I'm as pro-nuclear as anyone, but I don't think putting nuke plants on shorelines is a great idea. I guess that was the beef with Diablo Canyon back in the '80's.
I don't know. Live and learn. The hysterics of left-wing politics means it's live and don't learn (because learning involves generalization, and generalization can be characterized as "stereotyping," which, in turn, leads to racism), but I digress.
I’m not sure it’s shorelines themselves, but it does seem clear to me that you shouldn’t put a plant where the required backup generators can be disabled by a tsunami.
Just as one of the lessons of Katrina is that you shouldn’t put your emergency backup generators in the basement below sea level, and you shouldn’t build your city’s required pump rooms such that they can be disabled by flooding if the city fills up with water.
One would need to weigh the risk values before making a determination. Up until a few years ago, how often did we really hear about catastrophic tsunamis? I read about them in a book up until a few years ago. So, given that risk consideration some 40 years ago when the plants were built by the shoreline...thinking could very well have been close to a water source in the event of a catastrophe.