No let's do renewables.

Nobody's arguing for more fossil. But nuclear isn't an option either.

Are they so different?

There may be good reasons not to pursue nuclear (high complexity and upfront cost), but by the overall numbers I don't think pollution or death rate make that case

Yes, they are. They just don't know it.

Reality: arguing for renewables over nuclear actually ends up making more fossil fuel use as the renewables are not viable.

I guarantee you that "let's do" was "let's look at the pollution, including radioactive pollution, from".

Because coal mining releases more radiation into the world than nuclear power.

...But yes; with the efficiency and price of solar, wind, and batteries now, nuclear makes much less sense.

Didn't realize coal also did it in mining. It's evil stuff!

But the price of batteries is far, far too high for renewables to make sense.

It was, several years ago.

That's so much not the case now that renewables + batteries were by far the largest source of new generation in the US (yes, the US, with Trump actively trying to destroy them) last year.

Look up some of the new information coming out about them recently. Here, I'll give you a relevant video I watched recently to start with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM (channel is Technology Connections)