AMID the frosty silver birches and firs of Olkiluoto island, off the west coast of Finland, the foundation pillars of one of the most improbable stuctures in Europe are starting to rise.

The tangle of steel wires and concrete pylons emerging from a four-hectare hole is the germ of the continent’s first nuclear reactor to be started since the Chernobyl accident of 1986, which tore apart public confidence in the power of the atom.

Finland, among the countries worst affected by fallout from the stricken Soviet power station, seems an unlikely candidate to lead a revival of the nuclear age.

Yet in a nation that boasts 1.5 million saunas — one for every four people — and a vast, electricity-hungry paper industry, energy issues have acquired a high political profile.

The Finns are no longer content to rely on imported gas, oil and coal for their power, or to pump out more and more of the greenhouse gases that are anathema to their environmentally conscious traditions.

The nuclear option, they decided after a two-year national debate, has become least worst way of generating electricity cheaply and reliably.

The result is Olkiluoto 3, the third nuclear plant to be built on the island and the country’s fifth, for which the foundation stone was laid in September by Paavo Lipponen, the former Prime Minister. When the 1,600 megawatt station begins operations in 2009, it will supply up to 10 per cent of Finland’s electricity.

The Finnish example is now being keenly studied by British politicians, in search of clues to swinging the public behind an industry that has struggled to shed a reputation for accidents, pollution and an addiction to subsidies.

It proves that even a sceptical public can be won over to a nuclear future — but also demonstrates many of the hurdles that Britain will have to cross if the Government is to secure popular support for a new generation of nuclear power stations.

Finnish government officials and executives of TVO, the consortium of major energy users that commissioned Olkiluoto 3, agree it is unlikely that the plans would have been approved by parliament — by a narrow margin of 107 votes to 92 — had not several conditions been met. Some of these would present Britain with few problems. Like Finland, Britain has several existing nuclear sites, with both the national grid infrastructure to support new plants and a sympathetic local population who are used to living with atomic energy.

Significant improvements in reactor design since Chernobyl have also helped. The £2 billion European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) model, is also designed to be fail safe. “If there is a problem, the reaction will stop,” Vincent Hertault, the safety manager, said.

Perhaps the most important factor in Finland’s decision, however, was that the nation has taken firm steps to resolve the problem of long-term storage of waste. An underground repository for low and intermediate-level waste is already operating 100 metres below the surface at Olkiluoto, and work has begun nearby on an even deeper facility for high-level waste.

Deep underground disposal was accepted as the only option, with even Green MPs backing the plans when the Finnish parliament voted by 159-3 to approve the store.

The Finnish experience suggests that transparency, public debate and genuinely open minds in Government are vital if the case for nuclear power is to be made.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• What makes the perfect mum?
• To keep me stress-free, no more awareness days, please
• What do lottery winners buy?