Why and where?

Supposedly, according to this Climate Central article, the future is bleak for nuclear power.

Consider the source:

"The World Nuclear Industry Status Report, written by independent consultants in London and Paris with support from the German Green Party and the anti-nuclear Rocky Mountain Institute based in Colorado, shows that nuclear power’s share in global energy production declined to 10.8 percent in 2013, down from 17.6 percent at its peak in 1996."

Well, perhaps one thing that should be considered is that more energy is being produced now than in 1996, particularly by coal-fired plants in China (even though China is notably investing in nuclearization of the energy profile).

There are rebuttal voices quoted in the article.  Example:

"Thomas Kauffman, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry lobbying group, in Washington, D.C., said more nuclear reactors are under construction today than at any point since 1989, including five in the U.S., while U.S. nuclear power production has increased this year."

Not to mention interest in safe and simple "neighborhood nuke" size plants.

Bottom line:  some places are good for solar and wind power.  A lot of places aren't, and they need power too.  Nuclear is the only consistent night-and-day source of sufficient power for sufficient people to provide them with energy and also address climate change.

As many have stated before, in this era, we can't close the door on ANY viable sources of energy generation.  And nuclear supplies reliable baseload power -- unlike wind and solar.