I would think the point is that if nuclear costs more money, it's suggestive that it doesn't really use less resources than other options that cost less. Of course, that's not entirely true, as some of the costs for nuclear are insurance, which isn't priced particularly rationally, and of course, for human expertise, but that's arguably a far more scarce resource as are land and raw building materials - i.e. if you're using highly-skilled human brain power to design/build/run nuclear power plants, it prevents us from using that brain power to do other potentially more productive things (which might include coming up with better solutions for our environmental challenges). To be clear - I'm quite supportive of more nuclear power, but certainly not because it uses less land or resources.

Uh? Try reading my comment again. That the federal reserve in principle could print unlimited money is irrelevant here.

Land use is of absolutely no concern for renewables or storage.

Solar and wind coexist synergetically with existing uses, so renewables do not need any dedicated land at all. There is enough existing reservoir area to float solar on, alone, for many times the world's conceivable power needs.

Solar farms are built in deserts only because idiot investors want them there. They are fantastically less efficient there, and degrade in the heat.

Concern trolling about land demand is the low road.

Globally, there is no shortage of cheap land for a renewable-powered economy. If locally land is expensive, don't put energy-hungry industry there.

This may mean Europe ends up deindustrializing vs. sun-soaked places closer to the equator. I suppose King Leopold wouldn't have liked that.