I would hate to disappoint Cottonwood.
He's always so right.
Nuclear is not carbon free either. A typical plant has massive locomotive-sized diesel generators as backups to keep critical systems online. Even in a perfect, non-refueling cycle, the backups are run regularly for required testing and it puts out massive amounts of CO2. Further, a good sized nuclear facility requires hundreds, and sometimes, several thousand personnel. The facility is in an at least 5-mile radius, protected zone, behind probably a larger "buffer" where there is a sole access road that is guarded. Everyone must drive to work, all logistics are imported, at a great carbon footprint (no, they don't all drive EVs). Then there is the nuclear waste cycle and where do you put the depleted fuel and its transport. Then at the end of the useful life, the decommissioning of a nuclear facility may well leave a larger carbon footprint than its construction in the first place.
So it's not green, and it's not carbon free. But it's actually a pretty decent legacy solution compared to retroactive alternatives. Going forward, however, c'mon Musketeers ... solar + storage is so obvious.