Just some counter-arguments for the discussion:
Solar power plants: Useless as classic power plant, but can be very helpful as decentralized solution. While it is really ineffective as single source of power, it can be used very effective for reducing the power demands of houses. Fitting the whole south side roof with solar arrays and respecting it in the design of the house could mean, that during the summer your house operates without consuming external power during the day, and could maybe even produce energy to be stored, for example hot water.
Would of course be no solution for large scale power generation.
On the wind farm calculations: You should include that wind farms can, in fact be co-located in farming areas or off-shore.
Off-shore wind farm actually become pretty solid technology, from what I can tell, after all, they had researched the problems of really large wind power plants since 25 years and now even managed to convince ecologists that building a large wind park does not kill birds stupid enough for flying into a wind power turbine...
Also Tornadoes and water sprouts are not really rare here. In whole Germany, we have around 90 tornadoes per year and countless water sprouts (which are not included in the statistics), which is a lower density as in Tornado alley, but still not really much lower - per km² surface, it is only about 80% of the tornado density in the USA. Strength of the tornadoes is also not weaker as in the USA - the distribution of the observed tornadoes in Germany by their rating on the EF scale is statistically the same as in the USA.
Hurricanes are not occuring here, which is a great advantage... but the bigger problem is in fact the higher population density in Germany - while modern turbines are no longer as noisy as the older models (one manufactorer dropped for example the need for a gear box between turbine and generator) and can be placed without problems closer to residential areas, safety concerns mean that there still has to be some distance between a turbine and the next house.
Summary: No match for a nuclear power plant, when it comes to constant large power output, but effective as regenerative power source - compared to solar and water. And less good as geothermal power.
The argumentation of "integration into existing power networks" is also a weak one - we waste lots of power inside our power networks because the power companies ignored their infrastructure for decades. When the demand increased, they just build a new power line with old materials and standards, instead of slowly incorporating modern research. The result is, that the power network is already requiring emergency plans, when the German national team plays.
Also, because of the lack of interest in effective power networks, we still use the cheap overland lines instead of the more effective subterrean lines, which cost much more to install, but require less maintenance and loose less power.
On Door #3: Replacing fuel in PWRs require a full power down of one reactor core. The small vessel transporting a single set of fuel elements becomes a large convoy, when you need to replace the whole reactor core at once for reducing downtime and also need to care that nobody with political or economic interests tries to steal your fuel. infrequent is also about every 5 years if you have two cores per station.
High waste water temperatures cause actually sewere problems - the oxygen solved inside the water gets reduced by small changes in temperature and limit the life in the river to algae (which also kill the other plants by stealing light and nutrients) and anything which can breathe air, does not require special food and does not get disturbed by swimming inside a stinking liquid.
We had strong problems with our local coal power plants causing actually a 2 km long desert in the river after it's waste water outlet, before people got really angry, as only some water birds had no problems with the mess, but the remaining life getting displaced away. The diversity only restored in the river after fresh cold water entered the river from another river. Now, the water they dump is a bit colder, got enriched with more oxygen by artificial rapids before the outlet and the river again became filled with life (took about 15 years from the construction of basins to cool the water down to the current, almost natural state).
Also I am sure, even humans don't like bathing in warm water, when it is a brown smelly mass.
Steam is also not the only output of nuclear reactors, they also release more or less tiny amounts of radioactive dust during operation - a problem which is mostly related to bad operation standards and could be prevented.
And finally: All nuclear power plants are practically single points of failure - they concentrate so much power generation capacity of a country, that one of them failing is already stressing the power budget of the country. Also, terrorist attacks and air strikes have easier targets with such large installations - ask Iraq or Iran, if air defense can be enough...
