The point is nuclear is not competing (just) with coal, it's competing with every other alternative and combinations of alternatives. For nuclear to be preferable it has to beat all of them, not just one of them. Comparing it to just coal is a species of strawman argument.
Nuclear is the only alternative on a scale that can actually replace fossil fuel plants in a reasonable time scale. It does beat coal oil and gas. Solar, wind and hydro aren't going to come close to fulfilling our energy needs on their own (probably ever, certainly not in the next several decades).
> Nuclear is the only alternative on a scale that can actually replace fossil fuel plants in a reasonable time scale.
Why do you people keep saying that? It's not true, and it's obvious that it's not true. It's not true in two ways: renewables can do so, and nuclear can't do so (too expensive, too risky, too dangeous for proliferation).
The point is nuclear is not competing (just) with coal, it's competing with every other alternative and combinations of alternatives. For nuclear to be preferable it has to beat all of them, not just one of them. Comparing it to just coal is a species of strawman argument.