Coal provides something like 25% of the world's energy production. Solar and wind more like 2%.
The more nuclear plants we build the more coal ones we can shut down.
The more wind and solar we build, the more coal we can shut down too, but it will take a lot longer and a lot more money to replace coal with wind and solar than with nuclear.
On a worldwide scale, it is even a different thing. You can't simply replace coal with nuclear energy worldwide, even if you were absolutely convinced that nuclear energy is safe when properly used and you have a concept for the nuclear waste produced like shooting it into space. Because many countries are just too instable, poor and iniffecient to consider building a nuclear plant. It wouldn't be safe at all. Also, don't overestimate the availability of uranium, which is estimated to only reach till 2080 (depends on who you ask probably).
In Germany, where they are shutting down their nuclear power plants, more than 80% of the shut down nuclear power has been replaced with coal power plants,[26] which release 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage
In 2012, member firms of the Verband der Industriellen Energie- und Kraftwirtschaft (VIK) reported power failures of several seconds duration, combined with a rise in frequency fluctuations. These were reportedly caused by network overloads due to the shutdown of nuclear power plants, and an increase in wind power generation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#Role_...
[1] http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/greenwashing-af...
If other countries would be as aggressive with renewables as German are we would see a lot of Europe wide blackouts.
Renewable energies require updates to the network infrastructure - granted - but should that be a reason not to push technology and try to improve?
Do you even understand what you are saying here?