it backed efficiency measures and renewable power. Many suspect that the only reason for another review so soon is because Mr Blair has decided he wants to go nuclear, but needs the authority of a formal inquiry.

What are the advantages of nuclear power?

Unlike the burning of coal, gas and oil, nuclear electricity does not produce carbon dioxide the 'greenhouse gas' thought to contribute to global warming.

Labour's target is to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010, but on current projections that it is likely only to reach 14 per cent. So nuclear power could help meet emissions targets.

And the disadvantages?

Accidents at Windscale in 1957, Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986 show how disastrous it can be when nuclear power goes wrong.

Reactors also produce waste that will remain dangerous for thousands of years.

The Swiss government's nuclear waste authority says it should be assumed that any repository for spent fuel should be guaranteed to last for a million years.

Britain has already produced enough nuclear waste to fill the Royal Albert Hall five times over and the Government doesn't know what to do with it.

Are there any other safety concerns?

The great fear is that nuclear power stations make ideal targets for terrorists.

An attack by a hijacked airliner, for example-could contaminate large areas of the country with radioactive material.

The processes used to fuel nuclear power stations are also very similar to those used to make nuclear weapons.

Critics warn that if Britain presses ahead with nuclear power, it provides a perfect excuse for countries who want to use covert methods to produce a nuclear bomb to do the same.

How much will it cost and who stands to benefit?

The Treasury is unlikely to agree to shoulder the massive costs of building new power stations.

Estimates vary widely, but one study put the cost of replacing Britain's current nuclear power stations at about Pounds 8.6billion.

EU competition authorities would be likely to rule out a state- sponsored nuclear generator, even if ministers did not. However, public subsidies of some sort are likely to be necessary.