Your numbers are way off. A nuclear power plant generates about a tenth of the emissions of a coal power plant over its full lifecycle. This includes things like:

Plant construction
Plant decommissioning
Uranium mining
Uranium transportation
Uranium enrichment
Fuel reprocessing
Uranium mine reclamation

But none of this really matters in comparing the two. Coal power plants also need to be constructed, and have fuel transported to them! They don't just sprout out of the earth like manna from God!

Is it better than solar, wind, or hydro? No. Those generate about 5 to 20% of the emissions as a nuclear power plant (depending on which you're talking about) when you include manufacturing and construction. Fortunately, functional governments (read: not the West) are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time! They're doing both! Which is smart—I'd rather have a nuclear fuel storage problem in 100 years than a "whoops, humanity went extinct!" problem. We don't have a lot of time here.

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

Well, coal plants also need to be constructed and deconstructed in its finl life, but its much easier to do without problems, apart the fuel transport is also less problematic, most countries have own coal mines nearby, no need of importing it with dependency of third countries, which never is a good idea with changing world politics (see dependency of Russian gas in Europe). But yes, Nuclear Power isn't an option, at least not the fusion power, and fission power maybe in 10-20 years, except in poor countries anyway.