Modern technology negate most bad effects.And,you could change coal into gas cheaply,at least Poland have that technology.
Besides,for countries like Poland biogas is alternative.
The way I see the power stack is like this:
1) Nuclear, for all the reasons I listed above.
2) Hydropower, which is actually quite cheap, all things considered:
At US$0.05/kWh, hydroelectricity remains the lowest-cost source of electricity worldwide, according to a recent report by the International Renewable Energy Agency, entitled Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2017.
Coal for winter thermal generation and extra power during predictable anal increases as well as industries that need it, like steel production.Might help out in droughts if hydro generates less energy, but in other areas you have enough water.
Gas for industries that require it (glass, chemicals, fertilizers and polymers)and for more flexibility, like cooking, heating places where it is not going to be as feasible to use central thermal plants or heating via electricity.Probably better in case of droughts.
A mix of gas and coal and petroleum products and wood for less dense areas, villages and the like.
A coal or wood stove is fine for cooking, cheaper than electricity and a village with 50-100 houses spaced burning coal/wood/pellets/brickets will still have cleaner air than downtown even if the downtown in question uses gas to power its thermal plant.
Solar - can probably help out rural areas in the summertime, with things like refrigeration and ACs during the hottest part of the day, maybe work as supplemental energy in time of droughts, when coal and hydro are impaired.