The choice doesn't have to between coal and nuclear.
For starters:

• building a wind park (or even a single generator) in the Netherlands requires about 100 official permissions, and for every single one, there is at least one interest group that can file a complaint and delay the procedure

• although it is possible to build energy neutral homes (that is, homes that produce as much energy as they consume under normal use) at lower total cost of ownership than conventional homes, even in the Netherlands, the overwhelming majority of homes built today is not energy neutral

Also, three more arguments against nuclear (fission) power, apart from the fact that it's pretty damn stupid to build a nuclear reactor on a tectonic plate fault, and disregarding the general safety controversy (which basically boils down to "nuclear energy is safe" - "no it's not" - "is too" - "is not" ...):

• fissionable materials are scarce, even more so than fossile fuels; if we were to use nuclear power for all our energy needs, we'd probably run out of fissionables long before fossile resources are depleted

• fissionable materials are found in politically questionable countries; it's bad enough to depend on the oil nations, but depending on Russia and corrupt African leaders is not a nice thing

• even if we used all the available production capacity for building nuclear plants, we could maybe double the capacity over the next 30 years - but since we're now at about 5% nuclear (unless I remember wrong), that would get us to 10%, still leaving the other 90% unaccounted for.

So basically, all our options have incredible flaws. What exactly does this mean?

It's the top 20% that cause the problem. How about we get rid of them... us... oh dammit...

The tragedy will come.

Russia wouldn't agree. Although it's what it virtually has anyways. Countries who's ambitions don't match their population will be "offended", we're yet to mature up to be able to take these decisions.

Please stop using that term. It makes you look incredibly stupid.

Already being done, though not through this exact mechanism. What you need is a mountain and two lakes at different altitudes. You build a pipe that connects them, and a power plant that can act both as a generator and a pump. When there's excess energy in the network, it pumps water from the lower lake into the upper lake, acting as an electrical pump. When the energy is needed again, the flow is reversed, and the pump now acts as a turbine and the motor as a generator. This is, to my knowledge, the most efficient way to store large quantities of energy; the best part is that it doesn't matter how long you store it - the water levels won't change much by themselves, unlike other storage mechanisms which generally lose energy over time. The downside is that it's pretty hard to find suitable locations for such a thing.

This would lead to negative population growth, and the fact that we keep getting older, combined with the way our economy works, is a recipe for disaster. Best case, overall population goes down worldwide, negative population growth is compensated for in the rich countries through immigration and gets worse in the poor countries; we end up with the same number of people that now is the top 20%, still consuming 80% of the planet's resources, while the rest (now 80%) is reduced in numbers, but this never solves more than 20% of the problem. Worst case, the compensation does not happen, economies collapse under the weight of retired people and the lack of young adults to fill the gaps, anarchy, chaos, apocalypse etc.

Are there any political parties in Europe that are pro nuclear power?

Well yes, it's rational. I for one am for inspections, but judging from the past attitudes towards our two nuclear power plants from the Austrians, I bet they are just looking for whatever reasons to increase their lobby for shutting them down.

By the way, I've just heard that Germans have shutted down all 7 of their oldest plants (well, ok some of them are really old and should be replaced), the sad part is that they are currently revisiting again their nuclear strategy.

Is there any reason it should be centralised like that? Who needs 1000+ MW at one place anyway?

The problem is that the energy that is produced by wind/solar power is actually not used most of the time. Because the nuclear and coal plants are very slow to shut down / power up, instead of using wind power when there's wind and shutting down the coal/nuclear plant, the wind power remains unused in a lot of cases.
So a combination of nuclear/coal power and wind/solar energy is not a good idea. The best option would be to combine wind/solar energy with Combined Cycle Plants using natural gas, which are highly efficient AND are quick in powering up / shutting down.
Wind and solar power can only be expanded reasonably when there are less nuclear and coal plants.

Only if implying our current lifestyle, which is horribly inefficient in terms of energy. Only think of all the megawatts wasted for devices in stand by mode...

Still, what to do with the nuclear waste?

Bury it underground?

Is there any reason why 1000MW should cover so insanely large areas. Not to mention zero output when there's no wind or light? I prefer to have electricity up all day. Not only on windy/sunny days

It's not like all the land that windmill farms use is wasted. Around here they are built on corn fields; the yield doesn't drop significantly.