There's no single best option. They all have upsides and downsides and it's dumb to try and say we should fully commit to any one kind of alternative energy.

Solar and wind don't offer a reliable energy source and require some kind of battery infrastructure to power a grid if there's enough volume to provide enough power to the grid on average.

Nuclear can provide steady energy as the grid requires but has huge overhead in terms of start-up costs. There's also the problem of disposal of waste but I think that's less of a problem.

If we were forward looking enough, we would be building enough nuclear plants to phase out coal and natural gas for energy production in the grid while also building solar and wind to cover the increase in energy usage year after year. That way there's no need to increase coal/natural gas output and they become obsolete once the nuclear plants are built. There's a more nuanced approach where the government heavily subsidizes (more than they have) solar panels so land owners build them on their property that they're not using for things like food anyway and keep energy production as local as possible.