Paul, I'm completely on board with you in several areas and diametrically opposed on at least one important one. Let's start with my agreements.
Ending our nuclear neurosis is certainly a list topper. The French are somewhere north of 75% provision of electricity via nuclear plants, with plans to grow further in spite of recent events. Key to that discussion is doing something about nuclear waste beyond the "Oh, let's just leave it laying around" strategy that we currently pursue. The reprocessing of spent fuel rods could reduce residual waste volume by an order of magnitude and total required storage times by two or more orders. Not to mention capturing part of the 90% wastage of fuel created by the current "process". My understanding is that the present, most common design for reactors would need to be changed to make such reprocessing functional, but that is (well) beyond my nuclear expertise.
The big problem for any proposed nuclear build out is time: it takes 5 - 8 years just to get a license renewed for a nuke these days. Public, hence political resistace to new plants is profound and seemingly intractable. Some of those goal deadlines will have come and gone before we can replace the almost-half of power production that is presently coal-fired.
Wind is great, but does have issues. To begin with, it is useful neither for base-load nor for peaking service in power generation. Most power analysts attribute zero capacity to wind because of its intermittent nature. Here in the Pacific Northwest we are overbuilt in wind, causing some significant problems with reliability of the grid. Wind should be pursued, but it is less a solution than many think.
Where I disagree with you most is in our use of natural gas, at least as a transitional fuel. I'm surprised that you did not note that due to the current low price of NG and its displacement of coal in electric generation, we've rolled CO2 emission levels back to the early 90s. Much more along that line could be achieved, most particularly if we'd stop burning coal and begin to convert it to hydrocarbon liquids. The latter would not reduce carbon emissions, but it would contribute to national energy security. Even more carbon savings could be produced by employing the relative abundance of NG to break oil's monopoly on transportation fuels. Shifting to alcohols as a transition fuel from liquid hydrocarbons would result in significant carbon reductions relatively quickly.
Finally, you've touched on the actual source of the ground glass in any such cake mix: China and its increasing use of coal for just about everything. There's little the U.S. can do to offset that increase. Except, perhaps, teaching them about hydraulic fracturing.