Moosey,
Everything you just said is unfortunately wrong. I still believe you are part of the problem.
What I sent you from IPFM and Brookhaven includes waste produced from LWRs. Of course I knew this is what you were referring to; I sent along those documents to address that issue. On what basis are you assuming that my views only applied to fast reactor spent fuel? I gave you the documents that said otherwise.
As stated in the Brookhaven study:
"The spent fuel received as input to the facilities examined in this study can be received from light water reactors and/or from fast reactors."
I don't think you know much about MIT. It is one of the most corrupt places on the planet.
They certainly have some good scientists there, but they also have engineers who profit from the US defense industry with contracts to build mid-course strategic missile defense systems that don't protect American citizens. So, many at MIT are part of the problem. It's important to keep this in mind. It's just a corporation with its own set of financial interests.
Charles Forsberg is a nuclear engineer closely tied to the nuclear industry, so your respect for him (what is this based upon?) carries no weight with me. His views are tied to his financial interests. I'm pretty sure that he doesn't work for free.
I no doubt understand that this is a thread about laser isotope separation. I also believe it will be used. It just won't be used on pyroprocessed U.S. nuclear waste.
Regarding US nuclear waste, I honestly think you have no idea what you're talking about.
Exactly what problem are you referring to? The US can store its waste above ground in dry cask storage for approximately another 50 years. It has that time to find a solution. What part about this isn't true?
Also, when you are referring to nuclear waste management costs, that is not primarily related to US civilian nuclear waste costs. It's important to be clear about what you mean. The US had an arms race with the Soviet Union, remember? Those costs are dominated by nuclear weapons production facilities and military installations. Just how exactly is pyroprocessing going to help with that?
So, Moosey, I think you're searching for a problem here that doesn't exist. Or you've been the victim of some fake news. It's hear it's going around these days.
And I'm certain that the U.S. government will not indulge in your pyroprocessing superstitions.
Again, I ask you to be specific: What problem will pyroprocessing solve, and why will it not create another one?
We have waste storage, fuel supply, costs, and proliferation. It does not do anything to the waste storage issue, there is no shortage of uranium fuel, the costs will be higher because they are everyplace that attempts any sort of reprocessing, and there is the proliferation issue exacerbated (according to the Brookhaven report with LWR spent fuel) with alternative reprocessing technologies (COEX, UREX+, and pyroprocessing).
Given that your argument that successful prospects for Silex appears to rest upon the US government deciding to neglect all of this, I really question whether you understand what it means to know something.
I think anyone investing in Silex should only consider the uranium enrichment aspect, both in the natural UF6 supply market (Paducah) and the global uranium enrichment market (Wilmington).
The pyroprocessing thing isn't going anywhere, man. It's still bullshit.
Expand
(20min delay)