Now, ministers have given the green light to new nuclear power plants, which will replace the ageing fleet that currently provides 20% of the UK's electricity.
Industry figures and nuclear experts say three designs of so-called Generation III+ reactors are likely to be among the front runners:
"GENERATION III+" TECHNOLOGY
The UK's current fleet of Magnox and Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors (AGRs) are Generation I and Generation II designs, the vast majority of which are fast approaching the end of their 40-year operating lives.
The new power plants that could replace them are Generation III+ reactors - a term used to describe the latest designs.
Generation IV reactors are not likely to be commercially available for at least another 20 years, but manufacturers are developing a number of designs.
The characteristics of Generation III+ designs include:
Modular construction - components are built elsewhere and shipped to the reactor site
components are built elsewhere and shipped to the reactor site Evolutionary design - years of experience operating reactors has allowed engineers to simplify designs and cut construction and generation costs, while improving safety measures
years of experience operating reactors has allowed engineers to simplify designs and cut construction and generation costs, while improving safety measures Passive safety features - in the event of a "severe accident", safety systems use natural forces such as gravity, circulation and evaporation, rather than "active" systems such as pumps, motors and valves
in the event of a "severe accident", safety systems use natural forces such as gravity, circulation and evaporation, rather than "active" systems such as pumps, motors and valves Waste - industry experts say the new more efficient reactors, over their design lives, will generate only 10% of the waste the UK's entire nuclear sector has produced to date
industry experts say the new more efficient reactors, over their design lives, will generate only 10% of the waste the UK's entire nuclear sector has produced to date Cost - manufacturers say the final figure depends on a number of factors, such as location, number of reactors, and the planning and licensing process, but each plant is estimated to cost about £400-500m
AREVA EPR 1. Reactor core
2. Control rod drive mechanism
3. Pressuriser
4. Steam generator 5. Generator turbine
6. Cooling water
7. Containment shell
Reactor type: Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR)
Generation capacity: 1,600 MW
Design life: 60 years
Construction time: approximately 42 months
Manufacturer: Europe-based Areva/Framatome ANP
Currently licensed in UK? No
The EPR (European Pressurised Reactor) is the latest design from Areva, and the 1,600 MW reactor is described as "the highest unit power to date".
The manufacturers say the reactor offers significantly reduced power generation costs because it requires less fuel and is designed to be operational for 92% of its 60-year life.
Finland is currently building the first EPR reactor at Olkiluoto, which is expected to start producing electricity in 2009. France is expected to start work on the second reactor of this kind in 2007.
WESTINGHOUSE AP1000 1. Reactor core
2. Steam generators
3. Pressuriser
4. Passive cooling water tank 5. Steel containment shell
6. Turbines
Reactor type: PWR
Generation capacity: 1,117 MW
Design life: 60 years
Construction time: 36 months
Manufacturer: US-based Westinghouse
Currently licensed in UK? No
Westinghouse says the AP1000's passive safety systems have simplified its design. Compared with reactors that produce the same amount of power, it uses 50% fewer valves, 35% fewer pumps, 70% less cabling and can be contained in a building almost half the size.
This has a knock-on effect regarding the time it takes to construct the reactor. Westinghouse says: "Construction forecasts, verified by independent reviewers, indicate that an AP1000 could be built in three years or less."
The AP1000 is currently the only generation III+ design to be licensed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Westinghouse is bidding to build the power plant in China.
CANDU ACR1000 1. Reactor core
2. Horizontal fuel channels
3. Steam generators
4. Heat transfer pumps 5. Emergency injection system
6. Steel containment wall
7. Turbine generators
Reactor type: Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR)
Generation capacity: 1200 MW
Design life: 60 years
Construction time: 42 months "from first concrete to fuel loading"
Manufacturer: Canada-based Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd
Currently licensed in UK? No
The Candu ACR1000 is a light-water-cooled, heavy-water-moderated tube reactor and is the latest design in a line of reactors which stretches back to the 1940s.
Its horizontal fuel channels allow the reactor to be refuelled with slightly enriched uranium while it is still generating heat to power the steam generators, reducing the amount of time the plant is "offline" and not supplying electricity to the grid.
The first ACR1000 is expected to be built in Canada, and producing electricity by 2014.
The  has given permission for new  to be built in the United Kingdom. This decision follows months of public debate and controversy over the proposal. Many Britons have argued for greater use of renewable energy supplies, but the government has said that even with a big increase in investment, renewable sources will not meet all of the UK's additional energy demands. It is expected that 25 GW of additional generating capacity will be required over the next two decades, partly as compensation for old nuclear stations which will be closed down. This additional capacity must be met while reducing overall greenhouse gas emission as per the .

The government also announced big increases in spending on renewable energy research and for the construction of onshore wind farms. It is claimed that 20% of energy will be produced from renewables by 2020, and if there are new breakthroughs in renewable energy science this figure may be increased further. Philip Wolfe of the Renewable Energy Association (REA) told the BBC "The government has seen the light on renewables. The energy review supports what we and many others have been consistently saying - that renewables, energy efficiency and decentralised systems are the strongest prospects for secure and sustainable energy supplies." 

The new nuclear plants will cost 400-500 million UK pounds (700-900 million US dollars) and will generate 1.5 to 2 GW of power each. These will provide the baseline amount of additional power should there be a lack of success in new areas of renewable energy research. The private sector will initiate, fund, construct and operate the new nuclear plants and will cover the full cost of decommissioning and their full share of long-term waste management costs. The Government proposes to address potential barriers to new nuclear stations, but says it will not provide any taxpayer money for the nuclear industry - tax investment will only be put into renewable energy research. This approach is similar to the successful approach adopted in the USA. It contrasts with early UK nuclear power development, where individual power plants or small groups of plants were planned and built by separate publicly funded research and engineering groups, but there was poor planning of nationwide issues such as waste management. Critics argue that the government has only put the nuclear option on the table as it is privately run and does not require government investment, whereas increasing renewable energy production would cost taxpayer money.

The review also discusses energy self-sufficiency, and points out that the increase in renewable energy to 20% of the total will improve the UK's self sufficiency. No mention is made of opening uranium mines in the  (or reopening  uranium mines) in order to make the UK self-sufficient in uranium, something which   in 1980.

Some critics were disappointed that the review had little discussion of the reduction of emissions from transport, a sector which gives a larger contribution to the total UK emissions than electricity generation. This may relate to the high costs associated with significant reductions in emissions in the transport sector.