Who could want for anything more??

I think an 'overview' is first needed to clarify the options.

the current most efficient means of energy distribution to human habitat units is electicity, via a national grid, generated by stations, utilising the principal of 'economy of size'.

Once constructed (correctly) the system minimises replacement and maintainance requirement. It is therefore the most viable solution, compared to the manufacture, distribuion and maintainance of 'individual' power units.

The method of station generation has historically been dependant on cost of aquisition/abundence of fossil fuel (coal, oil,gas). Nuclear fusion reactor method is far superior in all respects- minimal fuel (uranium) aquisition impact/risk (consider oil/gas platforms, tankers, coal mines hazard), much lower harmful emissions, especially when 'charging' all transport-electric cars etc.

The unfortunate waste disposal issue is solvable, and is anyway a transiant one,

given the inevitable evolution to fusion reactors, effectively the 'dream machine' we ignore its continued R & D at our peril. Perhaps, individual 'micro' fusion reactors, will prove the grid obsolete, but that is for the future.

However, variety is the spice of life, and other ways must and will have there role to play, especially in the developing world (wave,wind,solar,geotherm­al,fuel-cell) acting as a deterent to centralised multinational profiteering.

SO, for the majority, mains-electricity heats our water (well, I believe that should be the plan).

Heat transfer is by conduction or radiation (convection not applicable, as it is in the case of remote source of hot air for space heating).

The 'element' method is simple and effective , it is hard to conceive a more viable alternative. The problem is the heat transfer rate over volume requirement, necesitates storage-an insulated boiler. That in turn requires piping to point of use, which incurs unproductive heat loss.

However, gas boilers lose significant heat venting externally, and in any case should be abhored as an archaic method of energy distribution.

Multi­ple heating devices at point of use (similiar to shower heaters) mounted within/under taps or at radiator feeds, would eliminate the requirement of the boiler/storage but not all the plumbing, The plumbing would be halfed (no hot pipes), but you can 'run' two pipes, just as easily as one and extra electrical supplies to the devices would be required.

Furthermo­re, multiple units increase the probability of failure/servicing.

­The practice of running pipes via loft which only serves to heat the sky, could perhaps be solved by a hollow skirting board system?

In conclusion, I think the station/grid/boiler should be viewed as a sound example of the evolution of competent design and engineering. It heralds the 'fision revolution'.

What a burden that incompetent russian nuclear industry placed on our shoulders. Proliferation? - a rouge state would just find an alternative WMD.

Is a biological warhead to be considered preferable to an atom bomb?

At least the weapons grade plutonium comes from a station that energises and prides its nation, to hopefully choose to compete in the peaceful way.

Perhaps a terrorist organisation will find it easier to aquire a biological weapon then a nuclear one, if the former is more available?.

Nevertheless­, some kind of advantage should be ensured to building companies in order to stimulate the implement of alternative energy as well as water recycling systems.