I've never been happy about commercial nukes because of the low-bid aspects cited by OPB and the long-term issues (a once-through fuel cycle requiring 10K years of separation from the environment for the leftovers; or reprocessing which in a American corporate structure would be a good source for terrorist materials). The US is dedicated to once-through so that federal repository is needed, but nobody wants it in their backyard or anywhere on Planet Earth, so the nuke plant sites are the default long-term storage; that probably won't work after a while but hey we'll all be gone right? But am I a no-nuker? Certainly not. The Navy has made it work pretty well in a very unforgiving environment -- but they don't have to Continuously Improve (i.e. continuously reduce cost) the way Corporate has to. And yes, the French are largely nuke-powered, and are perhaps the best example of an integrated nuke system. But even the best still have to eventually deal with the remains however well reeused and minimized.

I don't see any reason, absent a nearby earthquake damaging things beyond recovery or a Really Big Tsunami (maybe a good-sized meteor dropping into the Pacific), why D.C. can't keep operating for another 20-30 years - which is good for transition to other low-carbon alternatives.

If all Fed Up needs is 2KW then put up some solar panels (2KW is almost too small for most contractors to bid on now, but you'll want more to make sure you have 2KW all day), maybe a windmill for backup, and a battery bank, then drop off the grid. But the batteries have to be replaced every 2-3 years so save up for that. And in many areas you're required to have a utility hookup by code whether you use it or not and you'll have to pay for that. Good Luck!