[petre]

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.

[rglullis]

That does not really answer my question, does it?

Of all the possible places to build nuclear plants, why go put them in a place that has plenty of sunshine and tons of seismic activity?

No matter how favorable the odds, why play those when there are places that could be even better?

[olivermarks]

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?

https://battlebornbatteries.com/lithium-ion-battery-puncture...

[rglullis]

> fixated on the idea that solar/wind power is viable as primary energy sources

No, absolutely not. I said in the first comments, not against nuclear. What I am against is pushing for unproven designs facing avoidable risks.