Without flooding enormous ecosystems and disrupting river flows, and on average half the CO2 emissions per unit of generation than hydro has, and a staggeringly lower land use per energy footprint (hydro is 100x larger, wind is 10x larger). Nuclear seems like one of the only sane choices from an environmental point of view.
Except when deployed in wilderness areas that require access roads, staging areas, and electricity networks to be cleared. Which is often the case for wind -- hills and mountainous areas that are inherently less suitable for building and farming.
Much smaller nuclear footprint inside existing industrial sprawl is usually preferable in terms of land use.
Without flooding enormous ecosystems and disrupting river flows, and on average half the CO2 emissions per unit of generation than hydro has, and a staggeringly lower land use per energy footprint (hydro is 100x larger, wind is 10x larger). Nuclear seems like one of the only sane choices from an environmental point of view.
Wind's land-use footprint is almost completely non-exclusive.
Except when deployed in wilderness areas that require access roads, staging areas, and electricity networks to be cleared. Which is often the case for wind -- hills and mountainous areas that are inherently less suitable for building and farming.
Much smaller nuclear footprint inside existing industrial sprawl is usually preferable in terms of land use.