Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

Nuclear power: Recalculating the facts

Fukushima nuclear power plant British environmentalist and author Mark Lynas, who in an Op-Ed on Sunday, April 10, advocated for nuclear power despite the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan, emailed us with the bad news that there was a "huge mistake" in his commentary. Lynas had referenced a calculation from the Breakthrough Institute, an Oakland climate change think tank, to explain how much land mass would be required in Japan to replace its nuclear power with wind power (or solar power). The institute's report said it would require a 1.3 billion-acre wind farm, covering more than half of Japan's land mass. That's way off, because the acreage figure should have been 1.3 million.

It was the Breakthrough Institute that alerted Lynas to the error. Then Lynas did his own calculation. He now concludes that replacing nuclear power with wind power in Japan would require a wind farm covering  less than 3% of the nation's landmass. For all the gory details, see Lynas' calculations (and his mea culpa) here, the Breakthrough Institute's corrected report here, and a post on Climate Progress blog slamming us here.


Nuclear power debate: Is our fear rooted in propaganda?

Why nuclear power is still a good choice

U.S. nuclear industry: Not safe enough

Unlearned lessons from Chernobyl

Photo gallery: Aftermath of a meltdown

--Susan Brenneman

Photo: Security guards dressed in hazmat suits approach a car at the main gate of the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Credit: Steven Herman / April 13, 2011


Comments () | Archives (5)

The comments to this entry are closed.


I hope that they can get the level of radiation down, so people don't get really hurt. I hope the people are taking precautions to keep themselves safe. I found a good guide to radiation protection here: http://thehealingfrequency.com/radiation-safety-guide-protection-from-radiation-hazards/


Let's test to see what the actual radiation levels are. If they are not, let's switch to a clean alternative fuel. We are not stuck, we have human ingenuity and creativity, nothing can stop a people who want solutions.

Mitchell Young

Good on everyone involved in correcting -- way to 'man up' as it were.


Isn't 3% still a pretty big number?


Nuclear power is financially uncompetitive, that's why it can't raise capital on Wall Street. The only nuclear plants under construction are in centrally planned systems, not free markets. For details, web-search "nuclear power" "grossly uncompetitive".

Nuclear power solves no problem that can't be solved, cheaper and better, in other ways, including many renewable sources that are cheaper to build and run, slightly smarter electric grids, and end-use efficiency improvements based on today's technology, which can often yield savings of sixty percent at little to no cost.

It's time to end nuclear power's government-funded life-support. Let it die a natural, free-market death.



In Case You Missed It...



Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.

In Case You Missed It...