I notice this article makes the same lies-by-omission that others commonly make:
They compare "land use" and conveniently forget that both solar panels and wind turbines can co-habitate with other uses of the land, and wind turbines are increasingly being placed offshore.
Neither of these is practical for nuclear power, which needs dedicated land, that's generally unusable for as long after the plant shuts as it was operating.
They compare "land use" and conveniently forget that both solar panels and wind turbines can co-habitate with other uses of the land, and wind turbines are increasingly being placed offshore.
Neither of these is practical for nuclear power, which needs dedicated land, that's generally unusable for as long after the plant shuts as it was operating.