It's actually quite ironic that renewable energy activism tends to completely ignore one critical resource it uses that also happens to be non-renewable: the land surface.
The challenge here is that the best renewable energy source (solar) uses three orders of magnitude (1000x) more land than the best non-renewable (gas).
To replace gas with nuclear you need pretty much the same area. But to replace gas with solar you suddenly need to find 1000x more extra space.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518305512
@kravietz you ignore the fact that a lot of area is only usefull for solar: roofs, covers, buildings.
I don't ignore anything, I state the fact supported by the scientific data. Now *where* exactly you find that extra space is another topic and yes, residential solar panels do solve this challenge to some extent even if they have other issues.
@kravietz i'm not just talking about residential panels. But industry, warehouses, offices, malls, farmsteads, and so on.
It might not solve all energy needs, but no monoculture will. It requires a mix. And the amount of space where solar could lie without taking up any space is huge. In NL, for example, it allows 800% increase just putting panels on the obvious space.
Once done, one can start increasing the other energy sources in the 'mix'.