Better in terms of what?
The only reason anybody considers nuclear power is because it's way more energy dense than coal. But you have even more environmental problems with nuclear energy than you do with coal - even if the actual plant itself doesn't generate carbon dioxide. Given the choice between carbon dioxide and easily proliferated depleted uranium, I'll take the CO2 thanks.
Besides the whole issue of radioactive waste, there's the fact that you're just using it to heat water anyway, nobody knows how much energy or money it takes to decommission a nuclear reactor after it's finished its short useful life. Oh and because there's only a finite amount or uranium and a fair chunk of that isn't viable because of its low quality (like brown coal is to regular coal) it wouldn't take all that long before we started to run out of that aswell.
There are issues with solar and wind energy too. Apparently it takes about 10 years for a solar panel to generate more energy (or is it cost? I'm not sure) than it took to create and install it. With wind power, if you install too many in one area you could change the wind patterns; there's also an efficiency/cost issue with wind turbines too.
But solar energy is predicted to last for another 5 billion years, and we can't exactly consume it at a higher/lower rate like we can, and do, with fossil fuels.
Without getting into the entire long-winded argument, I think the best option is to put the effort and research into as many different energy technologies as possible to make them viable and maximise efficiency (one of the laws of thermodynamics states you can never have 100% efficiency), and use them in combination.
For example, heliostats in arid regions, dynamos(?) under footpaths in dense pedestrian areas, solar panels, wind power, geothermal power, some sort of wind turbine modified to turn and store power from rainfall, nano-textile technologies, utilising biogas etc. Not just focus on one technology at a time and have a repeat of the whole car industry thing.
But that is just my opinion from the plethora of information I have absorbed about the issue, and I'm not an expert. The short answer is no, nuclear is not the answer, never has been. Silly 1950s people trying to make nuclear-powered cars...
I've studied this sort of thing in subjects from engineering, science, arts, social science, environmental science, chemistry and economics/business backgrounds as well as from an environmentalist point of view.
Some things you should go read/see:
"Who Killed the Electric Car?"
"Limits to Growth" - about people not understanding the exponential function, and peak oil
"Blowin' in the Wind" - warning, deformed babies from radiation exposure
The Department of Climate Change website (if in Oz) or your appropriate govt authority if not.
Almost anything published by people like Sharon Beder, Ian Lowe etc.
Heck, go watch "An Inconvenient Truth" if you haven't seen it yet, then "Power of Community" to see what Cuba did when faced with peak oil.
Google or check journal databases aswell.