[stinkbeetle]

Without flooding enormous ecosystems and disrupting river flows, and on average half the CO2 emissions per unit of generation than hydro has, and a staggeringly lower land use per energy footprint (hydro is 100x larger, wind is 10x larger). Nuclear seems like one of the only sane choices from an environmental point of view.

[bryanlarsen]

Wind's land-use footprint is almost completely non-exclusive.

[stinkbeetle]

Except when deployed in wilderness areas that require access roads, staging areas, and electricity networks to be cleared. Which is often the case for wind -- hills and mountainous areas that are inherently less suitable for building and farming.

Much smaller nuclear footprint inside existing industrial sprawl is usually preferable in terms of land use.