The Ute Tribe will construct one of the largest solar farms in the US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edifice_complex

Solar is already cheaper than nuclear in terms of cost per MWH, and while adding extensive storage tends to even the cost out, nuclear still has some disadvantages including: uncertain uranium fuel sources and costs, black swan catastrophe concerns, cooling water demands, and long-term waste disposal costs - all issues solar mostly avoids. Some niche nuclear uses are more promising, e.g. China's current attempt to make pebble-bed helium-cooled models work for industrial process use (500C steam).

Look at France, they've got a big expensive mess on their hands after betting on nuclear: https://www.reuters.com/world/france-braces-uncertain-winter...

> Does anyone have a breakdown of the materials required to create 2.2 million solar panels?

In academia, these are called "lifecycle analyses" (or sometimes cradle-to-grave/cradle-to-cradle analyses). Here's one by the International Energy Agency, a NGO: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/IEA-PVPS-LCI...

PDF page 21 has a detailed bill of materials for PV modules (solar panels), and pg 60 for li-ion batteries. There are also breakdowns for various parts of subcomponents.

In general, as you noted, we're pretty good at analyzing the carbon impacts of PV manufacturing (TLDR: it's a net positive), but the land use question is much harder because it's not a mathematical equation that you can apply. How do you weigh X solar panels vs Y endangered tortoises or whatever? It's often just a case-by-case determination, and in the US that usually means an specialized environmental review under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) or similar state laws.

It always boil down to a judgment call (and also local community sentiment, to some degree), the quality of the review, and maybe just plain dumb luck (whether the site surveys happen to notice any listed species at that particular time).

------

Re: Land & mining...

Climate change isn't great for many species either (it does help some plants and such), so even from a land use conservation point of view, the opportunity cost of not building more solar/nuclear often means increased desertification or flooding, etc., just because climate change will slowly affect big swaths of land and water. In a way, these renewables projects can be thought of a way to sacrifice small plots of land to try to protect the rest. With some exceptions (like old growth forests), I think in general we are better able to manage around localized disruptions in land area than global climate change, if only because most land is controlled (and thus permitted/reviewed) only by a few entities and maybe 1-3 governments (federal/state/tribal), vs anything climatic involving the whole damned world and all its politicians and protestors.

The mining of materials, though, also causes a lot of human suffering that a lot of these academic analyses don't fully account for, or illustrate very well on a visceral level. Read: child labor in highly dangerous mines under terrible conditions, just so Joe American can feel a bit better about driving his Tesla with a few panels on his roof. But, to be fair, that system of exploitation is going to exist no matter our energy source. It's not always foreign kids, but coal mining is no easy life either.

-------

Re: Nuclear

I'm pro-nuclear myself, but many people still aren't (for reasons not worth getting into here, which I'm sure you already know).

I think PV has reached such a low price point (thanks, China) that nuclear just isn't really speed- or cost-competitive anymore.

Realistically, though, we really need both (like a solar bridge to nuclear), much more than we have now, and much faster, and we're not going to get enough of either one in time =/

I don't think it's really a "PV vs nuclear" but a "all of the above, and then some!"