https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_em...
Solar is listed at 4x more and wind seems to be on par with nuclear. Both solar and wind are far better than the hydrocarbon alternatives.
I used to be very pro nuclear but I think nuclear has a lot of hidden costs - very long ramp up time, long and expensive cleanups.
See some numbers in https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/05/sustainability-off...
> Both solar and wind are far better than the hydrocarbon alternatives.
Agreed, of course. I'm only mentioning nuclear because people tend to think that merely replacing fossil with pv/wind is good enough. Not only is it not enough, it's also more expensive and barely getting us to the right track. Nuclear isn't perfect of course, but all things considered it's still better.