Not wanting to change the topic. But why on earth would you even consider nuclear power generation when you are in such a geologically unstable area? Sounds like idiocy to me. Fingers crossed here, could do without another man made disaster.
1. The reactors in question here are now two technological generations old; they are old, fragile designs compared to more modern designs. 2. Japan just experienced one of the biggest earthquakes in world history, followed by a tsunami of a scope that makes Kurosawa's war scenes look like moving Legos around. 3. Despite this, there have been no catastrophic reactor failures. Zero. We're not out of the woods yet, but the smart money is on there being a couple minor incidents and no major incidents as a result of all this.
I'd say the decision to build nuclear plants instead of, say, dozens and dozens of coal plants (which would have killed a lot of people by now with their pollution) is looking pretty smart.
It's possible to make a building like a skyscraper fairly earthquake proof, but is it really possible to make things like nuclear power stations earthquake proof? Assuming the building is made to 'wobble', wouldn't that wreak havoc on the cooling systems and other gear inside?
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf18.html
It's not like they don't think of this stuff ahead of time. This was planned for.
They have a mix of nuclear, hydro, and other power generating systems to meet their energy needs. Nuclear is one of the cleanest and least disruptive to the environment.
I appreciate these were exceptional circumstances. But to be confronted with a nuclear disaster of any proportion is horrifying. Then it becomes an environmental catastrophe.