Comparing it to coal is precisely "better than the worst". Coal is the worst option, and even the US is phasing it out rapidly.
(Developing countries are still using it, and China is still acting as if it were a developing country. But coal simply isn't the alternative to nuclear any more in any developed country. Even natural gas is better for the environment than coal.)
> Comparing it to coal is precisely "better than the worst". Coal is the worst option, and even the US is phasing it out rapidly.
I don't think anybody disagrees with that. The claim is only that there are lots of sufficient reasons for nuclear power that don't stop at "it's not the worst."
(Developing countries are still using it, and China is still acting as if it were a developing country. But coal simply isn't the alternative to nuclear any more in any developed country. Even natural gas is better for the environment than coal.)