Changing attitudes

There's been a lot in the national press this week aboiut changing attitudes to nuclear energy. I even heard the argument trotted out that thousands of people die as a result of coal mining. This warmed my heart because it was something my father used to often say, a man who had grown up aware of both ongoing coal mining disasters and of the nearby presence of a nuclear reactor (Sellafield, Windscales or what ever it called these days).
The two things are related though not interdependent. It does not make sense to say we should embrace a bad thing (if that's what nuclear power is) because an alternative is worse.
What I am waiting for with regard to nuclear energy is for someone to show me (not just assert) that there is proper accountability of the fissile material....do we know what happens to the uranium at all stages of the process.... I want to know for certain that there is no chance that radioactive accidents will occur. Coal does have its share of woes but unlike uranium, although the accidents are appalling they do not last for hundreds of years.
I do understand the imperative to do something about coal-produced power from the global warming perspective, but I don't understand why we as a world are not throwing billions of dollars at solar power, wind power and other potential sources.
Nuclear energy (at this stage) does not seem like the best solution, it seems like a stop gap. A stop gap with potentially disastrous side-effects. Side effects which will keep on keeping on.
It is a narrow and short term economic solution and therein lies its flawed destiny.