[the_solution]

Quote from http://www.upowertech.com/p/technology.html: "carbon-free and emission-free"

You're telling me that you get enriched fuel, plant production, transport and waste management (plant and fuel) emission free?!? How do people fall for things like this? "I doesn't produce emissions if you only count the parts that don't produce emissions". Brilliant.

And don't even get me started about the super secret "nano-nuclear" tech they claim to have or the cooling using "proprietary technology".

[donttrustatoms]

nuclear fuel is 2 million times more energy dense than any other fuel (even more energy dense than that for solar or wind), and this reactor is 30 times more efficient than conventional reactors.

that means roughly 2 million times less transportation, less land use and less waste. (Land use comparisons: http://newenergyandfuel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/LandU...)

How can we factor in the amount of CO2 removal lost by removal of millions of trees for wind farms? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10546071/Millions-o...) Or millions less train use in transport of coal?

It's a good point though. We should count not just that the reactor itself saves 200,000 tons of CO2 during operation, but also the frequently 10x that of fuel burnt to transport that diesel in conventional generators. So each reactor deployment may save 2 million tons of CO2.

Nuclear facilities are also much longer lived than many. Eg solar panel life degrades significantly after a decade. Wind turbines generally have a life of 15 years of so. So that's less concrete, construction, etc.

You're right it's tough or impossible to quanitfy. Intuitively, it all comes back to the energy density number. 2 million times more energy dense, no emissions or pollution in operation, and the "waste" is actually useful fuel which produces energy.

[the_solution]

Chopping down trees to make room for wind farms is certainly dumb. If you take a closer look that is yet another story about the dangers of subsidies.

"nuclear fuel is 2 million times more energy dense than any other fuel"

Citation needed. Also i don't think energy densitiy is what we are looking for here. Remember the thorium car? A drop of water (in principle) also contains all the energy needed to power a car for years. Now if you could just get the H-atoms to fuse... The point is, it matters how much energy you can (efficiently, at all, ...) get out of it.

"How can we factor in" - Calculate it.

"We should count not just (...) CO2 during operation, but also (...)"

Yes, PLEASE make a complete calculation based on solid numbers taking every aspect of the whole lifecycle of a power plant into account INCLUDING fuel production, fuel transportation and waste management. The publish it please.

[cjslep]

Generally, when people advertise about "carbon-free and emission-free", they are talking about the powerplant's operation. Likewise with cars, they are advertised based on their operation. Asking about the rest of the supply chain is generally a good thing (and having critical reading skills in general), but phrasing it the way you are ("How do people fall for things like this?") comes off in an extremely negative light and is not helping your argument.

EDIT: Moved other response to address your other post.

[the_solution]

Yes, I edited the other comment because I felt i needed to add a note for clarity. Sorry if that nuked your response...

Concerning the carbon free issue: That is false advertising and needs to be put in an extremely negative light because it suggests something to the consumer which is not true. How much carbon or emissions a power plant generates under some specific conditions (like in its main operation time) is completely irrelevant to how environmently friendly it is. The complete balance needs to be taken into account, otherwise you end up cheating yourself (or others) into believing you have reduced emissions when overall you haven't.

It's true that standing next to a kg of U238 for a limited amount of time will likely not hurt you much. The same is true for lead for example. That does not mean it is not hazardous! It still needs to be taken care of. Also, it is interesting that you ignored the Pu. I'm not trying to fear-monger. The statement from the article is simply wrong. Nuclear waste has to be taken care of for tens of thousands of years, not hundreds.