Coal and natural gas ought to be conserved as supplements or substitutes for petroleum in the production of synthetic fertilizers. We need to refactor all aspects of food production because the advancements of the Green Revolution rely on depleting resources, and we don't even know if it is really possible to find a substitute for our current synthetic fertilizers.
But there's a lot of disinfo around nuclear power.
Mining uranium does involve producing tail-end products which are worse than lead mining tail ends. Once it is in the plant it may be cleaner than coal electricity, but uranium extraction is not cleaner than other forms of heavy metals mining. Not that solar is entirely clean either–China has entire rivers rendered uninhabitable from cadmium tail ends.
The heavy water involved in plant processes IS required in a specific balance sustain life, and VERY small changes in deuterium concentration affect cell metabolism and apoptosis (you know, the process where a cell decides to kill itself rather than kill you via cancer):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9963022/–so there IS an effect on the environment inherent in reducing freshwater heavy water balances. And nuclear reactors DO require freshwater since sodium activates.
"Plant safety" is not just about safety against accident or circumstance. The United States and Israel proved, with StuxNet, that deliberate attacks on nuclear processes can succeed and are highly nationally rewarding. StuxNet was designed specifically to not cause environmental catastrophe, but not every attack will be based on prudence. There are treaties against any attack on nuclear power plants which describe any attack including accidental artillery strike as "nuclear terrorism" to be subjected to immediate international military retaliation, but those treaties were shown for bluff and bluster when Russia (a primary signatory of such treaties) shelled Ukrainian plants.
