It was supposed to be the future. Nuclear energy was one of the answers to mitigating climate change and was supposed to help power the world into the future. (Just last fall, the UK approved plans to build 8 additional nuclear plants.)

But the losing battle at Japan’s nuclear reactors following their massive earthquake is no doubt drumming up bad dreams for those considering the expansion of nuclear power to meet future energy needs (like Europe).

For capital cities across the continent “re-think” appears to be the expression of the week. Almost immediately following the news of the leaked radiation and possible reactor meltdown in Japan, German anti-nuke protesters were holding their signs up high. Now, many European countries appear to be engaged in a bit of soul searching regarding the future of nuclear power.

Some in Europe believe fears of nuclear to be an overreaction, according to Spiegel‘s European Press Review.

But The Wall Street Journal writes that nuclear industry reps are on the ropes; French and German companies are particularly on the defensive. Now some European leaders appear to be cooling down towards nuclear.

Nowhere have the political effects of the Japan situation been more dramatic thus far than in Germany, where German Chancellor Angela Merkel had last autumn engineered a controversial move to extend the lifespan of Germany’s nuclear plants by an average of 12 years. In a partial reversal earlier this week, Ms. Merkel on Tuesday ordered the closure of Germany’s seven oldest nuclear plants pending a three-month security review. The seven plants affected account for just under 5% of Germany’s power.

Possible good news for natural gas?

Some analysts believe natural gas is the best positioned fuel to replace nuclear energy in both the short and long term.

So what are the challengers to the now-battered nuclear industry? In an article on The Guardian, the EU’s Climate Change Commissioner says energy from wind turbines at sea will eventually be cheaper than building new nukes.

Offshore wind energy has long been seen as an expensive way of generating power, costing about two to three times more than erecting turbines on land, but the expense is likely to come down, while the costs of nuclear energy are opaque, according to analysis by the European commission.

Meanwhile, the website Treehugger provides information on Europe’s reaction as a whole.

The European Commission is planning the closest review, demanding that all EU energy companies offer detailed descriptions of how cooling mechanisms work at the 150 EU reactors; what emergency plans are in place in the event of earthquakes, what backup systems can provide energy in the case of long power outtages, and how the EU would handle multiple simultaneous accidents at several power plants.

Still, the piece notes that many European countries, like Russia, France, Turkey and the Czech Republic are staying the course with their nuclear power strategies.

An analysis on Moody’s writes that Europe will stick with nuclear power, because of things like rising oil prices and the will to secure independent energy supplies. It may take a bit of time, but nuclear power is likely to regain its footing.

Eastern European countries are some of the most focused on increasing nuclear power capabilities and reducing energy dependence on Russia. New nuclear power stations are due to come on line in coming years in Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Poland, as well as Finland, while even EU Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard recently said that “nuclear power will be there for quite some time, whatever happens”.

Still, here in Central and Eastern Europe, the general public can easily recall the fateful days of the Chernobyl meltdown and taking iodine pills. Given those memories are not that stale, the prospect of another such a disaster does not seem that remote for many.