@BowsacNoodle @nugger @Ottovonshitpost @transgrammaractivist @jeffcliff I think like 90% of 'waste' can be reprocessed into plutonium and uranium, with 5% being relatively benign contaminants that are less of a health concern and mostly just have to be removed to make the fuel usable. The remaining 5% is both hazardous and can't be burned in conventional reactors and so would require some new form of reactor. The issue comes in that it's not economically viable to remove the 10% from the 90% (due in part to legislation, nobody's going to invest in new technology if it's going to be shut down in a year), so we just pull the plutonium from the waste and bury the uranium along with the 10% (minus some valuable isotopes extracted for medical use etc.)