I am sorry, but despite good writing and good research this seems to me just another strawman argument -- the case that coal is a dastardly and stupid source of energy foesn't need to be made, it's pretty self-evident.  The case that is just blankly asserted without any substantiation, is that nuclear power is "the only way for humanity to survive."  I find this, in the absence of actual energy budgets and projections, to be merely a statement of dogma or faith.  Since nuclear power comes with both social and environmental costs that make it "second most costly to coal", it seems to me far from an obvious choice, and repeatedly proving that it is "better than coal" is kind of like proving that death by lung cancer is better than death by bone cancer;  any reasonable person would still try to find the menu option labelled "Neither"  :-)

Increasingly I suspect that "the only way for humanity to survive" is a coded formula for "the only way for western elites to continue living in unparalleled luxury, for industrial and financial rentiers to continue reaping record profits, and for governments to continue maintaining centralised control over energy and hence over their populations."  I am not sure that the continuation of any of these things is desirable, let alone necessary for human survival.  Efficiency measures and demand reduction never seem to enter the picture in these repeated "nuclear vs coal" analytical exercises.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...