George Monbiot had an interesting take on this. If Fukishima is obsolete/inferior design/construction, and a Richter 9 EQ is as bad as it gets, this is the worst case scenario for natural disaster at a nuke. If this is as bad as it is likely to get, vulnerabiity to natural disaster is no reason not to support nuke development. In fact the opposite is true: it has a superior safety record vis a vis natural forces as compared with any other energy source.
Monbiot's argument, not mine, but not easy to refute, if you consider that Chernobyl and TMI were both pilot error events.
I have had similar thoughts. Of course, the spent fuel problem and the fact that one cannot permanently wish away operator error leave plenty to worry about. But, dealing with this argument, I think it is hubris to argue that this is the worst that nature can do. I don't expect much bigger earthquakes, but I would love to hear from experts how the experience at the Fukushima plant really ranked in terms of ground shaking, tsunami magnitude, etc. Maybe it's as bad as it gets, maybe not.
