Nikola,
1) On any nuclear plant built since 1980 core meltdown is virtually impossible (Fukushima was commissioned in 1971).
2) Poor design standards were entirely to blame for both Chernobyl and Fukushima. The 1978 loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) at Three Mile Island was identical to the one at Fukushima, with completely different results.
3) Health effects from Fukushima were grossly exaggerated. Though no one was killed or injured from escaped radiation, an estimated 1,300 residents were killed during the panicked evacuation.
4) Radioactive gases were never an issue at Fukushima or Chernobyl. The explosions and fires that followed each accident spread heavy radioactive material high into the atmosphere, but nearly all of it had fallen to the ground within 30 days. For comparison, the radioactivity from naturally-occurring radon gas is responsible for 21,000 deaths in the U.S. each year.
5) "...it seems that this fear has taken over...". Agreed, but wouldn't it be irresponsible to give up on this abundant, carbon-free source of energy if the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself?

That is not clever.

Agreed! Well said, and thanks for the response. 

"Electrical grid needs stable + variable sources of electricity. If you eliminate fossil fuels, you are left with:

a) nuclear + renewables solution..."

I think you're confusing "variable" with "flexible" here, Nikola. When grid engineers talk about renewables being variable, they're referring to the fact their output varies - unpredictably. That creates enormous challenges for maintaining voltage and frequency stability on the grid. If either strays more than ~2%, the grid goes down - a negative, not a positive.

In its early days nuclear energy was extremely inflexible - it couldn't be intentionally varied to meet consumer demand. In France, where 80% of electricity was generated by nuclear, that became a big negative, too, because the country remained reliant on oil to be able to meet the gentle curves of customer demand. When French engineers developed a new breed of reactors that could vary their output rapidly and reliably, grid planners looked forward to a day when the French grid would be 100% nuclear - no carbon emissions, no dependence on oil from the Mideast.

Then came Chernobyl, and a poor design, combined with poor standards and poor implementation, once again made nuclear energy a target for legions of antinuclear, anti-growth activists.

Though nuclear still suffers, undeservedly, from the legacy of Chernobyl, climate change has changed the equation. Now renewables are not only unnecessary, they're getting in the way - and the only reason we don't have a 100% carbon-free, flexible grid is irrational fear of nuclear energy.

Thanks Bob... your comments  and chart strongly reinforce exactly what I said. 

"If we are looking at Nuclear helping reduce WW CO2 - that means that we are talking about the 2030s. "

I was talking about WW - but as you clearly stated the US has been just as stagnant when it comes to new nuclear generation as the world has been.

Going forward, total nuclear generation in the US will still be flat - if not down - in 2030 vs today. 

By the way, I was slightly incorrect with my comment:

"We are now done with 1/2 the year and there has yet to be a single construction start for a new nuclear plant in 2020.But there has been 2 plants shutdown- 1.9GW of nuclear capacity.

France is now in the process of shutting down the second reactor at Fessenheim. So, I need to add another 880MW to my total for shutdowns so far in 2020.  Now we are at 2.8GW of shutdowns vs. 0 GW of construction starts in 2020.

The two Fessenheim units were France's oldest - 43 years old when they were shutdown. There are two reactors in France that are 42 years old, two that are 41 years old and seven reactors that are 40 years old. Just sayin.

IPCC gives recommendations, but cannot enforce them... So I guess that there will be some countries that do deploy a lot of nuclear, but they would do it with or without global warming

Of course. Fully agree.

I am trying to emphasize the following:

1. there is a long lead time for any new nuclear
2. a lot of new nuclear will just be replacing old, retiring nuclear plants

Here are the four large nuclear plants that went live in 2019. 

1. NOVOVORONEZH2 (1,114 MW) Russia - Started construction July 2009
2. SHIN-KORI4 (1,340 MW) Korea - started construction Aug 2009
3. TAISHAN2 (1660 MW) China - started construction Apr 2010
4. YANGJIANG6 (1000 MW) China - started construction in Dec 2013

Average of about 9 years to build these reactors after construction started. Long lead time.

WW currently there are 80 GW of nuclear plants 40+ years of age.  A chunk of these will retire in the next ten years.  Meanwhile, there are only 57 GW of nuclear under construction WW.  

 The 2020s will be another lost decade for nuclear.  Maybe the 2030s will be different??