How can you say they "clearly were not"? I think the opposite is quite clear - the main components survived the earthquake just fine.
The problem right now is the lack of power. The pumps are run on electric power, and as soon as the earthquake came the power plant itself shut down. So now you need external power to run the pumps. The power infrastructure failed and no other power plants could power these pumps. So they switched to backup generators, which were then wiped out by a tsunami. Then they switched to batteries (which worked fine, until they ran out). Then they brought in backup generators, which failed. Now we're onto pumping seawater in.
If sea wall had been 50' high instead of 30' high (estimates), the generators would have survived and we wouldn't be hearing about this. If the batteries were more than 8 hours we probably wouldn't be hearing about this. If the external generators worked, we wouldn't be hearing about this. Those are the only mistakes.
Compare that to Gen 4 reactors being designed today - no pumps required to circulate fluid. If anything we should be building new plants because if this had happened to a Gen 4 the fluid would be cooling the reactor even without power and none of this would have been a problem.
I suppose we can all have differing opinions on what an acceptable level of risk is, but leaking radiation, fuel storage ponds on fire, and a situation volatile enough to warrant a 30km exclusion zone says to me that the plant clearly was not designed to handle this kind of situation.
If the problem is the lack of power, then so be it - even more of a preventable problem that wasn't properly assured against.
I'm hopeful for the Gen 4 reactors (don't know much about them, but what I've read gives me the impression that they are a significant leap in the right direction in terms of safety.) But I don't think that this particular article is right in holding Fukushima up as some shining example of nuclear safety, especially so early.
Is dumping millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico an acceptable level of risk for you? I don't see you saying we should stop drilling for oil.
You can't fault him for not saying we should stop drilling for oil - this discussion is not about oil.
But since you brought it up, we should stop drilling for oil, particularly sea bed drilling, while operating with lax regulatory bodies and marginal penalties for non-compliance.
The batteries do not power the pumps, and were not designed to. The pumps draw far too much power for that - the batteries are to power the control systems and valves only.
The problem right now is the lack of power. The pumps are run on electric power, and as soon as the earthquake came the power plant itself shut down. So now you need external power to run the pumps. The power infrastructure failed and no other power plants could power these pumps. So they switched to backup generators, which were then wiped out by a tsunami. Then they switched to batteries (which worked fine, until they ran out). Then they brought in backup generators, which failed. Now we're onto pumping seawater in.
If sea wall had been 50' high instead of 30' high (estimates), the generators would have survived and we wouldn't be hearing about this. If the batteries were more than 8 hours we probably wouldn't be hearing about this. If the external generators worked, we wouldn't be hearing about this. Those are the only mistakes.
Compare that to Gen 4 reactors being designed today - no pumps required to circulate fluid. If anything we should be building new plants because if this had happened to a Gen 4 the fluid would be cooling the reactor even without power and none of this would have been a problem.