Now you're making another straw man.
Your previous straw man was lumping the majority of anti-nuke and pro coal people together as if this was the regular stance, because that is far from true. Certainly there are lunatics among the anti-nuke crowd but they are a minority. Yes, they might be the ones with the loudest voices but that still doesn't make them a majority. Not every vegan acts like a PeTA member on a demonstration, not every feminist wants to eradicate all men, not every Muslim wants to destroy the USA.
And they're yelling for building more alternative power sources and not only closing down the nuke plants. At least here in Germany, where the phasing out of nuclear power was decided years ago. Ever since then these things are hot topics and highly discussed among the internet with a wide variety of opinions. There are those people who are extremely bitter about the phasing out because it was done with subsidizing alternative energies in a transparent way that increased energy costs for everyone. Probably also just a loud mouth minority that distorts the perception of 'their' group.
Here something about the situation of energy economy in Germany. It is that alternative Energy sources produce cheap energy in abundant form, more than we can actually use, despite its fluctuations. That would make energy cheaper, because supply and demand applies here to. So why is that energy expensive? Well, in 2000 the Social Democrats and Green coalition had the 'brilliant' idea to subsidize alternative energy by fixed rates for power that was created from alternative energy sources. Which results in ever increasing prices for the consumer as the energy prices decline on the stock market. This is because regular energy providers are required by law to buy energy at fixed rates from private suppliers of alternative energies. And as they are well entitled to do they transfer the costs to the consumer. Basically all sides, that don't benefit from the fixed rates, call for a revision of these laws. Some politicians agree and want to abolish it completely, which would stop people from selling their energy and become somewhat independent. Others like
Sigmar Gabriel want to make people pay money for the energy they create and use themselves, because it will hurt the market if you can provide for yourself. Another brilliant idea that infuriated a lot of people but the opponents of alternative energies. The audible part of them tries to discredit everything that is not nuclear power. For coal we have those statistics and AGW, for solar we have 'clouds' and a dirty production, which isn't as dirty in Germany as it is in the US, but they don't care about that. For wind, which some describe as "windmills", we have irregular weather. For offshore wind parks we have short lived technology that would require to build millions of wind wheels (not my calculations).
Ironically, at some point we'll have to hope for a magic pony, perhaps even a unicorn, to come around and fix things for us. You and I most likely won't have to face this, but we live in an universe with finite resources, of which some we have in abundance, others we don't. Currently we run on 'condensed' solar power. Fossil fuels are basically solar power transformed by plants and gravitational energy of our planet into a convenient form of high energy density. And heavy elements like Uranium are also formed in heavy stars when they go supernova. But neither are all possible isotopes of those heavy elements equally distributed nor is their half life equal, it's simply physics, electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions.
That's where I personally start to dislike the Uranium235-lobby. We have plenty of Uranium238 on this planet, which makes up more than 99% of all Uranium isotopes, yet they want to cling to the one isotope that makes up only about
.7%, because the technology used here is well researched, engineered and therefore cheap. They don't want to invest money into breeder type reactors, that can utilize Uranium238 and Thorium232 and only need Uranium235 as a starter, because it's 'currently' not economical, so they keep building LWRs. Only Canada is with their CANDUs (PHWR) among the few nations that uses more advanced reactors, that required the more expensive heavy water as a moderator. The other one would be India where mostly PHWRs are used. Somehow, for them, it seems to be economical to not fully depend on enriched Uranium.
Personally I'm not against nuclear power at all. I simply have my concerns about our "never change a running system" approach to things, where adaptation seems to be way too uncomfortable until it becomes an inevitability.