I saw a photo of an entire hillside covered with solar panels and it was being touted as some green energy achievement. But then I realized that those solar panels have smothered the habitat and that the actual energy output of that solar panel array is very low compared to its footprint - not to mention all the resources that went into producing all those panels. It seems obvious to me that the best possible solution is Nuclear Energy.
You're a bit off the mark with your perception of solar, although you do come to the right conclusion. Solar panels can interact well with the local environment[1] and their production resources are sufficiently low as to still be a genuinely clean source of energy[2]. Also, when comparing production costs, consider that nuclear plants don't build themselves and use a _lot_ of concrete, which has a major carbon cost.
But your conclusion is right: nuclear is by far the best power option we have right now.
[2] "Researchers found that it takes just 1 to 4 years for solar panels to “even out” or “pay back” their energy debt. When you consider the fact that panels are designed to last 20 to 25 years, on average, you can see why that’s an impressive rating." Includes link to source study, https://www.solarmelon.com/faqs/solar-panels-use-energy-manu...
I'm pro-nuclear, but solar panel disposal in rich country is almost solved. 94,7% recyclable, the recycling is taken into account when you buy them (in Europe at least), so its free to get them to the recycling plant for the owner.
I don't think the issue is that we don't know how to dispose of or recycle the panels. But the US uses 93 quadrillion BTU per year (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/), so to supply 10% of the US' daily power needs would require 5 billion panels.
Moreover these panels will degrade over time, so they require maintenance, recycling, disposal, etc. So one hill half covered with solar panels is one thing, but when you have 5 billion solar panels, then yes, it stops looking so green to me. And then you need to get the other 90% from somewhere.
And then energy and transportation prices increase by a factor of four, and it turns out not enough money was set aside for solar-farm decomissioning??
Solar seems like a best fit for existing buildings, like Musk's solar roofs/windows. For wide spaces there can be other options, like wind, which has a much lower footprint. But even a well placed solar farm does not need to smother wildlife, e.g. you leave space in between, plant lower bushes, etc.
As regards efficiency, solar is nowadays not bad, there's a reason it is the cheapest energy in many countries, especially during the summer months.
Well Norway should probably not do solar (except marginal, e.g. instead of traditional roof tiles solar roofs instead). But Norway had plenty of hydro and thermal options, even wind should work well in the more southern areas.