On 01/11/2016 16:43, harry wrote:
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?
More bollix.
It's decommissioned when all components are permanently dealt with.
Which no-one has yet done. They just stash the award bits away.
Because they don't know how to deal with them.


We keep telling you that if you leave them alone they dispose of
themselves and it doesn't take millions of years like you claim.