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.
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.
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.
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.