Critics have seized upon the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan as an opportunity to deride the atomic power industry. Despite their protests to the contrary, nuclear power remains the most viable alternative energy available. 

Almost two months after the devastating March 11th earthquake and tsunami in Japan, radiation continues to leak from the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor.

The crisis has given fresh ammunition to US critics of the nuclear energy industry. These naysayers often argue that it would be wiser to exploit the country’s vast supplies of natural gas rather than build new nuclear reactors. It’s an argument that makes economic sense while the price of natural gas in the US hovers at $4 per million British thermal units (MMbtu). But natural gas won’t remain cheap forever.

The low cost of natural gas in the US is a product of the shale gas revolution. Extracting this unconventional resource was once a very costly endeavor. But advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have made exploiting the US’ huge shale gas reserves far more economical. New discoveries of additional shale gas formations in recent years have created a glut of natural gas on the US market, transforming the US from a net natural gas importer into a potential exporter. However, exports of natural gas are stymied by a lack of export-oriented infrastructure. The US only has one export terminal for natural gas, and this is slated to close in the near future. Consequently, natural gas is priced on a regional basis, reflecting the dynamics of US supply and demand. This is likely to change soon.

Plans for three new North American export terminals–one in British Columbia and two on the US Gulf Coast–are in the works. Additionally, the operators of two import terminals have proposed converting their facilities to allow liquefied natural gas exports. That increased export capacity would change the pricing mechanism for natural gas so that it more accurately reflects global supply and demand. The price of US natural gas would climb toward the global average of about $11 per MMbtu, significantly affecting the economics of natural gas-fired power plants.

Furthermore, although natural gas-fired power plants are far cleaner than coal-fired plants, these facilities still produce greenhouse gas emissions. The US and other global governments are eager to reduce carbon emissions in order to mitigate climate change. Not only is atomic power the most efficient and reliable form of available alternative energy, it emits less carbon than any competing technology.

There’s a popular notion that most forms of alternative energy are carbon neutral. That just isn’t the case. Building out solar power capacity results in the equivalent of between 30 to 100 tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions per gigawatt hour of energy. Wind power installations produce 10 to 20 tons of CO₂ emissions, while biomass power generates 10 to 50 tons of CO₂ emissions.

By contrast, a nuclear reactor generates zero to 30 tons of CO₂ emissions, depending upon how the uranium is mined. If every US citizen were to use only nuclear-powered electricity over the course of their lifetime, this would result in about two pounds of waste per American. However, if the US derived all its electricity from coal–the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases–the result would be 68.5 tons of waste for every US citizen.

What’s more, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates that nuclear reactors could supply about 25 percent of the world’s electricity with virtually zero carbon emissions.

The current crisis of confidence in atomic power is a temporary–though serious–setback for the global nuclear power industry. But other alternative energy technologies still can’t compete on cost with nuclear energy. This is not the time to abandon atomic power.

Market Vectors Uranium + Nuclear Energy (NYSE: NLR), an exchange-traded fund (ETF), tracks the DAXGlobal Nuclear Energy Index. The fund’s 22 portfolio holdings generate at least half of their revenues from the nuclear power business. The portfolio also includes a number of smaller companies that other indexes overlook. Accordingly, the ETF acts as an excellent proxy for the global nuclear industry as a whole.

The fund sports a middle-of-the-road expense ratio of 0.62 percent. However, the fund has superior liquidity, tight spreads and a large asset base for a niche fund with $183 million in total assets.

Furthermore, exposure to utilities such as Constellation Energy Group (NYSE: CEG), Exelon Corp (NYSE: EXC) and Electricite de France (Paris: EDF) results in a yield of 4.6 percent–paying you well while you wait for the nuclear renaissance to resume.