[panick21_]

What is more interesting to me is asking the question based on first principles.

If you consider the global electricity and energy demand and wanted to meet it, what you produce the least amount of green house gases, use the least amount of land, require the least amount of mining.

If you actually do that nuclear wins easily witch suggest there is some other process at work that makes sure this is not translated into reality.

[pfdietz]

Why would you want to use the least amount of land, or do the least amount of mining?

[panick21_]

Are you serious?

There is this thing called nature, and not building building on it or in a very dirty way dig gigantic holes into it is preferable.

[pfdietz]

I was asking why land and mining are so all-important that minimizing either (or both, is that even possible simultaneously) is the relevant objective function here.

Land use is a cost. Mining is a cost. We minimize overall cost, not one specific thing that has a cost.

I will add that society is clearly happy with using land for that very low payoff activity we call "farming". The $/acre from PV is much higher than that from farming, you know.

I don't get the impression you've thought very clearly about all this.