Yes! I want a FSM monument next to them.

Wind is cheaper than today's primitive and written-off nuclear plants and solar is getting there - let alone natural gas.

While I agree, notice that anybody who says "we can have a sustainable energy supply based on nuclear" says "we need to build several thousand new nuke plants." Now a more than tenfold expansion of nuclear power would mean a tenfold increase in accidents, that's why it's not going to happen.

Now the next queston would be what the cost of electricity produced with those designs would be.

Do you say that human error is incapable of producing a leak in a pebble bed reactor?

You'll still lose enery on the round trip. Your overall energy consumption would be lower if you ran your desal plant at a lower power level and produced less briny output than producing very briny output, diluting it and producing energy from that.

... for which you need freshwater.

No, the desalination will require more energy than you get out of this method. Conversely, if you have freshwater, why use desalination?

Sounds like a perpetual motion device to me.
Oblig.: In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

to automatically take selfies.

4"? Where does that nonsense come from?

The root cause problem is letting for-profit corporation define these tests. They're probably copyrighted - wait for the DMCA take-downs. Pearson is well known for that.
These have to be created by educators, not by some low-paid clerk at Pearson.

Just wait for the next big oil crisis, due by the early 2020s at the latest. The vast majority of not-young-any-more people seem to refuse to believe reality. I guess they're too steeped in business-as-usual and propaganda.

Unless you use multiple systems (with synergy) side by side. That makes any panel on the screen side a nonstarter.