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 First: I call bullshit. How much areas are disturbed by harvesting, transporting, storing and consuming gas? And unless you're clearing forests I'm not sure the land used by solar and wind matters much. Lots of "useless" land lying about, like deserts, or areas either too cold or hot for significant vegetation. And the ground beneath to wind turbines and solar can still be utilized, it's not like it's totally useless.
If there's a scientific paper whose conclusions are not intuitive for you, your first reaction should be to read methodology rather than rather arrogantly rant about "bullshit".
Because your first question is already answered in the article and yes, the land usage already includes mining, manufacturing etc.
@kravietz A single of the newest wind turbine can power thousands of homes per year. How could gas possible compete with such power output in use of surface area? I'm deeply skeptical about the claim that the "best renewable energy source", which you call solar (instead of wind) uses more land than gas. And I'm also wondering if they've accounted for seafloor exploitation for natural gas, or if they're only counting for surface land uses. The tech needed to dig up offshore NG is quite involved.
If you're still wondering after reading it then I definitely cannot help you by paraphrasing it 🤷♂️
