The best answer being neither. Yet when forced to choose what are the pro's and cons of each?
A few facts to consider:
NUCLEAR POWER :
" is a potential Xtreme disaster waiting to happen both in terms of operation and of "homeland security," cannot save us from our immediate crisis, and is a completely unresolved toxic-waste issue that we are handing down to the next hundred generations."
"not be capable of solving the global warming problem in the requisite time frame, nor can the billions of dollars required be justified since the same money, if applied to wind energy and efficiency, would reduce our reliance on fossil fuels far more quickly. Furthermore, nukes only provide electricity (about 20% of our TOTAL electric demand), whereas our major problem lies in the field of liquid fuels, which are used for industry, transportation and home and commercial heating."
"ecological footprint... nukes take up relatively little space to create relatively large amounts of power (100s of megawatts on few acres)"
"...is and will increasingly be a major contributor to air pollution and climate change, not to mention what its extraction does to the ground and nearby residents."
"the coal industry is in a rush to build as many new plants as possible before pollution safeguards are in place."
"In mountaintop removal mining, a coal company literally blasts apart the tops of mountains to reach thin seams of coal buried below. Common in places like Appalachia, this destructive mining puts communities at risk by contaminating drinking water supplies, destroying streams, and permanently reshaping and damaging the ecosystem and landscape."
SEE ALSO Sierra Club's anti-coal site.
We should first buy renewable energy or even hydroelectric power. Discover your alternatives by searching the EERE's Green Power map. Demand and support the development of sustainable power sources and conservation measures.