The glass vitrification is a waste storage/disposal method. This is not a means to control fuel spills in a meltdown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioact...
http://www.world-nuclear.org/informat...

The fuel is clad, but it is not possible to clad a fuel to stop its reactivity in the chain reaction supporting the basic reactor operation. The reactivity must be slowed (which happens naturally in a PWR) or the core must be spread out so that it does not reach a reactivity level to support sustained fission (critical). Spread out could include shielding/neutron absorption, which is what the water does in a PWR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_...
http://www.world-nuclear.org/informat...

They do make them like submarines (PWRs), but they want more kW/$ so they've moved away from the simplest (and most reliable features), and in some cases BWR and Breeders that are not as safe.
The main problem (if there really is one) is they don't operate them like submarines. Three Mile Island operated normally with yellow warning lights on. This is a big no no. Either there is a problem to respond to, or there isn't, what is an operator supposed to do with a warning? In Yoda's words "Do or do not. There is no try."

Vitrification (glass encasing) of spent nuclear fuel has been done for quite a long time at both the Savannah River Site (where it was literally done in the same building I used to work in the late 90's) and at Hanford. However, this is the first time I had heard of doing that with unspent nuclear fuel. Very clever.

I'm sure those experiments on unspent nuclear fuel are still classified.

2 to 3 years back I was listeniing to a radio interview with a British Nuclear Physicst talking about encasing uranium fuel in a glass matrix that could could withstand the heat in a reactor. If there was a melt down the encasement would render the uranium fuel inert. Once the fuel was depleted in the matrix would be easier to store and wouldn't need a cooling pool. But I haven't been able to find about any more experiments.
I don't understand why they can't build land based reactors like the ones used aboard submarines?

Older is safer. What new technologies are you referring to?

From what I can see from the pic's it looks like it the same old tecnology modernized. I Thought there would be a total change in reactor design from what the British engineering and using some of the reactor design from nuclear subs.

Agree. Dumb, but this is California where socialist-totalitarian-tree-hugging emotions govern, and logic is left out as too much trouble, and inadequately manipulable by the media and Hollywood.

And California just decided to close its only remaining nuclear plant! Dumb!

Nasty and hilarious!

Great news too bad it took 44 years to get it done.

Agreed. If one believes in global warming, nuclear is the only near term viable alternative. Next is diesel cycles or turbines on vegetable oil. Solar and wind are just stupid.

Separately, oil independence is the BEST form of terrorism control. Absolutely fundamentally the best.

We should be developing nuclear power as fast as possible instead of waiting 20 years between building plants.

The entire world economy runs on energy. That may be decreasing, but even if the Energy/GDP ratio fell to a tenth of what is now, energy demand will still increase as the population of affluent people on earth grows.

Burning stuff for energy stored in chemical bonds over millions of years is not sustainable. Plus the preponderance of the evidence shows it's hasting global warming and affecting the world in unpredictable ways. When the evidence for that became solid about 20 years ago, we should have immediately made it easier for people to build nuclear plants. Maybe LENR or geoengineering are coming, but right now they're wild theories. Nuclear energy is proven.

I work in this industry, and am pretty well read here. Not going to go look for your supporting data. If you don't want to present it, then drop the argument.

There is one overwhelming factor in longevity, more than diet, weight, exercise et al. That factor is genes. The rest is noise. No one in my family lineage has died before 90, and pretty active to the quick end. You have fun with raw veggies, and I'll stick with the demonstrated, successful omnivorous diet of my forebears and hope I got their good genes.

i flew jets for 40+ years...avg post-retirement life span for pilots is 18 months...female flight attendants have higher miscarry rates and lower birth weight babies (on average)...female pilots ground themselves immediately upon finding out they are pregnant...we absorb the equivalent of 6 xrays a month in radiation...many eye disorders...i have glaucoma, cataracts, and the start of macular degeneration...i am 14 years retired, but i am raw vegan...

i read many health articles and scientific jounals online...the info is out there...

Not sure I understand the questions. I don't know enough about thorium reactors to answer those questions either, but I recently read an article that Chernobyl had unexpectedly low radiation, and animals had recovered to the area much faster than expected. I'm personally not a fan of breeders because they have a positive temperature coefficient, and require action to make them safe when there is a problem, rather than inaction to make them safe.
Naval ships use PWRs which are inherently safe. Those sunk subs are just chunks of metal now, safer still because they are under water.

Clown state. Will be happy when the others shut off the water and power. The fruits and nuts can live in their carbon-neutral enclave, with no cars, food or deodorant. I bet no more iPhones come from there then.

Like I said, Lex Luther had it right!

Totally agree.

Must kill the White Whale!

That might be the best argument for those unstable things.

I missed the point of your note. Please ignore my forced servitude question.