I disagree with his value assessment of the importance of space and intermittency, as well as the risk posed by nuclear.
To me, this incident undermines the premise that nuclear power is benign in comparison to renewable technologies.
Fas quoted by the Japan Times, former Japanese Prime Minister Kan, in office during Fukushima's meltdowns, has this to say.
"It was truly a spine-chilling thought," he told the Tokyo Shimbun, adding that he foresaw a situation in which greater Tokyo's 30 million people would have to be evacuated, a move that would "compromise the very existence of the Japanese nation".
... "The power was totally lost and there was no cooling capacity," Kan said. "I knew what that meant and I thought, 'This is going to be a disaster'."
His unease grew when his trade minister, Banri Kaieda, told him that Tepco was considering pulling its staff out of the plant and leaving it to its fate. "Withdrawing from the plant was out of the question," he said. "If that had happened, Tokyo would be deserted by now. It was a critical moment for Japan's survival. It could have been a led to leaks of dozens of times more radiation than Chernobyl."
...Kan defended the gradual widening of the exclusion zone, and his conversion to a non-nuclear energy policy: "If there is a risk of accidents that could make half the land mass of our country uninhabitable, then we cannot afford to take that risk."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x310531