What answer? You gave a few links to wikipedia with zero analysis to support it. You claim shit like "obviously we can get some energy back from the steam turbines too" without actually knowing and showing that doing so is feasible.
Look, it's really simple. Give your best case analysis for what you propose to do. No links to wikipedia and vague statements like "seems your main technical objection is being worked out with a 780 KW beam for spallation". Tell me exactly how you propose this to be done and how that adds up quantitatively. How much power, in what accelerators, how much would such a system cost and how would you propose we construct it. No more evading. Talk to the point.

Because you're being so disingenuous. Any time I show you how wrong you are using very basic mathematics, you just change the subject, or make a new equally outrageously wrong claim.
Anyhow, now that you're finally making claims which are at least vaguely quantitative and testable, we're at least getting somewhere.

First off, I hope you meant beam current, not luminosity (since that's a property of accelerators with detectors), since that's the property that actually tells you the number of particles in the beam and therefore how many nuclei you can affect. Second, the rate at which you do it doesn't change the total energy investment needed, it'll still cost about $20bn/ton. Oh and how much such a large number of facilities would cost to build and operate is a whole other matter. Oh and the transmutation products might still very well produce a significant amount of decay heat, so you'll have averted exactly zero risks of meltdown (though this depends on the details of your proposal).
But go ahead, present your detailed numerical analysis. Perhaps you have some amazing physical insight that makes this all wonderfully efficient, safe and sensible.

Shut up it is then.

The MEGAPIE accelerator you linked gives tops ~1mA of current and substituting tritium for protons lowers that by about a factor 3. I'll spare you the numbers, but in effect, to consume 1 ton of long-lived fission products this way would take on the order of 50000 years to the tune of some $20 billion per ton just for the power needed to run the system. If you think this is even remotely practical, you're an idiot. And this is the absolute best you can do, ignoring all practical issues of handling large quantities of radioactive tritium and fission products, chemical SNF separation, Tritium's limited half-life (so the need to regenerate it), cooling requirements, physical arrangement, etc.
The reason MEGAPIE was built and your crazy fission-product incinerator wasn't is because the guys at CERN are actual scientists and you're just an Internet armchair expert.

WHAT THE FUCK. I have no understanding? When it is you who can't show the first thing about anything quantitatively and just deflects from the topic? You're like a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You're so overconfident in your statements, yet when pressed, can't support any of them with hard data. All you can do is google stuff you vaguely half understand, ignoring all practical problems with it, forgo any and all mathematical analysis and declare victory.
I'm done. If you post your mathematical analysis of such an incinerator system, I'll respond. Anything else, I'll ignore.

I didn't agree to look up numbers, I wanted you to support your claims with actual calculations, even if only in the ballpark region, by letting you present your best case. This isn't a 20-questions type of thing where you interrogate me on what I think is workable. It's you laying out your case and presenting factual data to support it and since this is hard science, it better be quantitative. More and more I'm beginning to think that you can't do it, so you're just running your mouth, diverting attention and changing the topic. I this paragraph written up showing you how using the MEGAPIE accelerator to do the task you propose (radiocesium destruction by tritium acceleration) was silly on its face and how even trivial calculations show that it's just not practical, but I'm not going to do your work for you.
We have this saying in science: put up or shut up. So which is it gonna be?

Please stay on topic. I'm beginning to think you actually can't produce the numbers to support your claims.

1. I wasn't the one that calculated that
2. If the speaker disagrees with the assumptions, challenge the assumptions rather than resorting to an argument from authority.
Must can be wrong and has been wrong. Most likely though we're not getting the full scoop in the story here. There's probably a load of caveats and detail to their plan that cannot simply be boiled down to a simple marketing snippet. Unfortunately, that's how marketing works.

So what are the numbers on that?

So what are the numbers on that?

Say what? You mean NIF? That's a completely different facility utilizing completely different physics to achieve a completely different outcome.
Anyway, let's get back on track. I await your numerical analysis of the feasibility of destruction of nuclear waste by particle accelerators (your original claim, no goalpost shifting to lasers or any other tech). Here's again what you said:

Support these claims with numbers.

I eagerly await your analysis and I hope, again, it's going to be quantitative, not just a bunch of handwavy statements linking back to source material that doesn't actually support your case. As for laser transmutation, the best I can find is some really early research on possible 129I transmutation, but the results being achieved there are so far removed from being practical, that I think fusion power is going to come around before that (e.g. transmuting a few hundred atoms per laser shot, one shot being only possible once every few minutes with lasers of state of the power density - this is a very long way away from being practical).

Go ahead, run the numbers on that. By my estimation, $1bn at ~$0.07/kWh (industrial rate) and an average 2400MWh consumption a day would buy them over 15 years' worth. Meanwhile, the cost of covering 1/2 of their roof (gotta leave some gaps) at a 10% capacity factor with panels at $1/W would cost ~$130M and would provide all of ~13% of their yearly demand. If you extrapolate to 100% of their yearly demand, the cost of such a solar installation comes to around $1bn. And that's before you get to storage. Even adding something modest like 1 day's worth of storage in batteries at $100/kWh inflates the cost to $1.25bn without even talking about power electronics, environmental conditioning systems and actually building a functioning system out of it (rather than just a warehouse full of cells). Add even modest amounts of storage, like 3-4 days and the whole cost structure spirals wildly out of control.
Like you said, they'll stay firmly connected to the grid, use its generation capacity for bridging the times when their own solar & wind will be useless and then sell the surplus back at a nice fat feed-in rate, IOW everybody else on the grid will subsidize them. Meanwhile, greenwashers like yourself will keep posting BS articles about how "green" the factory is, smugly feel you've done enough for the environment, while CO2 emissions will not really decline very much and the atmosphere will again take one for the team.

FTFY. Simply because he's correct on some things, doesn't mean he's infallible.

Yeah I know it exists :) I was just demonstrating that the technology already exists. The prospect of a true hypersonic missile would be to stay inside the atmosphere, relatively close to the ground, yet provide the capability to strike a target a short-to-intermediate range (<1000km, probably way less) with little to no over-the-horizon warning time. Something like the P-800 Oniks (which can reportedly do M4+ over a distance of ~100km), just much faster.

Yeah, I'm aware of the problems with corrosion of high-temp lead, though this can somewhat be kept in check by limiting the temperature (it hurts efficiency, but might be worthwhile - really depends on the design). It really comes down to materials science and like you say, research on lead cooling has been thin so far. I'd love to see a lot more open-access research in this area.
As for sodium cooling, it has its own problems, but AFAIK it doesn't react explosively in air. It can burn, but if I understand it correctly, the reaction isn't exothermic, so it'll quench itself quite rapidly. Now water is a different story. A sodium-cooled reactor in a potential flood area (ahem, Fukushima Nr.1) is about as dumb an idea as I can think of. Fortunately, the improved thermal efficiency gives you some more leeway to run pumps and pump the water up a hill (like reactors #5 and #6 at the Fukushima Nr.1 plant, which were largely unharmed by the tsunami which totally devastated their lower-sited siblings).

I'm not a fan of light water reactors either, but you need to understand that the public isn't aware of the details and intricacies of reactor design. To them terms which make an engineer cry happy like a little girl, don't mean anything. I mean FFS most of them still think nuclear reactors can explode like atom bombs. They saw Chernobyl and Fukushima, they saw "boom", it's a nuclear reactor, therefore "nuclear boom".
I also think and hope education can change that, but that's a long road ahead and TRU-burning BWRs could work in the interim to help jumpstart that (since we already have them).