There are growing calls for a reduction in the amount of nuclear power the world uses, and the debate is about to move decisively into the public square. Because of the wake-up call of Fukushima (not to mention the legitimate fear the accident has created) people are going to be looking for ways to accomplish this reduction even in the face of massive resistance by the world's nuclear industries and some governments.
The simplest, easiest and least painful way to do this will be: 1) to cancel all existing reactor construction permits; 2) not to issue any new ones; and 3) not to issue any extensions to existing operating licenses. Under this approach, as existing plants run out their license clocks, they are decommissioned.
If this were done, we would see a gradual reduction in the number of operating reactors that would look something like this:
This will give us an opportunity to replace the power being generated by nuclear reactors with power from other sources. The replacement will inevitably include some coal, but much of it will (equally inevitably) be renewable energy. This approach will give the renewable energy industry a golden opportunity to make their case through performance, over a period that will allow for sufficient lead time in planning and construction of replacement capacity.
Most existing coal plants will probably stay in operation, unless the renewables industry makes a strong enough case that the utilities can be moved in their direction by public pressure - in which case the same approach could be applied to coal plants. In any event, the existence of the 6% of primary energy that currently comes from nuclear power hasn't made much if any difference to the number of coal plants built, and would be unlikely to force their reduction in the next 20 years anyway. The fight against global warming will continue as it has, but with a reinvigorated wind/solar/water industry - and a healthy shot of new public support.