I have long ago had it with the anti-nuclear power crowd. Nuclear power is cleaner, safer, and more efficient by far than coal or other fossil fuels. I have long ago advocated an Energy Independence Manhattan Project to get us off our deadly addiction to Saudi Arabian oil. And if they can make fusion work, I'm for that, too.

No argument from me; the anti-nuke crowd has had its way far too long, not only blocking development but the level of false and incomplete information they disseminate infects far too much of the public. Here in Gainesville FL the local utility is actually planning to build another *coal* burning plant, after a debate on which fuel to use during which nuclear was conspicuous by its absense.
And "waste" which is going to be emitting energy for thousands of years is a power source we should maybe think about ways to use, not bury!

I'm sure that roof-mounted solar could have survived all but the worst hurricane winds; if shingles could be nailed down well enough to avoid tearing off, I'm sure a PV panel could be bolted down well enough to stay put.  The question then becomes how well the panel is protected from impact damage, and how well it resists whatever hits it.

Another possibility is to install the panels so they can either be taken down for protection, or covered with plywood for the duration.

I actually did a calculation once about the reactor containment building I was working on. It was on the Florida Gulf Coast about 10 feet above sea level. Turns out, the containment would float in 30 foot storm surge, if freed of connecting stuff like pipes.

The plant was designed for a hurricane that would drown 80% of the utility's customers.

As to Earth blackout conditions, that's beyond the licensing design basis but if you could keep the crew feed and the fuel coming (every 18 months), plus cooling water, it would keep on ticking.

If freed of things like its connections to the diesel generators, could the (still warm) reactor have melted down as it floated away?

I like the idea of nukes as generation that will not shut down unless they're cut off from fuel for well over a year.  (Try that with a coal plant.)  But in the aftermath of a disaster like a hurricane, the transmission lines are down; having a GW on tap doesn't help if you can't get it to the customer.  Solar on the roof is immune to transmission outages; it's a form of civil defense.

Engineer: But solar-on-the-roof is expensive in a way that centralised generation isn't.

I, for one, don't want solar panels on my roof just-in-case something happens and I'm out of power for a week or two. (Me, I can live without power for a week. And let's not forget the added expense of grid-isolation hardware, which would be absolutely required for such a use, as well as for general power-worker safety.)

The money would probably be better spent on cheap generators and a pile of general emergency supplies (and a separate storage water tank inline with the water lines in each house - an always-fresh 50+ gallons of water is far more useful than some photocells... especially if it's cloudy).

I also like the idea of never again building a recator than can melt down if its cooling system fails. AFAIK most if not all of the new designs, like the PBMR, are like that.

Grid intertie is relatively easy; there are inverters available OTS that do it.  The only other thing you'd really need is a grid disconnect switch built into the inverter so that you could also run off-grid.

You've got kind of half a point with generators there.  Until it's needed, such a generator represents idle capital.  The generator will probably not be tested often, so it may not work when needed.  Even if it does work, it needs fuel.  What happens if you've just had an event like Katrina or Rita and all the gas stations which still have power have empty tanks?

Ideally, what you'd have is a system which gets used (and thus tested) every day, so you're assured that it works.  It also doesn't need anything that's likely to be cut off in the aftermath of a disaster.

There's already one web site showing one guy's test of his Prius as a standby generator.  Suppose you do that just a little bit better, and make the car a Prius+ with enough batteries to drive around a bit without needing to run the engine.  Hook up some solar to that to keep the batteries charged (only at home, of course), and you've got a 100% off-grid backup system that can not only power the fridge and some lights, but will let you scoot around a bit once the roads have been cleared without having to worry too much about where the next gallon of fuel is coming from.  It would be perfectly happy on-grid, too.

What could be better for civil defense?