I am not an expert but many seem to consider the increased handling risk related to the toxicity and activity of plutonium and other products, especially considering terrorism, and also the risk for weaponizing the enriched plutonium.
I think you will agree there is no reason why we need to throw away 95+% of the fuel that is left in high level nuclear waste and bury it in the ground for thousands of years. There are better options.
>...I am not an expert but many seem to consider the increased handling risk related to the toxicity and activity of plutonium and other products,
I agree that nuclear waste needs to be handled carefully.
>...especially considering terrorism, and also the risk for weaponizing the enriched plutonium.
There is very little terrorism risk from nuclear waste. The weight, size and danger of high level waste means it would be beyond the capability of terrorist group to take advantage of it. Other sources of power have much, much more of a risk from terrorism.
>....also the risk for weaponizing the enriched plutonium.
None of the nuclear states got their start by using nuclear waste from a commercial reactor. This wasn't a coincidence - it is much easier to get nuclear fuel by using a special purpose reactor or enriching uranium.
But I agree; Coal is not the future. Either.