Not sure if you all are trying to be funny but neither COAL nor Nuclear are renewable. In addition, both produce significant waste that affects the environment. If the idea is to use renewable and environmental solutions then there are only 4 options -- sun, earth, wind, and water. Coal and Oil technically fall under earth, but they do not meet the renewable or the environmental criteria. Nuclear is a man-made source that will destroy the planet (see chernobyl or japan).
Nuclear may not be renewable, but it most certainly is one of the cleanest sources that we have, as well as the easiest to implement given the degree of technology in that field of energy conversion. Though there are still some waste issues with nuclear, the amount of waste is actually quite small. A nuclear expert once approximated that "if you were to power someone's entire life needs based on nuclear energy only, the amount of waste you would generate is about the size of 1-2 coke cans" (Even if this is off by a factor of 2, 5, 10...regardless, the fact remains that there is incredible energy density). Also, even though it's not renewable, we probably have 100-400 years worth of nuclear fuel (depending on what kind/generation of reactors consume the fuel), which would be a great amount of time to develop other technologies that are actually renewable, while getting 100-400 years worth of basically emission free energy.
Also, you are largely overstating the options for renewable. Sure, there are those 4 possibilities, but in terms of satisfying the enormous global thirst for energy, solar is really the only option (the others are small-scale and should be used where they can, but will not make a huge dent in appeasing the large population on earth).
Lastly, your claim that "nuclear is a man-made source that will destroy the planet" cannot be further from the truth as far as actual facts go (politics and public media are a different story, sadly, from the facts).
1) Nuclear is not man-made. Sure the conversion tech is man-made, but so is the conversion tech for coal, wind, solar, biofuels, hydro, etc...all of which probably had a detrimental impact on the environment because the energy for making the tech came from (likely) coal energy. Certainly the fuel is not man-made (such a horribly unscientific thing to say), the fuel is only processed/refined before use in nuclear reactor. But so is the fuel for "clean" hydrogen fuel cells, coal power plants, etc...any technology will require man-made materials in order to produce energy.
2) As for the safety of nuclear: up until the japan accident recently (the stats have changed since I took my nuclear eng class before the japan accident), nuclear was the only source that could brag that so few people died (I forget the specific number) directly due to safety issues with nuclear conversion. Now, of course a small number of people died/were injured by other things at nuclear plants (heavy equip, rotating parts, etc.), but this happens at any industrial facility and the small number pales in comparison to the large number of people that have died in coal mine accidents, explosions, fires, toxic gases...In fact, the number of people that are injured/die in just 1 year was orders of magnitude greater than the total number of recorded people injured/died in anything directly related to nuclear energy. For that matter, the number was small compared to how many people die each year from hitting deer on the road at night!
3) Although there have been accidents like japan and chernobyl, nuclear facilities have come a long way and learned from these mistakes. Especially when it comes to facilities in the US: pretty much all facilities built after 3-mile island are very well built (and again, to highlight just how safe these facilities are, even though 3-mile island had a partial meltdown, absolutely no one died due to the accident and no radiation was released outside the facility, only a small amount inside). If everyone in the world built the facilities using the latest safety designs and at least as safe as the US has built them in the past, things like chernobyl and japan will never happen. Though these 2 events weren't good things, they are usually highly publicized by media and cause fear to obscure the facts.
In the end, if you're that worried about safety of nuclear, you should first be worried, say, about the toaster safety (ie getting electrocuted by toaster while wet), because more people have died from that than from nuclear.