The old "energy density" talking point against renewables repeated once again?  Yep.  This one is easy to overcome.

Renewables and conservation need not use up signifigant land area.  

Nuclear does.  The operation, mining, processing, transport, waste storage all put land at risk of long term contamination, groundwater and surface water too.  The land used has to be restricted for centuries from human use.   Heat pollution of cooling water from nukes kills aquatic ecosystems.

Wind allows other activities, like farming or conservation wildlife areas to go forward unhindered in the same location.

Solar PV/heat cogeneration can be mounted of roofs and the southfacing sides of buildings and over existing land uses like parking lots.  Solar furnaces over factories.

Wind/wave floating platforms can go offshore, out of sight of NIMBYs.

Farm and waste biogas actually reduces the land and ground and surface water use of farming, landfills, sewage plants, and manufacturing waste.

Ground source heat pumps (capable of eliminating the 36% of GHG produced in heating/cooling buildings) actually tap heat underground leaving the land unused.

Renewable electric transportation, like commuter rail, electric freight rail, plugin hybrids, bikes and cars all reduce oil drilling, refining and pollution.   Land and sea (hurricanes produced record oil spills in the gulf) devestation that spreads exponentially into ground and surface water from the source.

And of course your other favorite energy source, biomass grown for solid and liquid fuel, devestates the land and soil.

Density?  Since solar can go on already used land, namely roofs, building, and parking lots, density of the energy is not the important factor.

Wind does not interfere with other uses.

This old density argument is tired.  

Mining, processing, waste storage and so forth spread the toxic generic mutation effects of nuclear all over.  

Just like chemical ag for fuel farming GMO monocrops spreads biologically active hormone mimickiong toxins throughout ground and suface water.

Ironically, nuclear power and fuel farming advocates  support the most expensive, eco-devestating energy sources.  And oppose the cost effective low eco-impact sources.