Support for Small Modular Reactors?

This is a little more on that

"It may sound like a crazy idea, but Singapore, a tiny island country whose population would have no place to go in the event of a wide-scale evacuation, is giving buried nukes a closer look.

The thinking is that you could bury a small reactor in a shallow layer of bedrock, perhaps 30-50 meters underground. Then, if things at the plant go south for any reason, the granite will provide natural containment; simply cement in any access tunnels going down to the facility and walk away.

The idea was first floated last fall by Hooman Peimani an energy security specialist at the National University of Singapore. Countries with nuclear power typically build large-scale reactors 15 to 20 km away from heavily populated residential areas. Singapore, a country of roughly 700 square kilometers, doesn't have a potential site even 3 km from residential areas, Peimani says.

Going underground would significantly increase the costs of any reactor. Peimani says only small reactors 30-50 megawatts in size, one-twentieth the size of conventional large-scale reactors, would be cost effective"

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/03/nuclear-power-to-go-undergroun.html

I believe I read something about France are already following this approach.

Seems smarter than giant heat concentrations too.

And would fit with 'less than giant' re-pumped storage._{[he said, taking cover]}

There are many alternative energy sources available to us, not only for business but for home owners, too..
Here are 6 renewable energy sources we home owners should consider, to save money and the environment:
http://tinyurl.com/6gvyoed