Nuclear and offshore wind are equivalent (median: 12 gCO2eq/kWh)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...

> Alternative renewables (e.g. wind, solar) require fossil fuels to power the electrical grid when they are not able to generate

Overprovision is part of a solution. Storage may tackle part of the challenge ( https://www.nrel.gov/news/features/2020/declining-renewable-... ).

On a large geographic scale renewables are able to continuously generate enough energy. We know how to transport energy (and nuke plants also need it), and interconnecting grid is considered a win whatever the type of source used (nuclear, wind...).

See https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(19)30225-... , which doesn't seem to me more ambitious than hoping to quickly multiply by 10+ the existing nuclear power generation capacity, and hoping that there will be enough practically available combustible for them.

> The amount of energy they output, relative to the energy input to construct

The net outcome is positive.

Moreover renewables don't need fuel, and therefore there is no need to worry about cost/reserves/geopolitical turmoil/terrorist actions/waste.

> amount of land they consume

For solar there are many adequate deserts and unused surfaces. For offshore wind there are huge pertinent areas.

> Nuclear energy is safe, causing fewer deaths and adverse health impacts

There are many ways to consider this. Here is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...

> If it is a dinosaur, then so are the transistors

Transistors sci/tech made and makes huge progress. The nuke promises/dreams (fusion, no-waste...), albeit massively subsidized for decades, are stuck.