Coal is actually pretty comparable to nuclear in terms of land permanently lost and has a higher number of deaths. Hundreds of square kilometers have been lost to coal seam fires, and 99% of coals put out a ton of mercury. There are laws which say coal should be as clean but they didn't go into affect until last year and compliance has a big grandfather time window (which may be further expanded under lobbying pressure).
But the half life of coal negative effects is much lower. Oil is too expensive to use to generate power and would be much more expensive if humans seriously tried to use it to generate power instead of coal or alternative energies.
Personally, I don't think humans and city scale nuclear reactors pair well. The humans always fuck it up. Fukishima was really due to cost cutting, not due to the tsunami. Humans always fuck it up because over time they either get cheap, or they get careless, or they do something actively stupid.
I do support smaller scale (5,000 houses) automatic nuclear power generators which are literally fool proof and do not rely on humans to operate as much.
Forbes is adwalled, but when I've read similar articles from other sites, they always did funny stuff to reach their conclusions.
I'm concerned about nano solar technology because its a new and not well understood form of pollution. We are putting a lot of nano-particles into our environment. It's new. It may be harmless, or it could be a serious problem
On topic with the article, we have a higher chance that aging (and already older tech) plants will have an issue. On the flip side, we have a lower chance with newer tech and fewer nuke plants in general.