Environmentalists have deplored the fact nuclear power is back on the British agenda while industry leaders have welcomed it. But they agree that many countries will be watching the outcome of the British review next year.

"If Britain goes nuclear, it will stir up in other countries the same type of industry-led lobbying that we have seen here," said Roger Higman at Friends of the Earth environment group.

"You can just see the Italian, German, Spanish industries suddenly waking up and saying: 'let's go nuclear too.'"

The United States is expected to sign for its first new nuclear power plant within a year, Finland is 4 years away from opening a new power station and China has plans to build some 30 new reactors over the next 15 years.

Germany's new government has made positive noises about nuclear energy, Australia is being pushed to reconsider its anti-nuclear stance but Sweden is accelerating its phase-out.

"The most likely first step after a British decision in favour would be a revision of some of the phase-out policies in countries like Sweden and Belgium," said Malcolm Grimston at the Royal Institute for International Affairs think-tank.

"If it turns out that the industry is able to deliver, then even with the gas price at half current levels, nuclear starts to look extremely economic," he told Reuters.

ENERGY SECURITY

The energy review is being driven by the need under the Kyoto climate change protocol to slash carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels, along with surging energy prices and energy security.

"Europe is getting extremely worried about its energy dependency -- expected to rise to 70 percent in 2030 -- and nuclear is a hedge against becoming totally dependent on Middle Eastern and Russian gas," said Grimston.

Britain, which gets about 21 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, will have to start switching plants off over the next decade as they reach the already-extended end of their operational lives.

As they drop out, they will leave a hole that will either have to be plugged by carbon-free sources such as new nuclear or wind and wave power, or risk the lights going out.

To the outrage of the green lobby, Blair is convinced that renewables -- which supply just 3 percent of British power -- have no chance of filling that gap alone.

Richard Green at Birmingham University's department of energy research thinks neither nuclear power nor renewables hold all the answers.

"Nuclear and renewables fulfil different roles. Nuclear has very high capital costs but low running costs. It would make no sense to only run a nuclear station half the year," he said.

"Renewables like wind and waves, on the other hand, are not good at meeting peak demand so you have to build far more capacity that you actually may need at any one time."

Apart from costs, nuclear power poses two other distinct problems -- disposing of dangerous waste and proliferation. But for Grimston, neither is an obstacle.