WetGeek Using natural gas has a downside as a transition though, even though it is cleaner than other fossil fuels. I am told the turbines required for gas have little other options than using gas, it cannot be (easily) retrofitted to burn other stuff. Hence when you build a new gas turbine, you're stuck with fossil fuel for it over it's lifetime (20/30 years?). In theory you can have non-fossil natural gas, but I am not sure this can be produced in the quantities needed as a baseload for the grid.
Coal may be way worse direct emission wise, but those plants can more easily burn more types of fuel, hence they may be worse now, but can burn cleaner stuff during its lifetime. Not saying we shouldn't do natural gas or build more coal plants (I am undecided), but this is something to take into account when considering natural gas as a transition source. Once you have them, you need to use them to prevent it becoming a very expensive option.
WetGeek There is just one thing not mentioned which can kill of the whole idea of mini-nuclear; economics. The whole article you provide mention nothing about it what they would cost. Do you know what the prognosis for its price/kWh is? (serious question, I have no clue)
Obviously for the military the price is less of an issue, as nuclear energy is advantageous for reasons that are not really important on land and for a commercial grid.
Considering that large scale (which is often cheaper) nuclear is already rarely viable without subsidies, I cannot imagine mini-nuclear being viable before we have better alternatives regarding renewable energy. The same with Thorium, the concept is really nice, but it is still doubtful we have it price-competitive in time compared to other renewable sources.
We can still work on making them viable, but may not be the wisest plan to rely on these when making our current plans.
