Nuclear needs water to cool, hot water then goes into rivers. This, until the river becomes too hot for the life in the water, then you cannot use your plant anymore (or you can, at the risk of killing all life in the area).
Also water evaporates when it's hot and vapor is a greenhouse gas even worse than carbon dioxyde. This might sound like a minor problem in the short term but it might be a huge issue in the future.
Also Uranium is sold at a negative ROI right now because of the decline of demand from Japan and Germany since Fukushima. But as those countries roadmap for nuclear changes, and as China is building more plants, the price for Uranium (which is quite inelastic) will increase significantly. Problem is, you don't build a plant for a year or two, you build it only if you intent to use it for decades. The commitment is huge.
I believe nuclear is useful as part of the mix but isn't a one-size-fits-all solution.
Some plants were built without cooling towers. Those are now a problem.
Can you back that up? From what I understand most of the cooling happens in the cooling towers by evaporation?
It can't be that hard to google? That being said, only 14% of reactors use rivers to cool, so OP may be exaggerating a bit.
Let's say we shut down a coal power plant, which was 30% of a region's energy mix, and want to replace its output. What's the total cost and environmental impact of doing that with solar vs nuclear? This is the only thing that matters. Even if solar panels are 100x better per-peak-watt, by the time you add all the overprovisioning and storage necessary to cover the baseline during nights and overcast days, the numbers look very very different.
The only question that matters is what solution can cover the need, currently met by fossil fuels. That solution isn't just the generation method, it's everything else we need in order to match not just the baseline and peak output, but the entire curve.
With prices climbing there is a lot of room for things to compete.
Similar inside europe (https://tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/energy-prices).
I think a lot of household would accept a contract for 40 pounds per MWh for the whole year regardless of weather with guarantied capacity, and under liability in the case the contract is not fulfilled.
Nuclear has several problems. The main one of which is simply its cost. It is complex technology that involves dangerous materials that need protective measures against both technical failures and security measures against people doing things like building dirty bombs with these materials. You don't need a lot of nuclear waste to make a really effective dirty bomb.
All solvable, but it adds to the cost. Security generally involves babysitting reactors for their operational life as well as securing any sites where the waste is stored.
Solar is about an order of magnitude cheaper and faster to deploy. That's conservative. It's hard to not emphasize just how simple solar panels are in comparison. Mass producing them seems to lead to all sorts improvements in production processes and cost reductions. So they are an order of magnitude cheaper now. It might be two or three in some decades.
A solar panel just works for a few decades. You put it wherever and at the end of it's life you either recycle it or not. That's mostly a cost driven decision. We're talking perfectly inert material that you can have on your roof for decades without being exposed to anything harmful. Really, landfills of the stuff would not pose that many challenges. Certainly not compared to the other stuff we dump there like household electronics, old phones, depleted non rechargeable batteries, etc.
However, landfills of this stuff seem wasteful and probably the trace elements of various minerals and precious metals will be too tempting for recycling companies for that not to not happen. It will be some decades before we know because most panels in use today just got installed fairly recently and will be operating for some decades to come. Same with lithium ion car batteries. We already recycle lead acid batteries for decades. The value of lead is comparatively low to nickel and lithium. This might be a multi billion dollar industry. Nuclear waste is not very profitable at all. Just cost. People might get smart about lowering that cost is the best you can say about it.
I doubt the math will ever add up for nuclear to matter much. When your competition is orders of magnitudes cheaper, it doesn't matter how rosy a picture you paint for dealing with terrorists, nuclear waste, and the potential for area depopulating disasters. It's still too expensive. Mitigating those things will never be free. That's the problem.