...the uranium and thorium already (the latter dumped as a side product of lanthanide mining) is sufficient to provide all the world's energy demands, no oil, no coal, no gas, and far fewer lanthanides, is sufficient to supply all of the world's energy demands for many centuries) in a breed and burn scenario. Many of these types of reactors are in late stages of development, and I'm sure I've written about them many times.
I consider that a lot of these options for breed and burn type systems have yet to be seriously evaluated.
If you compare the concrete in used nuclear fuel canisters at a nuclear plant that has provided electricity for half a century with the concrete used to install an offshore wind farm that will be landfill within 20-25 years, while failing to produce as much energy as the nuclear plant, this while requiring a back up plant, you will appreciate that the mass density makes the concrete requirements for nuclear plants trivial by comparison.
It is not that nuclear power requires no mass, only that its energy to mass ratio is trivial compared to everything else.
As is the case with risk and loss of life, nuclear energy does not need to be mass free to be vastly superior to everything else. It only has be vastly superior to everything else, which it is.
I could go on indefinitely about this point, but I hope this short answer suffices.
= new reply since forum marked as read
