Why do Japan and New Zealand have nuclear plants and not hydro plants?

Answer 1

New Zealand has an abundance of large rivers and lakes that offer potential for hydroelectric development. And these, along with some geothermal power generation, mean that about 31% of energy in NZ is generated from renewable resources. In recent years, wind power is increasing its contribution to electrical generation. There is a coal-fired power station, and most other energy is consumed by transport.

New Zealand has rather set its face against nuclear power of any kind (including visiting ships), because of the hazards of nuclear activity. [In similar vein, New Zealand has expressed opposition to land mines and cluster weapons in warfare.]

Oddly enough, New Zealand has large reserves of thorium sands, which may be able to be used in nuclear power plants that do not have the undesirable byproducts associated with the uranium fuel cycle.

The reason why most of the world's nuclear power stations use uranium as a fuel, is that it produces plutonium as a byproduct - much valued for nuclear weapons. The electricity is almost a byproduct - it is the plutonium that the military desire at almost any cost.

India is the only country currently with an interest in developing thorium reactors,

Japan by contrast generates only about 3% of its energy from hydro. The balance is supplied from coal, Nuclear, and petroleum. [Presumably much of this coal energy is used in the production of steel.]

Japan's earliest nuclear reactors were constructed in the 70s era, and in all fairness, knowledge of tectonic plates and underwater faults were in their infancy in those days. It would be fair to say that Japan would not today site large plants on the eastern shore, close to the subduction fault lines and the tsunami dangers that result. But forty years ago, such detail was wanting.

Japan is a heavily populated country, and without nuclear generated electricity, its fossil fuel bills would be grotesque.