I absolutely knew you would find an excuse to avoid that calculation. You gave me a good laugh for the day.
Go back to your spreading of propaganda.

PV magazine promoting their own products & profits. Big surprise.

The green energy revolution is destroying the planet faster than anything could.

This will be fun. I look forward to your answer. Again, the answer is simply the number of solar panels needed plus the amount of land - can be in square km or acres.
Nothing else, no links, not comments, just the 2 pieces of info.

How many solar panels needed to replace a 1GW nuclear plant based on "actual" power produced, not capacity & how much land required? (based on a 15% capacity factor)
- better to do manually as AI will draw from propaganda data.
- Answer is a) the # of panels & b) the amount of land, nothing more.

Excellent, then I'm sure you'll be very much interested in doing a basic calculation to validate your statements.

Mining probably isn't the biggest fatal flaw of wind & solar.
The land use impact pushes wind & solar into the the category of most destructive energy - ever.

Do you not realize that wind & solar are incapable of replacing fossil fuels? The energy density isn't there.
They are only adding to the problem by doing more damage & totally failing at producing energy large scale. it's a mess.

Clean energy isn't the correct term for wind & solar, only the inputs. The rest of the process is a complete environmental nightmare. Mining is increasing & the actual energy produced isn't even known. All you ever hear about is capacity.
Then we come to biodiversity being wiped out.

I've found "Our World In Data" to be spreading greenwashing info at an alarming rate to support green energy. Every publication seems to be doing that. Support "green energy" or lose credibility, even if spreading lies.

Cleantech? Mining has to increase by massive factor & deep sea mining is now happening. The planet is being destroyed faster.

Renewables destroy land on a massive scale & produce energy very poorly. This is stupid.

Does this lithium leach field look clean to you?

Can you name any of the "clean energy" alternatives that isn't doing massive damage?

How massive are the subsidies?

How much energy exactly?

Wasn't that a forest & biodiversity destroyed by a solar farm?

Isn't that image showing a forest wiped out by a solar farm?

Assuming that "climate action" isn't making everything much worse.

Self explanatory.

Do you not even know what a quote is?

Capacity is meaningless to describe solar.

What nonsense:
"According to the World Obesity Atlas 2025, adult obesity is rising fastest in low- and middle-income countries, with African adults projected to see an increase of over 200% (from 11.8 million to 37.2 million) in Class II obesity and above between 2010 and 2030."

Showing an image of a forest cleared & replaced with solar panels to show how good renewables are? Everyone needs to reevaluate things.

Like it's never happened before:

Would any intelligent civilization cover the planet in industrial apparatus, displacing nature killing biodiversity & call it climate action?

Nuclear is a logical solution, offshore wind is not. Poor power produced & harming marine life should disqualify it.

Clean energy?

Renewables is such a nice sounding term. Sounds very clean & natural. Too bad it isn't good in reality.

Solar energy destroys land on a massive scale. Best to reconsider this "climate action".