Comments by "Bob thebomb" (@bobthebomb1596) on "‘Just use the grid that’s there’: Coalitions nuclear sites should go near existing coal stations" video.

Acres of new PV panels, turbines and pylons vs a replacement power station at a site will existing amenities.
8
@tassied12 That is wrong. It has not been done before because there has been no need. Nuclear reactors have been designed as stand alone units; reactor and turbine generators. A reactor is however a heat source, just like a coal, oil or gas fired furnace, whose product is steam to run a turbine.
1
@tassied12 Non of which prevent nuclear being sited at existing coal plants. There are reactors running in deserts using wastewater flow as coolant. All but two existing coal plants have water cooling in place, that can be made more efficient by increasing cooling tower numbers. Current coal plant in Australia ranges from 340MW to 2.2GW, already in the nuclear reactor range. If you are saying that current transmission capacity is insufficient to cope with an outage then you designed a poor grid. It is still nothing like what is required for a wholly new, distributed, intermittent supply. Don't get me started on duplication of supply and backup provision. VRE has availability factors in the 20-50% range and requires huge over capacity to meet demand and charge storage for use when it is unavailable.
1
@tassied12 So add additional cooling towers or choose a different reactor design for that site.
1