Because that was the discussion, the amount of energy produced by nuclear vs other clean means and the amount of area dedicated for each to produce the same.

There are very few ignorantly disagreeing with this easy to prove fact, you being one of them. I do understand scale of a country, and the space required to power it via reactors saves hundreds of thousands of acres when compared to solar and wind.

Go Google the required acreage for each and educate yourself. You're the one being ridiculous by attempting to call me out for "one single argument" and then continuing to prove you have no real concept of size and scale.

[–] vrojak@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

The discussion is not whether solar needs more space per energy produced, (and it does, nobody is disputing that), the discussion is if the area difference is relevant in the first place. And there have points been made why it is not, namely:

You can cover area that is not natural anyways: parking lots, rooftops, farmland that does not need strong direct sunlight
There is so much space in a country compared to that needed for solar that or just does not matter. Obviously you don't go and remove forests to put solar panels there
Plenty of space isn't arable in the first place, so what's the point of not putting solar there? Protecting the sensitive desert?

@GreyEyedGhost even gave you an actually ok argument against wind/solar, maybe try that one?