Sure, it's safer for reactors to tolerate flooding, if indeed these reactors actually do tolerate flooding. Definitely that would be a better design in flood/tsunami-prone areas. No design (from history, especially no reactor design) is perfect. A set of smaller reactors that were not co-located would be more tolerant of site-specific vulnerabilities in their design.
> ... if indeed these reactors actually do tolerate flooding
The reactor modules are partially immersed in a pond, the ultimate heat sink. Cooling is passive, i.e., no cooling pumps, and does not require electrical power.
>A set of smaller reactors that were not co-located would be more tolerant of site-specific vulnerabilities in their design
That depends on what risks you are trying to mitigate. IF you are talking about site specific natural disasters and freak occurrences damaging a site. Then spreading them out increases risk of failure.
If you are worried about power loss after a site destroys a site, then colocation is worse. Of the two, damage to a site is the more pressing concern.
The odds that a concentrated site has an event are much higher with colocation. But the changes of having an event at multiple locations are higher if they're spread out.
Some things that I believe would matter for colocation would be:
- chance of cascading failures
- economies of scale/safety in numbers (1 large team vs many small)
- plant-to-home efficiency (n fewer reactors due to smaller transmission losses)
