This is precisely my point of view.
You must consider the full lifecycle ROI.
I'm a particularly big fan of nuclear for that reason.
Does that factor in to your thinking?
Nuclear waste is a political problem not a technical one. It’s either still hot and could be used for fuel or not and relatively safe. The hot stuff can be burned in reactors; we don’t because that requires plutonium cycle with the obvious weapons uses. Cold waste can be allowed to decay for a few decades, vitrified by mixing with molten glass so it’s chemically inert and stored in a geologically inactive area, anywhere far from continental plate boundaries deep in the ground. It could also be dumped in deep marine trenches at subduction boundaries where it would eventually be returned to the earth’s core. If you want to get it off Earth altogether I’m sure we could get it to the moon if we really wanted.
Nuclear waste only remains seriously dangerous for "a few" decades after which it can be inertly stored indefinitely at minimal expense.
This is also assuming that we're not talking about any new/exotic fuel cycles, but, only with fuel cycles that were proven working 30+ years ago. If you want to discuss exotic fuel cycles things can be even better, though the science is less firm with less data on them (for now).
My point is more that supposably "green" solutions are not, and that you have to consider the total lifecycle of things.
Personally, I favor things where the spoilage is contained. Say, nuclear over coal/nat gas because its far far easier to contain the waste byproducts of nuclear than a coal/nat gas plant.
Want to flood an effectively dead desert in the rockies to make gigawatts of power? sounds worth it.
Want to flood a vibrant ecosystem in the PNW or Northeast to make a few megawatts? please don't