>A nuclear power plant already has 0 carbon output.

Not to be persnickety, Just helping create a better argument, but that's not entirely true there, It's neglible compared to other baseload supplies, but Backup SEGs, maintenance vehicles and such do make it >0. Be better argument to say near zero, or a similar caveat. If anything to block that grasping-at-straws argument from derailing a discussion.

It absolutely does make a cleaner watt, esp compared to Coal which will still be the worst in that aspect. Aside from emissions from the boilers, you have the trains bringing in the coal, all the equipment to mine it (though the conversion to electric is pretty cool, and late to the party imho). Another good point to bring up is how the US Navy has 83 Nuclear powered ships floating in the ocean, showing a properly maintained and serviced generator can, and will, be a very safe option. I mean not for the sailors, because of all the cancer that navy nukes get, but that's more due to everything around the reactors. And troops are disposable, Right every asshole who voted against the PACT Act?

Unfortunately we'll likely not see full decarbonization solely from generators due to the need for peaker plants that can fire up quickly to meet unexpected demands. Nuke for base load, Solar for daytime peak, Wind for evening peak, Hydro for grid incursions and any gaps that need filled quickly, and finally natural gas to back them all up. I do hope we can change that combination within my lifetime, but I'm pressing X for doubt on that reality appearing anytime soon.