> You can have wind farms in your arable land

You can, but we don’t, because people have preferences with their views and overcoming them takes time. We have a choice: nuclear or climate crisis. Putting ideological purity ahead of practical reality is dogmatic.

> people have preferences with their views and overcoming them takes time.

Isn't that equally true of nuclear energy? In fact more so, as renewables account for a growing share of global electricity production, while the share from nuclear has been decreasing for decades.[0]

Or do you literally mean "views" as in "sight lines" / "landscapes"? That's true, but people also have preferences about whether they're within a potential nuclear exclusion zone or not.

> We have a choice: nuclear or climate crisis.

That seems like a false dichotomy, or you're begging the question and not really explaining why renewables aren't an option. It's like saying, "We have a choice: clean, fuelless renewables or toxic nuclear catastrophes". Thinking that nothing can go wrong with nuclear is itself an ideology, and it's one that insurance companies don't share.

[0] https://www.powermag.com/report-nuclear-share-of-global-ener...

Very small loss if you consider only the footprint of the pylon. Probably quite an inconvenience when you consider having to turn the tractor or combine a lot more than you would need to with an open field. Even worse when you realize that you need to be able to access the wind turbine for maintenance two or three times a year. Definitely not good when you need a major replacement or removal after 20 years and you need to bring in heavy equipment.

Energy density matters for the same reason any other form of land use density does. You can't be against suburbs and for wind farms.