This may make what the OP here is describing a little more clear:
The cheapness of the up-front burning of coal is irrelevant and when you factor in all the downrange costs, there are substantial hidden costs and concerns in treating the atmosphere as though it were an open sewer, such as environmental health issues ranging from coal’s substantial contribution to global greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to coal’s more localized atmospheric contaminates such as mercury and radionucleotides, NOx and so-called PM2.5 solids (for one example, see: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ ).
There is discussion of other nuclear fuel cycles, Thorium seems to come up often, and then there are various sorts of nuclear fusion reactors that may one day soon provide another alternative.
