It has been interesting to note some of the strongly contrasting opinions that have emerged this month over the future of nuclear energy – views expressed to coincide with the anniversary of the devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan on March 11, 2011, and which precipitated the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl.

The World Energy Council (WEC) and the respected international magazine Economist offered two prominent divergent views.

In its report, the WEC argues that “little has changed”, especially in developing countries, in respect of the future deployment of nuclear, following the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident.

In fact, the organisation argues that nuclear energy will play a “full part” in the future energy mix, provided nuclear safety and transparency are continuously being reinforced.

The report notes that 50 countries are currently operating, building or considering nuclear power and that 63 nuclear plants are under construction, mainly in China, Russia, India and South Korea. Developing countries account for 39 of those nuclear power plants under construction, including 26 in China, 10 in Russia and 7 in India.

The report argues that the Fukushima accident has not led to a significant retraction in nuclear energy programmes in countries outside Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Japan. But the progress of many national nuclear power programmes has been delayed in response to Fukushima.

Nevertheless, the accident has accelerated a trend towards more “energy democratisation” and the WEC asserts that there is a critical need to inform the public about issues relating to nuclear generation technologies, safety, costs, benefits and risks.

Compiled by energy experts, practitioners and regulators from 13 countries, the document concludes that, in the pursuit of sustainable energy, no technology should be “idolised or demonised”.

By contrast, the Economist magazine questions the “nuclear renaissance” thesis, saying that, without governments, private companies would simply not choose to build nuclear power plants. “This is in part because of the risks they face from local opposition and changes in government policy. But it is mostly because reactors are very expensive indeed,” the publications asserts.

It points out that the new reactors being built in Europe are well over budget and says, for nuclear to play a greater role, it must either get cheaper or the other ways of generating electricity must become materially more expensive.

Innovation is also unlikely to help lower nuclear energy costs in the medium term, owing mainly to the fact that the conditions for competitive designs are limited, while the market for potentially cost-structure-changing small, mass-produced reactors is absent.

Nuclear innovation is still possible, but it will not happen apace, the magazine argues, while concluding that the “promise of a global transformation is gone”.

As South Africa faces its own nuclear choice, we, as citizens, can expect many of these arguments to be played out over and over again in the months and years to come.