The difference with solar/wind space requirements is so big that it does not matter.

If the land is reserved and left to nature that is still a positive thing because that helps the environment and biodiversity. But I'm sure that they could put solar panels on it if they wanted.

The point is that this land is not required for production and in any case solar require much, much more land, so, no, it's not even close.

Winds density is off the charts as you can use the ground around it for crops or even solar panels. https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/wind-turbines-corn-fields-ae...

Wind still requires a huge area covered with wind turbines to match a single nuclear plant. Each of which takes space, needs to be accessible, and needs to be connected to the grid through some facility. I would not call that a density off the charts... (see link in my previous comment as well)

It doesn't really make sense to talk about land usage that just so happens to be owned by a nuclear plant, or even certain fixed land requirements for a nuclear plant. It only makes sense to talk about the limiting behavior of land usage for various types of power plants.

Solar has hugely larger requirements than nuclear however you look at it, contrary to what was suggested above.

How much land does rooftop solar require?