IIRC, the waste created by nuclear reactors can be recycled to the point of being almost negligibly small, and that if the dumbasses in power here in the U.S. would allow for the waste we have to be recycled like what others are doing, that alone could provide power for the entire country for some time(if we had enough reactors, of course). I think fission reactors are our best bet by miles right now, and that fusion reactors should be receiving all the R&D money it needs.
Currently there are active nuclear reprocessing plants only at 8 locations in the whole world: In Great Britain, France, Japan, USA, Russia (2), North Corea and India.
Why for example don't we build our own one in Germany? Well, they tried but failed in the effort. Partly because of the ridiculous costs and partly because the population ran amok against it.
Then there is the waste. Ok, it is less (2-3 % of the original mass) and easier to store. But "easier to store" in this case means it is
only dangerous for about 300-800 years (!). Great news, huh?
When you consider that they don't have a clue yet how to store nuclear waste safely
at all and that current attempts of "final storage" only lasted about 30 years, that advantage becomes rather irrelevant.
Also, what some may forget, the plants themselves produce new toxic waste, which is led into rivers or the sea. Ask the fishermen in Sellafield or La Hague for details. Greenpeace says it's dangerous but the factory owners say they keep within safe levels. But what is safe? Nobody knows yet. If you were cynical, you could say that the experiment on humans is not over yet, so it's difficult to tell where the danger begins.
Not really convincing, those pros, and the whole technology can only be economical, if there are hundreds of new nuclear power plants being built worldwide. Very likely in countries like China but nearly impossible in the Western world. Besides, lots and lots of new nuclear plants will mean the natural resources of uranium will run out in a few decades, maybe even before the whole technology starts to become profitable. Hmmm... tricky.
Then there is the problem that it can (and probably would) be used for making weapons of mass destruction.
And then there is the transport problem. The highly radioactive stuff has to be brought to the reprocessing plants and back. Usually by train and that means through highly populated areas. Talking about new targets for terrorists...
The whole nuclear industry has no future anyway. Best estimations on the current status quo say that the worldwide uranium reserves will last for the next 150 years or so (that is without any new plants).
So I really do not see the point of investing any more money into a technology that needs to be replaced in a few decades anyway and leaves a deadly heritage: Highly contaminated ruins.
Because storing the nuclear waste is an easybeasy and very cheap task, compared to what to do with the ruins of shut down nuclear power plants.
Future generations will already curse us for leaving behind the current plants...