At 60W net per m^2 US average primary energy can be served in 250m^2 per capita or less than the per capita paved car parking space. The inkai uranium mine is

At 60W net per m^2 US average primary energy can be served in 250m^2 per capita or less than the per capita paved car parking space. The inkai uranium mine is one of the largest mines in the world. It spans about 760km^2 of desert. At that latitude current generation solar has about 16% capacity factor of 230W/m^2. There are much denser uranium reserves, but if land use being significantly low than solar is your overriding concern then there's only a few decades worth of reserves available for use in PWRs. A solar project there would produce about 25GW net. The uranium mined produces 50GW gross at typical burnup. Mining, transport, enrichment, and post burn lifecycle consume ~10-20% of this. The exclusion zones for those reactors would be roughly another 170km^2 so the nuclear is only ~30% better. Add wind turbines at 10W/m^2 and do it not in the arctic and the renewables win handily by net output. You can also use all of that land for other things as well without getting radon poisoning or being shot by armed guards. Modern multi megawatt wind turbines don't meaningfully use land as being able to see two or three turbines off in the distance doesn't really prevent you from doing most things. As to variability, the people of france would like a word. Less facetiously you should consider cost to meet a minimum power target. With the $23k per kw of Vogtle, hitting higher reliability than any nuclear reactor is trivial -- you also get 10 or so kW of variable power.