Breeder reactors are conceptually cool but nowhere near economical enough to be a practical solution at present. Only two still exist in the world, and both are operated in russia - they were phased out for a reason.

Regardless, to run a breeder reactor you still need to separate out fission products from the waste, which we havent been doing since the 60's or 70's. The sensible thing to to with fuel is to reprocess it by PUREX/SANEX like we used to. But unfortunately we now have this giant build-up of screaming-hot unprocessed waste

Which one would you like me to pick? How about Iodine-129 with 15 million or so years?

Have you been reading Russian propaganda again? Breefer reactors. Next you'll be spouting the benefits of cold fusion for skin care.

True, however the fact that nuclear power has been around 70 years and we've still never been able to actually do this is a valid criticism. Even if the limited number of deep geological disposal projects all come online today, we'll still be generating high-level waste much more quickly than we can bury it

So, you know that all the existing waste in the UK isn't in the ground. It's been in temporary storage at Sellafield for decades. No plans to bury it just yet.

It is far, far more radioactive afterward.

After fuel has been in-pile for a full lifetime, it has fissioned, decayed and transmuted to the point where half the periodic table worth of radioactive isotopes have been produced and are all present in the same waste

So it's ok to handle radioactive waste... with a shovel?

Give that man a job! So, where are we going to store this utterly toxic material? If you bury it there's a chance it'll leak into the water supply. Maybe launch it in missles at at the moon?