The submission title for example can be reinterpreted in two slightly different ways. The first is the way that you interpreted. The problem is that -nobody- out of the general population chooses to make nuclear reactors as a recreational activity of some sort.

The article however poses it in a different way. It rather seems to mean that nobody goes into the field of nuclear engineering with the expectation of experimentation and "having fun" while working. It has nothing to do with expense, danger, illegality, working with universities, doing it in your basement, or any of that. It has to do with commercial interests not supporting their engineers in experimenting with possible designs.

For cities or countries (or large ships) that can't afford a full-scale nuclear reactor there are smaller and cheaper ones that can replace fossil-fuel power plants.

I'm sure most people go into the nuclear field to experiment, few people expect to sit around with a checklist and watch a dial.

This company is working on similar goals: http://terrapower.com/