Des Browne launched a stinging attack on Alex Salmond's government last night over its steadfast opposition to a new generation of nuclear power stations, branding it "politically immature".

The Secretary of State for Scotland, in advance of today's cabinet meeting which is expected to give a green light to the new nuclear build, made clear that a fresh wave of nuclear power stations was "essential" for Britain's security of energy supply and to meet the nation's carbon reduction targets.

John Hutton, Westminster's Business Secretary, is to make a statement to MPs on Thursday giving details about the intended mix, including renewables and carbon capture, of Britain's future energy sources.

However, the focal point will be the official go-ahead for a string of new nuclear power stations, mainly across the south of England. Environmental campaigners are expected to lodge a legal challenge.

The Scottish Government has made clear that it would use its powers to veto any proposal to replace Hunterston B in Ayrshire or Torness in East Lothian.

At the weekend, Jim Mather, Holyrood's Energy Minister, claimed the idea of a new generation of nuclear power stations was "totally redundant" north of the border given the opportunities that renewables, clean fossil fuel and carbon storage afforded Scotland.

However, Mr Browne, speaking in advance of Thursday's statement, told The Herald: "On nuclear power, the UK Government is making the right decisions for the long term; a balanced energy policy that includes nuclear is essential if we are to ensure energy security. As a low carbon form of energy, nuclear can provide a significant contribution in tackling climate change."

He added: "Knee-jerk opposition to nuclear from the SNP shows political immaturity. The question the minority SNP Government has to answer is: how would it fill the energy gap that will be left behind when the current generation of Scottish nuclear plants closes?"

At the weekend, Gordon Brown made clear that 2008 would be the year of big, long-term decisions for his government, not least on energy.

He said: "When North Sea oil runs down ... people will want to know whether we have made sure that we've got the balance right between external dependence on energy and our ability to generate our own energy within our own country and that's about renewables as well as about other things."

He added: "The willingness to take tough long-term decisions, whether it's wind power or wave power, whether it's renewables generally or nuclear, is a fundamental precondition of preparing Britain for the new world."

On who would foot the bill for a new nuclear build, the Prime Minister's spokesman insisted yesterday that power companies would have to fund "the full share" of the costs of the long-term management and disposal of waste, which failed to dispel fears that some of the costs of a new generation of nuclear power stations could fall on the taxpayer. Reports also suggested consumers could face higher electricity bills as a result.

The UK Government announced in 2006 that it believed new nuclear stations should be built.

However, the decision was put on hold pending a further consultation after the High Court ruled last year that Whitehall's initial energy review consultation had been flawed.

Last night, Roger Higman of Friends of the Earth branded the UK Government's second consultation exercise "a sham" and insisted nuclear power was not the answer to tackling climate change.

He said: "It is expensive and leaves a legacy of deadly nuclear waste that remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. UK taxpayers are already committed to a bill of up to £70bn to clean up the nuclear mess we have created.

"Adding to that cost would be financial madness and divert resources that would be better spent on energy efficiency and renewables."