Re: Who's next?
Naval reactors have vastly different safety and operational requirements to civil ones.
Steam generating PWR works fine at small scales and there's plenty of cooling water around any ship when things go wrong.
The single biggest risk with current technology nuclear power plants is that they're water-moderated and vastly oversized versions of the original Nautilus reactor.
Water under high pressure (up to 20 atmospheres) and at high temperature (up to 400C) is both corrosive and wants to flash to steam at the slightest opportunity. Couple that with the native temperature of nuclear reactions being over 1200C (that's the temperature at the centre of a fuel rod) and things get nasty if the water goes away. Zirconium fuel rod cladding has a melting point of about 1850C but mixed with borated water it gets broken down to zirconium hyroxide and hydrogen pretty quickly long before the temperatures reach that high (which is what happened at Fukushima to drive those explosions). The end result is that no matter how careful you are, water used for reactor moderation has small amounts of nasty contaminants under normal conditions and is utterly loaded with them when things go pear shaped.
(That residual heat when a reactor scrams? Most of it is because oxide pellets are shitty thermal conductors and it takes a _long_ time for the heat energy in the centre of a rod to make its way to the outside)
The single largest safety improvement which could be made to civil reactors is to separate water from the radioactive stuff (and no, using molten sodium as moderator/coolant isn't a particularly bright idea) and get rid of any form of pressurisation of the reactor core - as you increase the size and pressure of your containment vessel engineering stresses increase exponentially. The best way to do that is with Molten Salts (even if not using molten salt fuel or thorium - there's a UK consultancy which has designed more-or-less conventional fuel-rod-based systems with salt moderators.)
That said, even including all the military reactor incidents along with the big 3 civilian ones, nuclear power is statistically hundreds of thousands of times safer than burning coal in terms of deaths per TW/h (coal fire steam boilers go boom occasionally, it's not news) even for all those plants built before all the new safety rules went into place post Three-Mile-Island (many of which need applying to conventional plants)
Fukushima can be summed up thus: "Tepco listened to consultant advice over safe positioning of backup generators and other anciliary equipment outside the actual reactors, then completely ignored that advice, putting things where they'd already been told was a risky location." - and yet noone died, even considering the number of other fuck ups that happened to allow a meltdown to take place on a plant that was more than a decade past its designed shutdown date, had been hit with an earthquake substantially larger than it was designed to endure AND hit with a tsunami larger than anticipated" - even with all that, the meltdowns could have been averted if Tepco management hadn't been so criminally inept at handling the disaster as it unfolded (including refusing offers of external assistance and generator provision). The only reason things didn't get worse is because the chief engineer onsite told management to fuck off and started doing what was actually required to save things.