Okay, that's clearer then.
You're right, nuclear power plants are much more dangerous to those running them than fossil fueled plants. There have been numerous deaths over the years with the various mechanisms and processes involved in running the plants but I can't think of any deaths that resulted from any spectacular failure of the plant itself.

I'm sure at first we did run rather blindly towards this technology but we've had it since the late 40's and there has been ample time to study it. I still feel at this time that it is our current best bet. Coal fired plants are getting older and the industry refuses to make any upgrades that would clean the process. The mines that produce the coal are safer but are by no means disaster proof and will run out sooner or later. The long line of coal trains have been involved in numerous vehicular accidents and can be easily derailed leading to shortages of power. Throw in some strikes anywhere and you've got a system that is slowly grinding down.

I think we've already covered to a great extent the pros and cons of the fossil fuel / nuclear energy plants. How about alternatives?

My best bet for endless supply is wave action generators. They can be attractive and cost little to build. They can be shoreline based or offshore with cable leading to shore. They provide shelter and habitat for smaller life forms (think floating reef like the sargasso)and unless the oceans go dry (and then we've got bigger problems to worry about) they will always generate power.

I believe there was a city that was experimenting with small wind vanes on the concrete dividers of the highway. They made good deflectors for light from oncoming traffic and used the winds generated by a vehicles passage to turn a small generator. It's not a continuous source but every drop in the bucket helps fill the bucket.