Following the earthquake-induced tsunami on the north-east coast of Japan in 2011 and the crisis it triggered at the Fukushima nuclear plant, public opinion seemed to be unanimous that this form of energy was fraught with danger.
The German government, for example, declared it was going to gradually shut down its nuclear capability altogether and replace it with renewable sources of energy.
But other governments appear to have been unmoved by the event.
For Britain, nuclear power has remained a key plank in its future energy strategy. A recently published policy document stated that it would continue to play an important role in delivering its objective of a "secure, low carbon, affordable, energy future." Neither does France appear ready to change course on this issue. France currently generates 75% of its electricity from nuclear power.
And China and India have just issued a joint statement documenting their intent to collaborate in the field of civilian nuclear energy. Both countries run large-scale nuclear power programmes.
So what are we supposed to think? Provided the power plants are not built in earthquake-prone areas and proper provision has been made for the safe storage of the waste product, nuclear power has to count as a sustainable source of energy, correct? Should it be one of those sustainable energy solutions that my company describes on its website?
Or is nuclear power just too dirty and too risky? What do you think?
Category: Sustainable energy: Nuclear