You may have been an ex Navy nuclear submarine officer, but you apparently spent no time in commercial nuclear power conducting risk assessment studies. The power-grid by definition is a more reliable source of power than any single generator on a particular plant site. Your statement flies in the face of over 40 years of commercial nuclear power licensing and design. Any you are preaching to a degreed nuclear engineer from RPI who has worked in and around commercial nuclear power for more than 25 years -- since 1991 on risk assessment projects.
The power-grid by definition is a more reliable source of power than any single generator on a particular plant site. Your statement flies in the face of over 40 years of commercial nuclear power licensing and design. Any you are preaching to a degreed nuclear engineer from RPI who has worked in and around commercial nuclear power for more than 25 years -- since 1991 on risk assessment projectsWell, if you read the reports, it was the grid that failed first. Then one of the backup diesel generators. I spend a lot of time watching these kinds of safey analyses. Your "by definition" a priori assumptions are a postiori proven wrong. It isn't a small issue, actually. The reactor plant is designed to be many 9's more reliable than anything else. It is not hard to understand that it turns out to be so.
PS. A lot of folks suggest that had at least one of the Fukushima reactors continued operating, providing power for cooling they would not be where they are today. That does depend upon whether there was actual real safety significant damage to the system before the loss of cooling problems developed. It will be interesting to see where it comes out in the end.