Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?

http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy.html

I'm pro nuclear power.  I simply think that the only realistic choices are between coal and nuclear and that coal isn't acceptable.  I won't go into too much detail here, but if you truly care I've discussed it here.

While watching this video debate here are some of the issues I had with the anti-nuclear arguments:
Didn't address the cost of wind/solar, which is by far the biggest problem.  Proliferation outside the US doesn't have any bearing on what we in the US should be doing.  In his graph about CA use of wind/solar for a year he mentions the use of hydro power.  Hydro power is often used as quick source of lots of power.  It is ideal for balancing the load from unpredictable sources like wind/solar.  The problem is that hydro isn't available in most places.  His argument about time lag is absurd, wind/solar has much greater time lag.  In two decades we could have coal completely replaced by nuclear.  Instead in two decades we will still have most of our power come from coal waiting for wind/solar to become practical.  Many appeals to emotion (nuking a city, glacier melting).  Why would we need to transport the waste as opposed to keeping it on site like it is now?