Explosions, radiation leaks and mass evacuations around Fukushima Daiichi and other plants have reminded the world of the dangers of atomic power.

This crisis comes 25 years after the Chernobyl disaster, but that is where any similarity ends. The accident in Ukraine, after all, was largely blamed on the secrecy and inefficiencies that were inherent in the Soviet political system.

Japan is the third-biggest economy in the world and one of the most sophisticated political and industrial nations on Earth. Yet, at this stage, we do not know what exactly went wrong, and this is clearly not the time to rush to judgments.

But even if there were no design faults or human errors, and even accepting the unexpected scale of the tsunami, it is profoundly disturbing that systems were knocked out so quickly and to such a devastating effect.

Back-up equipment failed to work and yet no-one can have been unaware of the dangers of earthquakes in this region, or the potential for a tsunami.

Politicians, nuclear physicists and industry officials are all putting a brave face on the setback. They say the Japanese reactors showed their relative robustness in the face of nature’s most potent weapons.

It is argued that most nuclear plants being planned in the US, China and Europe are not located in quake zones, so all will be well.

But is it that simple? As I write, there are continuing fears of reactor meltdown and more serious radioactive releases. Obviously, if these events occur we are into more uncharted waters.

Chernobyl, and the lesser accident at Three Mile Island in America, halted nuclear building for 25 years. This could clearly happen again if things get worse. However, if further disaster is averted, I would expect new nuclear plants to be built — albeit subject to considerable delays.

Already, Germany, Switzerland and other countries have put a temporary block on any immediate further progress until more is known about what went wrong in Japan.

UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne has also called on the head of the British nuclear safety authorities to review matters. But Barack Obama has reaffirmed his support.

The issue of nuclear safety has hitherto been largely kept off the public agenda, with the focus being more on cost. This will change as a worried public demands more reassurances about safety. I believe the current rush for nuclear will become something more akin to a measured stroll. An equity research note put out by investment house Evolution Securities concurs with this judgment with regard to the UK, albeit with a sideswipe at my own profession.

It says: “We would expect the ‘normal’ media hysteria over nuclear to result in further delays in the UK programme to build new nuclear plants.”

Regardless, one could see the Japanese earthquake indirectly helping renewables. Not so much because many people have pitched the two industries against each other — and where nuclear has been shown to have much more lobbying clout than clean-tech.

The diversified nature and relative safety of renewables will surely be given more value in years to come.

But, ultimately, I do not see the future of wind and solar being decided by whether nuclear is slowed or stopped. The real threat to renewables comes from the plummeting price of natural gas, particularly in North America. In the short term, its price is going to rise, as Japan desperately imports liquefied natural gas in an attempt to make up for the large number of its nuclear reactors being taken out of service.

But the terrible loss of life and wider economic disruption of a nation cannot be good for any industry, and this disaster is likely to act as another unhelpful downward prod at the global economic recovery.

The Tokyo stock exchange and global commodity prices have slumped, as analysts survey the damage to Japan. Key manufacturers such as Toyota have ceased production at some of their facilities while they allow staff to tend to domestic issues and companies assess the damage to their supply chains.

Power shortages will disrupt the Japanese electronics sector, which, through the likes of Sanyo and others, plays a big part in the global solar industry. This could bring opportunities to competitors in China and South Korea.

The sad thing is that Japanese politicians made a big commitment to nuclear because of the country’s lack of fossil-fuel resources.

The Tokyo government made little effort to diversify into renewables and played a negative role in climate change talks in Cancún.

Now, maybe, we can expect to see not just Japan but the rest of the world reassessing the relative merits of different energy sources in a new way.

It is not just about the immediate “cost” — or the carbon price — but the value of safety. Wind and solar must surely benefit from that, whatever eventually happens to nuclear.

Asia Pacific

Japan’s struggle to avert nuclear catastrophe may lead to greater global role for renewables