"harry" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 1 November 2016 11:43:07 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 11/1/2016 9:11 AM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 31 October 2016 21:37:18 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 10/30/2016 3:01 PM, harry wrote:


Noboby knows how much a reactor costs to decommission.
It's never been done.

We only need one counterexample to show that this statement is false.
Here's one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippi..._Power_Station

They take them apart and leave most to fester and store the rest
away.
But not permanently dealt with.
No-one knows how.


Fiction.
What happened to the nuclear fuel?

You said decommission. That's what's been done.

The technology for transmuting the actinides
from reprocessed fuel is trivial.

If the technology is trivial why isn't it being done?

It is.

More bollix.

Your sig is sposed to be last with a line with just -- on it in front of it.

It's decommissioned when all components are permanently dealt with.

And that is the case with the used fuel rods.

Which no-one has yet done.

Lie after lie after lie.