I think stable isotopes can be moved safely enough. Otherwise, avoiding transportation is best. I looked up C22, and it is an alloy. Lonsdaletite is hexagonal diamond.

If only the President would look deep into Putin's eyes and see his soul. Everything would be hunky.

Running out of fingers is not the same as running out of numbers. Starting in 2009, that is at least six years.

China's state-owned reactor builder said the start-up of the country's first advanced nuclear project based on designs by U.S.-based Westinghouse has been delayed further until at least end of 2015 due to tougher safety checks. In an interview to official news agency Xinhua on Thursday, Guo Hongbo, a spokesman at China's State Nuclear Power Technology Corp (SNPTC), blamed the delayed start of the "third-generation" AP1000 reactor on stringent safety inspections after Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011. Originally set to start by end-2013, the project in Sanmen in eastern Zhejiang province was already delayed until December 2014. It has now been pushed back at least another year, after design changes and problems with some components. http://uk.reuters.com/article/...

Elections have consequences.

The basic answer on reprocessing is that it is a proliferation risk that should not be undertaken. Your issue about fissile content is a little mixed up since breeders have fertile blankets in some designs. Probably you'd want to reprocess to make those, but it isn't a fissile content issue.

I don't think a rail car design fixes a leaking cask so the effluent problem is a bit separate. Rail transport will lead to accidents that will probably lead to leaks unless the waste is really immobilized. So, I think we are still at the point "what" rather than "where." I'd just point out that on site transmutation is the most ethical approach to the waste issue. There may be cased where local hazards require transportation before that can be carried out, but short distances using very slow heavy hauling equipment might obviate the need for a train.

And, every effort put into nuclear power soaks up funds that could cut carbon emissions faster and deeper by other means. http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C...

The number of reactors peaked in 2002 http://www.worldnuclearreport.... but the power produced peaked in 2006 http://www.worldnuclearreport.... so a few decades may be too long to count for a decline. Market share has declined for a while now, but that does not influence the rate of uranium consumption.

Gen II Vermont Yankee is closing because it can't scare up a contract at $0.06/kWh. Gen III Hinkley C will charge $0.15/kWh, two and a half times as much. Going to Gen IV likely scales to $0.40/kWh. It is true that there is only about 85 years of uranium left at the current rate of use, but breeder reactors don't fix that.

All of these delays are teaching us how Gen III reactors work. At this point, a reactor can be built slowly if the buyer is willing to pay $0.15/kWh. http://www.westernmorningnews....

In a meltdown, "Recriticality also may be a concern if the control materials are left behind in the core and the relocated material breaks up in unborated water in the lower plenum." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... Neutrons were detected so perhaps you should revise your views. http://news.slashdot.org/story...

That's not what the neutron detector at the Fukushima plant gate says. You wrote "the concentration of fissile material is far too low for it to go critical" which is incorrect.