Nuclear (smallest geographic footprint and smallest overall environmental impact) + solar & wind is the way forward.
The same 40 million acres as solar fields, would cover 100% of electricity needs as well as work for some crops.
Agricultural subsidies for ethanol and biodiesel are worldwide, and could be 100 million acres wasted! Everyone's complaining about food prices these days, these 100 million acres could be growing food instead.
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/03/10/solarfood-in-ethanol-...
Why are there any negatives here? A field of solar panels is far more valuable than a field growing corn to feed to cows.
Nuclear (smallest geographic footprint
This doesn't matter, there is no shortage of land. People living in high rises in the center of big cities think there is, but once someone looks at a map they see how much land is actually out there.
smallest overall environmental impact
According to what metric? You can't put a nuclear plant anywhere, you have to be able to cool it.
Now, compare the value returned by an acre growing feed grain, to an acre collecting solar energy via PV. The latter has enormously higher return.
The argument you are making is not an argument against freestanding PV, it's an argument against agriculture. And yet, it is selectively applied to PV.