Be that as it may.
If cooling becomes a consistent problem for a nuclear power plant because the climate is no longer consistent with with the conditions the power plant was designed for, there are engineering solutions. Nuclear power plants can be designed for many different environments. For example, the 4200 megawatt Palo Verde nuclear power plant uses reclaimed sewage water from Phoenix for cooling. Retrofitting the cooling system of an existing power plant is not impossible.
California is in the enviable position of being able to source and sink a lot of electrical power in it's huge water projects that span mountain ranges. When electricity is plentiful water is pumped uphill. When electricity is not plentiful it's sent downhill to generate electricity. The Castaic power plant alone has a nominal capacity of 1,500 megawatts. It was opened in 1973. This project is one of many, and has the advantage over Scotland in that it's dual purpose, the primary purpose being the delivery of water.
The U.S.A. seems to be going the same way as the U.K. in that its ability to manage large infrastructure projects has been allowed to atrophy. Large infrastructure projects frequently become boondoggles.
It seems to me that the United Kingdom abandoned many of its nuclear power ambitions when they discovered and enthusiastically exploited natural gas reserves of their own, displacing both coal and nuclear power. Now that gas production is in decline the United Kingdom finds itself in a quandary. "Renewable energy" is not going to fill the gap, no matter how many solar panels and Tesla power walls affluent people decorate their homes with, or how many offshore wind facilities are built. Natural gas imports are increasing.
= new reply since forum marked as read