Reindeargirl
I would agree that history demonstrated that reprocessing techniques were too expensive to continue. (In fact, the Obama administration ended a program earlier this year.)
But I would caution making a case 'against' - by simply extending current day assumptions about nuclear waste to fuel technologies into the future.

As said, we are in early days - and there are a number of different concepts being tested and developed today. And given our current stage of knowledge and experience (in a field that is still relatively young) I would say we need to consider new assumptions about what is cost effective today vs in 20 years.

We are 60 years into the age of nuclear energy and I would expect that breakthroughs will happen. (For most this won't be fast enough-- but as they say 'we've already made our bed') ADvances in computer simulation and materials science are already opening new doors for nuclear researchers to explore alt methods of tapping power.

Bill Gates made news last week at the TED conference when he highlighted his investment in Terrapower --- And there are dozens of projects being advanced around the world that look at novel methods of using waste fuel rods. (UT Austin is one example)

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

http://earth2tech.com/2010/02/15/terrapower-how-the-travelling-wave-nuclear-reactor-works/

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/a-new-way-to-trap-nuclear-waste-is-a-start-up-in-the-offing/

The idea of reprocessing spent fuel has been around for a long time, and its still a BAD idea. First of all, its INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE. In a struggling economy like ours, the last thing we need to do is spend the billions it will cost to rev up a reprocessing plant. The MOX plant they are building in SC is already millions over budget, and the first test of MOX fuel at Catawba ended with the assembly being removed prematurely due to fuel cladding problems. Reprocessing cannot be done edonomcially in the private sector, it will have to be a TAXPAYER operation, more nuclear socialism. Reprocessing creates stockpiles of Plutonium, which is what has happened in England, France, and Russia where they have been reprocessing for a while, uneconomically, and creating HUGE environmental problems. The French routinely dump radioactive liquid waste into the ocean over the protests of other European nations, and reprocessing has NOT NEGATED the need for a permanent repository, which the French have been unable to locate. . . There are so many problems associated with reprocessing its impossible list them all there. . . . Just a BAD IDEA and Carter was right to stop it.

America will going to have looming crisis if a solution is not found to reprocessing Uranium 235/98 (i.e., spent fuel). Today the spent fuel is housed on property at most power plants. Not only is this putting off a big problem tomorrow but will eventually lead to serious reprocussions should there be an incident at one of today's plants. Former President Jimmy Carter made a huge mistake by deciding not to open an already built reprocessing plant just before it was to go online (at a cost of 1B) back in 1980. Although his fears of terriorism were well founded, we see other countries performing this activity without incident for more than 40 years. Go Nuclear! It's about time we build more of this environmentally friendly energy sources, but we must also come up with a more substantial long term solution with the spent fuel.