Yup, and besides that EROEI is poor, about 5:1, and that's not considering the costs of very long term clean up issues or disasters like Fukushima that will take decades to clean up and has possibly polluted the entire planet. It takes a massive amount of energy to both construct and decommission a nuclear power plant.
The amount of waste heat produced by nuclear is also an issue as they are located on bodies of fresh water to use for cooling and they raise the temperature of the water. The temperature raise can be a significant issue depending on where the plant is, and if you calculate the temp rise in bodies of water if the US was to go fully nuclear it would often be unacceptable.
With tech like wind turbines approaching a 20:1 EROEI when I was in the business, and the relative ease of decommissioning and recycling wind turbines, nuclear just doesn't make sense except for the fact that we do need a stable base for the power grid that renewables can't yet provide because of the lack of energy storage technology. For the reasons above fossil fuels are the best choice for this role right now. I know it sucks but that's where we're at in the real world. With current tech it should be possible for renewables to provide around half our electricity or so, but it depends on the geographic area. N Europe gets about 1/3rd of it's power from renewables right now but there are many areas that are ideal for wind turbines. The constant winds on the west coast of Denmark are remarkable, it seems like they never stop...
And as far as gas powered cars, no I didn't do a comparable analysis because 1. this is about electric cars. 2. I can't spend all my time here. But I do agree the extraction of oil has had consequences but it's nothing like rare earth element extraction and EROEI is close to 100:1 so we spend about 1 unit of energy extracting oil for every 100 that is contained in the oil. This varies a bit of course.