The impact on livable land is a good point, though we also should probably consider how many lives we're willing to sacrifice for said land. If swapping out nu

The impact on livable land is a good point, though we also should probably consider how many lives we're willing to sacrifice for said land. If swapping out nuclear for photovoltaics saves 100 km^2 of land but costs one more life on average, are we willing to pay that? Probably. I imagine that most people wouldn't feel comfortable paying 1 million lives though. Looking a the discussion here, https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy, it looks like nuclear saves such a large number of lives that the land cost has probably been worth it. Flipping the question around, non-nuclear energy sources also have a land cost. It'd be interesting to compare the ecological and land habitability impacts of other energy sources as well.