There are still no real solutions for the mining process, shipment, processing, and storage for 100,000 years for the spent fuel.

Now go away and take your CBO WHOOPS bonds with you to France!

How's that pencil out?

An insightful point. I'm not sure if it is known, as most of these designs aren't even at the pilot stage yet. We can make some educated guesses, however.

Just because they involve much less movement of fuel and waste, thanks to more efficient usage, I suspect they'll have less of a carbon impact than existing pressurized water reactors per mWh. Likewise, most of these designs are more compact, requiring less concrete (and therefore fewer carbon emissions during the setting.) By using up existing fuel stocks, another major source of carbon emissions could be reduced.

Relative to a new coal plant, the energy per mWh (over the lifetime of the plant) should be less. Relative to wind, geothermal or solar it's tricky. Most solar technologies are quite environmentally damaging to produce. Both wind and solar require fairly broad geographic impact. Geothermal is probably about the best, but among the least generalizable of technologies.

The short of it? Conservation remains the best. After that, it rapidly becomes a wash.

Spoiler: manned space travel is never going to happen again

Current data from the National Center for Environmental Prediction (NOAA) is suggesting the Antarctic has a HIGHER sea ice area than the 1979-2000 mean. The Arctic is trending lower than the mean and the total sea ice (Antarctic + Arctic) is almost exactly equivalent to the 1979-2000 mean. See arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ for details.

Does anybody have a link to a similar dataset from the Envisat ASAR? That would be an interesting dataset to see.