Nuclear sense, by the BBC!

The first part of the article is about Uranium, but then follows with a discussion about nuclear power:

"His argument is that even if we could build enough wind turbines and install enough solar panels to meet demand, we'd still need an alternative for when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. We don't yet have the technology to store large amounts of power, so typically that means firing up expensive and polluting gas-fired power stations."

"To generate the same amount of power, a coal-fired power station would have had to have burned something like 40m tonnes of coal. That would, in turn, have meant the emission of around 150m tonnes of CO2. The CO2 emissions are so much higher because coal is up to 80% carbon and, when CO2 is created, each carbon atom combines with two heavier oxygen atoms."

"Lynas, for instance, argues there is no evidence of anyone dying from radiation at Fukushima and that more people die each day from coal pollution than have been killed by nuclear power during its 50 years of operation."

It's not all rosy and pro-, the other side of the argument is also presented (though obviously not convincingly, to me).