Interesting, I had no idea that Nuclear power is much cheaper at 2 cents per kilowatt-hour of power as compared to the U.S. industrial average of 9 cents/kWh or was this just as per the agreement with the nuclear company?
If Nuclear Energy is cheap, why aren't we seeing widespread use of it as compared to fossil fuel?
Basically sourcing the fuel (the Uranium mining), transport, processing (enrichment) and later disposal is problematic. Of course there are also accidents and disasters, like Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Fukushima... They are rare, yes, but when they do occur, those areas tend to remain devastated and desolate (radiation half life, isn't a meme game).
Don't forget there is a bunch of ships floating around with such reactors, even if you don't see them much, there are plenty of them moving around the globe.
While most of the waste is kept underground, there are chances to use this as fuel for "breeder reactors" as well, so hopefully that stuff won't remain forever buried and can be consumed so it doesn't pose a danger either in the future.
Of course humanity is longing for fusion power, like that ignition event that was demonstrated with lasers not long ago, which is the same that floating thing we call "The Sun" does with gravity from being massive and all...
About distance to generation, that is true. A long high voltage line can easily lose about 20% just from the transportation. NIMBY means more waste in those lines. But this is not a problem for Bitcoin mining which can go to the generation itself.