> If land cost rules out solar, it also rules out agriculture.

Land cost rules out solar because there are alternatives which do not cost nearly as much in land (barring, per above, preventable and rare disasters). The same can't be said about agriculture; there ain't (to my knowledge) some agricultural equivalent of a nuclear power plant. Vertical farming might be it someday, but so far that hasn't panned out at scale.

> I never see the nuke bros saying we shouldn't grow things because it uses too much land, or that we need to go vegan to reduce land use.

We "nuke bros" ain't saying we shouldn't use PV at all, either. Solar panels:

- Are much more portable than nuclear plants

- Can be deployed in a wider range of locations than nuclear plants (Have you tried putting a molten-salt reactor on a rooftop? Solar's great for that!)

- Are great at providing energy for peak loads, energy to be stored later, and energy for things that don't typically need to be powered when there's no sunlight (e.g. air conditioning)

Solar panels have their place even in a world powered primarily by nuclear.

Likewise, livestock animals:

- Are much more portable than crop fields

- Can be raised in a wider range of locations than most crops (Have you tried growing corn on a mountain? Chickens and goats are great for that!)

- Taste good, produce byproducts that taste good (like eggs and milk), and provide nutrients that are harder to come by in vegan diets without either supplements or additional planning (e.g. multiple different crops).

Animal products have their place even in a world fed primarily by plant products.

Given this: yeah, by all means work toward reducing agriculture's land footprint - but that effort's independent from the effort to reduce the energy sector's land footprint, so it really shouldn't be surprising that people advocating for the power-per-land effort won't automatically start talking about the food-per-land effort in a conversation about power.