Aside: What I find remarkable is that any talk of renewables ends up in a debate about nuclear. Talking about oil and fossil fuel never makes people say "yeah but what about nuclear?" No, it's only discussion of renewables that makes nuclear supporters come out of the woodwork... very odd behavior for people that claim to be concerned about emissions.

Back your main comment: These are all statistics without any significance for deployment of the technology.

For example, 15x material means.... what exactly? Is 15x more material bad somehow? Sure doesn't seem like it. The amount of material that goes into solar panels is not a fundamental constraint on their use.

When wind power "uses" land it does not require exclusive use of the land. That same land will be used for other purposes without impact. Similarly, the amount of land we need to use solar is vanishingly small.

> Look at France and Germany for a great real world example...

For France, I have looked, never found the cost numbers. I do know the Mesmer plan never reached fruition, and that only about a third of the planned reactors were built. I used to cite CANDU as a potential success too, but then somebody who knew better pointed me to the financial numbers...

Bangladesh and India are building new reactors because of corruption, the same reason that they build completely uneconomical new coal plants. China is building a few nuclear reactors, as part of a "try everything" approach, but they are building only a minuscule amount of nuclear compared to renewables, because nuclear is mostly hype, and renewables mostly deliver. Remember that even a construction power house like China, when building France's EPR design, ended up with a build that took twice as long as expected.