That's nice and all, but "help reduce" doesn't really equal a "solution for waste storage", and does not change the fact that society, not the companies that built, run and extracted profits from these plants, will have to pay the costs (which we cannot even calculate as long as we don't even have a storage solution, which makes shrugging them off even more criminal -- yeah, maybe it won't be so bad, but we shrug it off because we'll be dead by then, not because we know, and that's rather weak at best, disgusting at worst).
In that wikipedia article you linked, Germany only occurs only once on that page, with a facility that has been out of operation since 1990 - WTF?
I made a mistake about Germany (my info was from an old article) - sorry, about that. I did mentioned that it is not commercially viable (it requires government subsidies). Keep in mind that nuclear power is the backbone of France's energy needs (78.8%). I am sure they create a lot of waste - we should at least look at what they are doing to reduce their waste.
I agree that reprocessing is not a long term solution. However, we do have a lot of nuclear garbage and every little bit counts. Repossessing will slow the growth of nuclear garbage.
Look at the amount that is recycled every year (paper, cans, bottles). Now imagine that in added to the current landfills.
Recycling/Reprocessing buys TIME (and so does electric cars, higher MPG, etc). The question is which will kill us first? Nuclear poisoning, climate change, or ourselves.
That’s kinda beside the point, you know. We already have all that waste. We already have to deal with it somehow. There is no avoiding it. So we might as well add to it.
In that wikipedia article you linked, Germany only occurs only once on that page, with a facility that has been out of operation since 1990 - WTF?