Virtually no land use, despite nobody wanting to live besides a nuclear reactor? My argument was that renewables can provide the same unlimited power (and the "constant" part can be done via batteries or other means, given sufficient investment. No other energy source comes even close to nuclear when it comes to "hidden" lifecycle costs. Alone the fact that a nuclear plant is not insurable shows, that nuclear depends on enormous public subsidies and will never be commercially viable on itself.

Interesting that I am getting downvoted without anyone providing any arguments or facts against my narrative.