Solar actually has over twice the footprint of onshore wind, considering the energy needed to produce the panels, but it's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, as all those mentioned sources, if they were to form the majority of the mix, would make electricity a much smaller chunk of the overall footprint than, say, food.

In 2024 France electricity was responsible for an equivalent of 16.1Mt of CO2 - largely due to gas peaker plants, which together contributed to a single digit percentage of overall electricity consumption.

That's 235kg of CO2 per person, or 2.5-7.5kg of beef in terms of environmental impact.

I agree on solar and that is hypothetically true of nuclear. But in reality nuclear industry has had far less ecological benefit than the wind industry.

I think your math is wrong there. Look at France and compare it to Germany. "Less ecological benefit" in your statement would mean that taking the entire country of France away from CO2 emissions (for decades now!) is less important than the CO2 reductions from wind turbines (globally?). You probably used the wrong tense "has had".

That feels like a disingenuous take. If the composites in wind turbine blades are an environmental problem, then so is nuclear waste and so are the semiconductors in solar panels.

Wind turbines spread microplastics always. Coal spread radioactivity and CO2 always. Nuclear spreads radioactivity very rarely. The semiconductors are just rocks basically so not a problem (there are other components that might be, but the semiconductors certainly isn't the issue).