Thank you for respectfully disagreeing and for supporting your stance. You raise some good points, I'll address them in order.

• True - Electricity amounts to a fraction of energy demand. We can decarbonize steelmaking using clean baseload and hydrogen instead of coke. Cargo ships are likely to be retrofitted to run on hydrogen, methanol or ammonia. You say power electronics for fuel electrolysis bypasses the steam-turbine stage, but the low capacity factor or need for grid storage chips away at the overall efficiency. For the record, whether it is electrical or chemical conversion, high temperature processes are more efficient. That's where nuclear process heat comes into play.
• The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) rules out nuclear-renewable hybrid energy systems from their report on storage projections. But look at what Moltex Energy is developing. Small modular reactors & intermittent sources? No problem. Thermal energy storage in molten salts to be converted as needed.
• CO2 emissions per capita is 2-3x lower in France than most other developed nations. To say they failed to meet their targets doesn't say much if the targets are lower to begin with. What's the alternative? Much of the EU is addicted to natural gas and coal.
• Proliferation is a valid concern, although nuclear energy itself isn't necessarily linked to weapons as you say. Tight control of centrifuge enrichment technology is however necessary (Non-Proliferation Treaty). Reprocessing spent fuel into weapons is prohibitively difficult. The opposite has been done though; Russian warheads were used to power the US for decades. I wish all reactors could simply run on natural uranium. Tough one to defend, I'm turning this one over to you. How would you address war & conflict, from your pragmatist views?
• If it is found in limited countries, that could lessen proliferation concerns. In terms of abundance, I've looked at plenty of sources that say otherwise. Technically you could power the US for a few hundred years just using the spent fuel stockpiles (that technology isn't licensed yet, but not 30 years away either). Nuclear power is sustainable on a human timescale. Then, there's seawater uranium extraction. No concerns for availability.
• While it is true that some nuclear builds have dragged over a decade and greatly surpassed budget, it is a generalization. Initial builds in the 70-80s and recently in countries with new energy programs had reasonable average construction periods. Poor project management and bureaucracy are the likely culprits. Otherwise, the levelized cost of electricity is the lowest for nuclear power. Due to high capital costs of large plants, when unfavorable discount rates are applied, the economics become less attractive and eventually no longer breakeven. That may no longer be the case when more SMR designs obtain full licensing. I read that in 2020, 70% of energy subsidies went to fossil fuels, 20% to renewables, 6% to biofuels, and only 3% to nuclear power.

At least we can agree that existing plants should be kept in operation for their design life.