Please do read about the NuScale reactor. That one is modern, with passive circulation and cooling.
One can also build some of them on a barge and moor it over deep water just like a deepwater oil rig, where it will be protected from earthquakes. The US is currently designing one, the Russians already have one but that's not an option anymore.
Also, smaller the Greek islands are not big energy consumers. A wind farm, solar plus storage might be enough for most if them. Also use the surplus to make hydrogen and store it for burning in a gas generator. Some of them are near the shore and they're already powered by cable.
I suspect you, like many, are fixated on the idea that solar/wind power is viable as primary energy sources and therefore haven't been taking nuclear seriously.
Assuming the future successful invention and deployment of battery power storage to provide a consistent 11,000 Megawatt-hours per day (a fairly typical large city supply amount), what do you think would happen to those enormous ganged up batteries in an earthquake?
I am not necessarily pro-nuclear, but one of the big problems with Fukushima is that it didn't ventilate the hydrogen that was created during the meltdown. It was the hydrogen that created the explosion in reactor for that made it go from bad to ultra-shit.
I seem to be confusing nuclear disasters. Anyway, the explosions in Fukushima could have been prevented with hydrogen ventilation chimneys that had been standard equipment since the early 70s.
One can also build some of them on a barge and moor it over deep water just like a deepwater oil rig, where it will be protected from earthquakes. The US is currently designing one, the Russians already have one but that's not an option anymore.
Also, smaller the Greek islands are not big energy consumers. A wind farm, solar plus storage might be enough for most if them. Also use the surplus to make hydrogen and store it for burning in a gas generator. Some of them are near the shore and they're already powered by cable.