Wind farm would have to be about 30 times bigger than area taken by nuclear plant. Solar farm -- about 15 times [1]. Renewables definitely take more land. But there's no shortage of land in most places in the world. Shortage of arable land? Sure. But not land in general. E.g. all US energy demand could be met by covering a small fraction of Arizona deserts with solar panels. Solar and wind could also be located offshore.
> why are we using space consumed as a comparison point?
Mostly, I asked out of curiosity. But now that you mention it, I think there is value in comparing space requirements. If you need a vast amount of space, you may have to build further away, perhaps in areas where there isn't already infrastructure to support a major power station (you need roads, utilities, level ground, and so on). That adds to the cost.
edit: Not to mention if you move further out, you have more miles of wire to transport the energy. That's more opportunities for something to damage a line and more time and money spent finding and repairing the issue.
> Should we not be comparing capital costs, cost per kwh, fuel costs, waste costs, and dispatchability? And not "but how much space does it use"?
Let's not get snippy and dismissive, I simply asked a question.
