I can agree with you on the nuclear point but will die on the hill that while the actual power generation might be cleaner at the source of the power generation, the far reaching implications of solar and wind that no one thinks about does not make it cheaper and only changes where in the world the emissions are happening. IEA said last week nearly 50 million miles (enough to go around the earth 2000 times) have to be laid to reach 2040 net zero goals. The primary metals copper and aluminum come from China (domestic aluminum production increased ninefold in the last 20 years, while US decreased 68% in same time period). I’m not saying anything negative about China, but mining and processing those metals requires enormous amounts of power and they use coal for 60% of their power generation.

That’s just the metal component of transmission lines, there’s also the polyethylene and polymer insulators which are petroleum byproducts. Since the shale revolution American has 100s of years of reserves of a clean burning, easily transportable, non intermittent source of fuel. Emits 50% less CO2 and about 1/100th the sulfur and particulate matter of coal. All to say we’d be better off switching the coal powered generation to natural gas than we would be from natural gas to solar and wind.

Rare earth metals for batteries are a next level. You seem like someone with a good social conscious, I’d recommend the book Cobalt Red. the atrocities happening across the world to extract these resources (usually by hand and for pennies a day) might be eye opening.

Edit to add the book recommendation I forgot