Three months after a triple meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in Japan, the world is taking a hard look at nuclear power. Last week, Germany said that it would close all of its 17 nuclear plants. Switzerland has also announced its withdrawal from the nuclear arena. Other nations remain committed for now but, in the West, hopes for a nuclear renaissance seem moribund.

Nevertheless, global energy needs continue to rise. By 2020, the world's electricity demand will have increased by 35–40%, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris. Without nuclear power, many nations will struggle to meet that demand, especially if they cut back on fossil fuels to reduce the effects of climate change.

Germany hopes to make up its shortfall through an increase in renewable energy sources and a 10% reduction in energy consumption. New technologies could help to meet these targets. Yet in 2009, the latest date for which IEA figures are available, Germany spent US$246 million on nuclear research — roughly what it did on research into renewables and energy efficiency combined. In Japan, which continues to be plagued by energy shortages from Fukushima's shutdown, the US$2.7-billion nuclear-research budget was six times the energy-efficiency budget.

Many of these research programmes began in the 1950s and 60s, when fission reactors seemed to be the first step on the road to a nuclear future. Technical challenges, the enormous expense of fission power and the risks associated with meltdowns have made that road seem much longer today than it did 50 years ago.

Some nuclear investments seem more questionable following the Fukushima crisis and potential gaps in energy provision. Should Japan spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advanced breeder reactors when its plans for conventional ones are on hold? Should Germany continue its sizeable national programme in nuclear fusion, a distant and difficult technology, when its fission reactors are being shut down?

Meanwhile, the threat from climate change grows ever larger, and there is a pressing need for research to help reduce it. More efficient building design could drastically reduce energy consumption, and materials research is needed to drive down the cost of solar panels. New technologies must be developed and integrated into a more robust electricity grid if renewable power is to be efficiently distributed.

However, in many nations, the research is under-supported. A 2010 IEA analysis found shortfalls in all energy research except fission. Even a small shift from nuclear to other areas could make a big difference.

None of this means that nations should abandon fission. Existing nuclear plants continue to provide cheap, carbon-free energy, and some nations, notably China, have decided that, despite safety concerns, nuclear fission is key to expanding their economies while reducing carbon emissions.

Nor does it mean that all nuclear research should be abandoned. Indeed, some of it seems prescient, given the recent disaster: research into nuclear waste disposal will undoubtedly inform the ongoing clean-up at Fukushima (see page 135). And research into conventional light-water reactors could lead to safety improvements. Other endeavours, such as reactors that can produce medical isotopes, stand on their own merits.

But conventional fission is a mature technology. Today's reactor designs are safer and more efficient than those from the Fukushima Daiichi era. They are the ones that countries will build. More advanced reactor designs may be necessary one day, but for now they seem a very expensive dream. Cheaper areas of research could have a bigger impact in the short term. In a world with finite resources, and serious energy and environmental crises on the way, it is time to rethink research priorities.