Fukushima daiichi and daiini aren't the only power plants in japan.
The island of japan is not big enough to argue the difficulty to transport water to the plant if it were moved 5 more kilometers or so inland.
The plant northern most in Sapporo is even further from water than Fukushima yet it's still operable.
The only power plants I see on the fault line side of japan are Onagawa, Fukushima and Tokai powerplants.
I've heard the Onagawa plant also had problems.
It's unfortunate that the tsunami reached the fuel rods, but maybe it's a bit neglectful of them to have just thrown a power plant in a danger zone like that anyway.
Quote from Chillax;378515:
Money and convenience. Other than safety concerns, is there any reason you would pump thousands of gallons from the sea to places further inland, which requires more fuel (money), construct a whole network of pipes to pump water from the sea (time and money), and build another network of pipes to pump hot water back into the sea (more time and money), when you could just build a plant right next to the sea? Not to mention, there would be the maintenance of the pipes that you'd have to do constantly because hot seawater would be detrimental to the pipes.
You know I can actually see both arguments here. Even if the plant were built more inland, say an earthquake occurred and the pipes were severely damaged. (Since earthquakes are alot more common than tsunamis)
That'd leave the plant without a supply of fresh water for some time. Then it might be shut down from damage or partial loss of emergency backup power, and end up being a total waste of resources.
Though it still wouldn't be as serious as the tsunami situation. The city of fukushima won't be habitable for decades due to the amount of radiation exposure it's gotten.
But honestly, what would you say is better, the upkeep of some pipes, or global nuclear fallout.
Then I guess you're throwing in a lot more risks, like damage from tornados, harder to evacuate the people living in the municipalities while avoiding the plants in case of said damage etcetc... If the plants were moved inland.
Actually no, I forgot that the reactors in japan were designed to withstand, and even shut down in the event of an earthquake, the only left field factor here is the tsunami, which would have been avoided if they were a little more precautious.