I take issue with your statement. You write "After six decades, the nuclear power industry continues to struggle with issues of safety, non-proliferation, waste and cost."
But "safety"? Nuclear power is the safest form of power generation, measured in deaths perTWh of energy delivered. "non-proliferation"? No commercial power reactor has ever been used for weapons. "waste"? The amount of waste is small -- cumulatively a half-pound per person in the US. "cost"? France has the cheapest power in Europe; why not the US?
Regarding Fukushima, you wrote "More than 80,000 people still can't go home." Yes they can. Japan evacuated everyone where radiation exposure might surpass 20 millisieverts/year, yet the IAEA recommends a 220 millisievert/year evacuation threshold. The evacuation stress itself has killed hundreds of people.
You wrote "It will be at least two more years before authorities can stop radioactive groundwater from spilling into the Pacific Ocean." Yes, but it is not health-threatening; the radioactivity per liter in the closeby harbor is less than that of bananas.
You write "Because we haven’t agreed on a way to safely dispose of this waste, it sits, instead, onsite at scores of nuclear plants and other locations nationwide." The law about Yucca is clear; the administration is not following it.
You write "The so-called "fast reactor" technology that some endorse as the next generation of nuclear plants is no help. Efforts to use this technology in France, Germany, Italy and Japan have all failed." But the fast reactor is successful in Russia, which seeks to export them. Bill Gates and TerraPower are building an advanced fast reactor design. An there are even better and cheaper reactors on the drawing boards -- thorium molten salt reactors.
You write "let's invest in energy efficiency." and it's a good idea. It provides a quick return on investment, lowers dependency on foreign oil, and we're doing it in the US. But it does nothing for the energy-impoverished world that now plans on building 1400 GWe of coal-fired power plants to help their people achieve a modest fraction of the lifestyle benefits we enjoy in the US. If we cut electric use in half, and the rest of the world used the same amount of electric power, electric power production world-wide must triple. We can't power the world with negawatts. To convince the world from building these coal plants we need to provide an energy solution cheaper than coal.
You wrote "Finally, let's expand our use of wind, solar and other sources of renewable power." but these power sources are too expensive by factors of 3 or more.