63000 acres is about 98 square miles, so about a 10 mile by 10 mile area. Pretty sure this isn't 'destroying wildlife' levels of destruction, but yes, definitely ecosystem influencing. Compared to current alternatives (gas/coal/hydro), this may have less impact overall. Nuclear power should be invested in, but may take more time.
Come on now, Nevada is only 110,000 square miles. This solar planet would have taken up 0.089% of the state. All for a power plant that would have to be torn up in as little as 25 years.
The pro-nuclear environmentalists seem so rare but always come out in force in discussions like this. Given the odd combination and reliable timing, if I were more cynical I would think it is not a good faith position.
As a former nuclear enthusiast, I would say we are at the end. Until something really significant changes, nuclear has no future. Figure out how to make it less bespoke and much cheaper. Failing that, batteries and sunlight (including in wind form) are looking like a much safer bet.
The dominate battery technology has changed several times in my lifetime. We just have to wait for someone else to invent a new battery chemistry since the USA has tapped out on renewables.
We might have 600MW of SMR's within a decade, but we're highly unlikely to have 6GW. So 20 years is about right, SMR or conventional. They might come faster after that, or not.
