There was another similar plant even closer to the epicenter, and it was hit with a (slightly) higher tsunami crest. It survived basically undamaged and even served as shelter for tsunami refugees. Because they had built the tsunami-wall to spec. And didn't partially dismantle it to make access easier like what was done in Fukushima.
Oh, and for example all the German plants would also have survived essentially unscathed had they been placed in the exact same spot, for a bunch of different reasons.
If you're referring to the Onagawa plant, one engineer (Yanosuke Hirai) pushed for the height of the wall to be increased beyond the original spec:
> A nuclear plant in a neighboring area, meanwhile, had been built to withstand the tsunamis. A solitary civil engineer employed by the Tohoku Electric Power Company knew the story of the massive Jogan tsunami of the year 869, because it had flooded the Shinto shrine in his hometown. In the 1960s, the engineer, Yanosuke Hirai, had insisted that the Onagawa Nuclear Power Station be built farther back from the sea and at higher elevation than initially proposed—ultimately nearly fifty feet above sea level. He argued for a seawall to surpass the original plan of thirty-nine feet. He did not live to see what happened in 2011, when forty-foot waves destroyed much of the fishing town of Onagawa, seventy-five miles north of Fukushima. The nuclear power station—the closest one in Japan to the earthquake’s epicenter—was left intact. Displaced residents even took refuge in the power plant’s gym.
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/12/06/were-design...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20...
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Tepco-Rem...
In addition, they didn't have hydrogen recombinators, which for example are/were standard in all German plants. Those plants also had special requirements for bunkers for the Diesel backup generators so they couldn't be knocked out by water.
Failing to correctly design, build, exploit or maintain a wind turbine or solar panel isn't a big deal. Failing to do so on a nuclear reactor can become a huge and lasting disaster for many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
Moreover pretending that the words nuclear accident is not more dangerous than the worst wind turbine accident will be difficult.
And are completely missing that you need a LOT more wind turbines, and these have a lot more accidents.
For example, wind turbine accidents killed 14 people just in one year, 2011. How many people were killed in the UK in nuclear accidents that year? That decade.
Ladder accidents kill ~80 people per year in Germany.
Google "avilability bias"