When you count materials used, deaths caused by, CO2 and land use there is only 1 clear winner and a very clear loser, well maybe 2.
Nuclear is the lowest. Lowest death, lowest pollution, lowest land use.
Hydro is pretty good too but we just can't effectively build any more in the US.
I have heard solar can be as high as 2 or 3 deaths per TWH when you count people falling off roofs f'in with solar panels, installing them, cleaning them ect.
I'm not counting land use for hydroelectric because the numbers are all over the place, we need the water, people seem to like lakes. I have never heard anyone complain about a lake ruining the scenery. And it's not like we are going to build any more huge hydro dams in the US. My understanding of hydro electronic growth in the US is coming from adding generation to existing dams, pumped hydro and slapping a hydraulic motor on the end of a piped aqua duct.
Hydro is actually pretty dangerous. A hydro electric dam in China broke in 1972 I believe and killed unto 380,000 people, more recently in 2017 the Orville dam was a few inches of rain away from washing out the spillway and clasping that dam. It caused at least a billion dollars in damages to the dam.
I would say coal is definitely the worst and solar is pretty bad too based on land use and resource use. Coal is so bad why is any nuclear super power even using it at all?
Wind is not really that great either.