This study is an excellent opportunity to compare offshore nuclear with OTEC. Everything it says about construction techniques and promising economics, abundant potential markets are equally applicable to both. The size of gigawatt sizes platforms would also be comparable.
One main difference lies in the fact OTEC has no fuel costs, no waste considerations and an accident with a plant using CO2 or ammonia as a working fluid would have limited consequence compared to the nuclear plant.
The greatest difference however is in the way each produces and utilizes heat.
The recent study by the Carnegie institutions Zhang and Caldiera shows that the energy released from the combustion of fossil fuels is now about 1.71% of the radiative forcing from CO2 that has accumulated in the atmosphere as a consequence of historical fossil fuel combustion. Nuclear plants are equally as inefficient as fossil fuel power generators and engines and thus release the same amount of waste heat most of which ends up in the ocean and since heat rises it remains on the surface where it contributes to most of the problems we are currently experiencing with global warming. We are currently using about 16TW of energy annually but Martin Hoffert and Richard Smalley say we will need between 30 to 60TW respectively by 2050.
At these rates the waste heat from nuclear starts to become a real issue.
OTEC on the other hand can convert as much as 14TW of surface heat to productive use and move about 280 more of the 330 TW of heat the oceans are said to be accumulating to the safety of the ocean abyss. This would remedy virtually every problem, including CO2 emissions, mankind is confronted by with respect to global warming.
With nuclear all you get is carbon free power, which leaves our offspring with another 1000 years worth of the problems we are currently experiencing.