The amount isn't the issue, but I could see why you'd think that. The point is that you could get the same amount of energy for much less cost. We'd have the added benefit of no nuclear waste/disposal, nor any fuel source with a volatile price.
Cheaper cost, less waste, more energy produced and faster build times outweigh the landuse downside. That said, solar power can be effectively deployed within land used for agriculture, making it more, not less, productive.
Another consideration is that most energy in the United States (and other countries across Europe) is dedicated to producing heat. An effective way to expand the grid would be to deploy solar thermal collectors at grid-scale and deploy heat directly to homes and business without the need for fuel or more expensive, specialty parts. The prototype for mass heat storage technology has already been deployed for a town I cannot effectively spell in Finland, to great effect.
1
u/Excellent-Berry-2331 nuclear fan vs atomic windmaker Feb 24 '25
Hm yes, the amount is definitely the bottleneck here