These kinds of studies tend to be pretty thorough. Perhaps you reject it because you'd have to learn you are mistaken as I did. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/20... I thought we would need storage temporarily.

Engineering degrees are usually masters and don't involve original work. The Chem PhD is a better qualification.

The BEVALAC, which I linked to, obviously could to the requires heavy ion acceleration in a compact configuration, So, it was your error, which you seem not to have realized, which is still misleading you.

Beam luminosity increases in response to detector capability. No big issue there. The Bevatron power draw has something to do with not using super conducting magnets as well. The main thing is that it is not big and can be run by a single graduate assistant on the night shift. Recall also that wind power sells for $0.025 per kWh and solar will come in below that soon. Don't forget also that the nuke nuts (oops fanbois) are always going on about how much the first step will reduce the mass of the waste. Don't be so worried.

Come on, the Bevatron could do this. You are getting all worked up over nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

Heavy ion colliders are built to much higher energy than this would require. Your sense of scale may be off. And, keeping a lid on the rate of transmutation keeps away from a meltdown. Seems like 30 years in better than 100,000 years.

Coal ash has the same uranium concentration as dirt. And neither have associated fission products unless the dirt has been contaminated by the Chernobyl accident or something like that. You can call natural uranium nuclear waste, but since we don't allow reprocessing of nuclear waste, you are stuck with CANDU reactors if you want to use it as fuel. I think you are being silly. Coal use actually reduces radiation exposure through dilution of carbon-14 in our diet. Not a good reason to burn coal of course.

OK maybe he is just not clear that leaving it alone means ending our use of fossil fuel. Sounded like he expected that to end when we do.

So unmined uranium is nuclear waste?

And yet it works. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/r... Perhaps this a forest and trees issue for you.

You've made an error there. http://www.engineering.com/Ele... But why must we run the accelerator when the sun isn't shining? Low cost solar power takes the edge off this.

That is precisely what I am suggesting. Your proposal still risks meltdown while the accelerator controlled system may avoid that. But it does not get all the fission products. For those, further fission through proton collision will do the trick. And yes, that costs energy. Notice we are not looking at neutron cross sections here. Heck, we could accelerate the fission products themselves and have them as both bullet and target. There's a smashing solution to the nuclear waste problem.

You claim uranium is nuclear waste?

Nuclear power is on the way out. It just can't get costs down and alternatives are getting cheaper and they will remain cheaper. The money to deal with the waste needs to be stockpiled now while there is still some revenue to tap. Just the opposite is happening however.

Nuke nuts are blinded by their strange love for nuclear power so they end up saying a lot of ridiculous things. That was one of them.