"The coal fired power plants in my opinion are not outdated but could be made more acceptable using the latest clean coal technology. Yes this may be expensive but so is nuclear. My preference would be to use the lowest cost fuel and use the higher cost technologies for the future."

Firstly, the technology for nuclear is the more expensive of the two if you are going to use the more expensive technology as you stated a preference for and presently, the fuel price is not that significant compared to the cost of the technologies.... but that is presently. As it becomes more clear that oil is not easy to come by nuclear fuel will become very expensive for those that create much of their power from it. However, though I haven't done a cost analysis, one needs to keep in mind the small amount of nuclear fuel needed compared to the amount of coal though coal would be significantly cheaper per unit weight.

Secondly, as we know, nuclear has it's problems in terms of the byproducts once the fuel is spent and the difficulty with disposal (though technology is providing more options for recycling). One could argue that nuclear would buy us time as it's daily negative output to the environment is virtually zero. Continued use of coal and it's related fuels, regardless of better scrubbing technologies etc. would still produce significant greenhouse gases and byproducts that have to be disposed of that continue to be hazardous. We can keep polluting on a daily basis and kill the planet faster or we can buy some time with nuclear. Neither system is perfect but I prefer buying time and having clean energy, air and water on a day to day basis while we plan to deal with disposal problems. The potential for nuclear disaster is always a possibility but using fossil fuels is a definite "dead" end. I always wonder why David Suzuki backs light bulbs that have mercury in them. Although I haven't heard any explanation as to why he does, I assume it is because it is the lesser of the evils and a reasonable compomise and path to take in his mind. I won't use them but I can understand this logic. I see the same logic for nuclear.

After all is said and done, you are likely to get your wish as nuclear has fallen far behind in preparedness to meet the needs of power consumption and coal and tar sands will be the unfortnate quick fix. However, you might be closer to knowing what the resultant environmental armagedon is for the tar sands as they are in your neck of the woods. Coal and tar sands come with the expected price tag on health and life because they are faster and easier to use. If it's easy there is usually a bigger price to be paid.... if it sounds too good to be true.... it probably is.