The author suggests  that lack of CO2 emissions is an important reason to keep nuclear alive, but then opposes any policies that place any value on it (i.e., the IL and NY state subsidy policies - very small subsidies, much smaller than those given to all renewable projects).  Sorry, there is no justification for assigning no value to emissions reduction in power markets.  Sounds like a classic diversion, i.e., saying you care about something, but opposing all policies to address it for the foreseeable future, and talking about some future technology saving the day at some point.

Small modular reactors do have promise, but if they are to be economical, regulations will have to be greatly reduced, in accordance with their greatly reduced hazard (their being almost immune to meltdown, and the potential release, of one were somehow to occur, being tiny compared to large reactors, such as Fukushima).