The piece Greg links below lumps together nuclear power (treated as a renewable) with wind and solar, and the argument is crafted to persuade us that it would be no more feasible for nuclear to replace our energy consumption than it would be for wind and solar.

To supply 42 kWh per day per person from solar power requires roughly 80 square meters per person of solar panels.
To deliver 42 kWh per day per person from wind for everyone in the United States would require wind farms with a total area roughly equal to the area of California, a 200-fold increase in United States wind power.
To get 42 kWh per day per person from nuclear power would require 525 one-gigawatt nuclear power stations, a roughly five-fold increase over today’s levels.

Hmm. How many one-gigawatt nuclear plants can we fit into the state of California, do you think?

David MacKay, a Cambridge physics professor, claims in the piece that “All renewables, much as I love them, deliver only a small power per unit area.” I haven’t read his book; but based on this presentation of nuclear’s footprint compared with wind and solar, I have to conclude that MacKay doesn’t really love nuclear.