They've become smaller and more maintanence-free than you might expect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

I don't doubt that, and they're probably very valuable in locations that don't get a significant amount of sunlight (near the poles), but I can walk into Costco and pick up enough solar panels to power my house.

What's the purpose of stating the obvious here?

My interpretation of the post I responded to was that solar and nuclear are both carbon neutral energy sources, but that somehow nuclear was "better" because it provided 10x as much power globally. My post was to articulate that solar can be deployed anywhere, much more rapidly, and is therefore the better choice.

Thanks for calling me out on it!

Not yet!