Well, that's generally true, except the temperature of your bread will go negative if the tachyon flux is too high. I agree that having a toaster that risks vacuum collapse (no Higgs bosons required!) is unwise.

In other words, I have no idea WTF you mean and I think you're spewing word salad. :-)

As I write this, the charts about their magnet temperature are contradictory. The top one says the temperature of the warmest arc magnet is back down to 2 Kelvins, but the lower right one says the temperature of the warmest arc magnet is about 9.5 Kelvins. It almost makes sense if we assume that the numbers at the lower right are the maximum value observed over the last few weeks, but the maximum in the upper chart is around 8 Kelvins and the lower right chart says 9.5 Kelvins, so it's still not right.

The URL from The Register is: ht tp://hcc.web.cern.ch/hcc/cryo_main/cryo_main.php?region=Sector81

(I have no clue what an arc magnet is.)

I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor as a potential solution and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last the thousands of years it will take to use that fuel.

Please provide figures saying how long it would take to consume the existing supply of plutonium. The Wikipedia article about the IFR says 700 years for existing depleted uranium stores. Surely there's much more depleted uranium than plutonium?

Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because said technology (material sciences) are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel.

The Wikipedia article says the waste would have to be stored ~400 years. You don't have to store the waste in the reactor, of course.