How exactly would those modern nuclear plants work? I'm against nuclear power because they're too risky, I mean: terrorist attack - Chernobyl V2, that simple. I really really hope fussion power can work in 30 years as they say it will, but I have my doubts, they've been saying the same for decades, although now they say it's 'for real'.
Japan (mis) handled Fuck-u-shima the way the US did the Deepwater Horizon well the year B4, letting the company essentially call the shots (though each had an incentive to cover their asses). In an emergency of either type, the government should nationalize
the cleanup, and give someone with the willingness to act like Attila the Hun if necessary the authority to give the orders.
in Japan, TEPCO was seeking to save the very expensive uranium in the fuel rods, and minimize the perceived damage. Had the Japanese "cut their losses" starting within say 48 hours and buried the reactors in layers of cement or concrete interspersed with lead to block the radiation (both dropped from US cargo planes on Okinawa) they'd have stopped the spiraling damage.
And regarding Arctic drilling, Shell Oil has like 15 of the mechanisms that were developed as the oil gushed in the Gulf positioned in the Arctic. If you don't want undersea drilling, the technology (leaving a "small footprint") now exists to safely drill the frozen ground on Alaska's North Slope in the winter.
Of course a lot of the radical environmentalists (many of who live in places like NYC, and rarely visit the Arctic) don't want any
fossil fuels burned, and would like the US gasoline price as high as possible... consistent with not getting Obama and Congressional Democrats beaten, which IS a political dilemma.
Fuck-u-shima had GE Mark I reactors, not manufactured since the 60s, though I agree that even modern ones shouldn't be built in earthquake-prone areas, like the East Coast of Japan; or the Pacific Coast of Kahl-eee-fornya, where a couple are on the verge of being shut down. (San Onofre and Diablo Canyon).