The president of France disagrees with you, Mark.

“What did the Germans do when they shut all their nuclear in one go?,” Macron said. 

“They developed a lot of renewables but they also massively reopened thermal and coal. They worsened their CO2 footprint, it wasn’t good for the planet. So I won’t do that.”

Re: this talking point on the Greenpeace handout someone apparently gave you in a Trader Joe's parking lot:

"...large thermo-electric plants, such as nuclear power plants, are devouring -- or are in competition for -- water resources needed for drinking and irrigating essential crops."

You might contact Arizona Public Services Co. with this valuable information. APS is the owner/operator of Palo Verde Nuclear Plant, the largest nuke plant in the U.S., which generates 4 billion watts of clean electricity, day or night, windy or calm, in the middle of the Sonoran Desert. It's cooled by Phoenix wastewater.

"Clearly, nuclear power is a serious liability, detrimental to addressing global warming, and far from 'reliable.'"

Clearly, accelerated efforts of renewables evangelists to convince us white is black, and up is down, presage the day solar panels and wind turbines might be relegated to the Museum of Failed Technologies. It can't happen soon enough.

Mark, I'd be curious to hear your take on the development of small modular nuclear reactors that are said to be placed deliberately and more flexible in the right areas, with less cooling needs. I wonder if those alleviate at least some of the concerns? I bring them up because times of needing to shut down nuclear for these occurences are a concern, but most energy sources need to undergo some sort of maintenance, downtime, or intermittency. I think those downsides of the individual sources are good reason to pursue a diverse energy mix that can cover for the other weakness while highlighting the benefits (with baseload carbon-free generation being the top benfit of such nuclear, which are kept in SMRs)

To the best of my knowledge most thermoelectric plants are placed near the ocean.

Bob, pretty disengenuous to cite the one outlier of Palo Verde.  But as you well know, every other nuclear unit is very sensitive to thermal conditions, and you needn't go to France to learn this.  Millstone in Connecticut shut down - completely - for two weeks last summer because of water temperature in Long Island Sound.  30 other US nuclear plants in 2018 had some level of derate because of cooling water temperature exceeding temperature limits.  In 2012 alone there were 60 incidents of derating.  Perhaps the Infowars handouts you've been reading are  telling you that black is white and up is down. Fortunately the market sees through the sham.

Here are some charts that show the "state of WW nuclear".

The First is WW generation from Nuclear.  Still down from its peak in 2006. Will Nuclear ever surpass it generation from 2006? Perhaps, but chances are better that it will stay flat or decline until at least 2030.

What about the future of Nuclear? How many new reactors will be coming online in mid/late 20s? The below chart shows the number of new reactor starts. Pathetic. Throw in the number of announced nucler closures aroud the word as well as an rapidly aging fleet and nuclear is barely running in place. 

Anyhow, most nuclear plants are cooled using sea-water.

But I tend to agree with the heading.

“Climate Change and Why Nuclear Power Can't Fix it”

Nuclear could have saved the climate.

However, there may be a way out.

Have a look at https://wp.me/s1RKWc-4r