Economically, the long term running costs of nuclear are superior to coal. Have you ever seen the devastation that mining coal does to the countryside? Nuclear fuel costs win in the long run, since you don't need to feed it mountains of kilos per year. In Greece, I saw a beautiful valley ruined by conveyor belts and open pits, because the brown coal there is so poor it's not worth shipping it on a truck. There's no dismantling. The coal burning plants simply dot the landscape, as they build the next one closer to the most recent pit, again because the fuel is so poor it's not worth the cost of taking it to the abandoned plants.

As far as weapons, the nuclear energy industry buys nuclear warheads and uses them as fuel. Nuclear energy is the leading cause of reduction of the world's nuclear arsenals. As a fuel source, nuclear energy has made the world safer!

Coal is a deal breaker because if we continue to pump more carbon into the atmosphere, we threaten our own extinction. That trumps any economic argument. If coal's emissions can be captured, why haven't they? Because to do so would defeat it's only selling point: it's insane cheapness, despite it's toxicity.

I agree that conservation and energy reduction can account for maybe 50% of what we use now. But consumption is increasing exponentially and no one is even talking about dialing it back. Regardless, green energy MUST replace coal and solar can't do it alone. Nuclear must step in.