UNDIE

...is probably the only one in this discussion who actually has any first hand experience with the subject at hand. He actually worked at a nuclear generating station. That being said, he pretty much agrees with Anj's Assessment. She is really only dealing with PROVEN After the Fact information, and past performance IS usually indicative of Future Results.
In the US, where the safety records are MUCH Better, these nuclear generators are extremely costly even if one takes out the price tag of dealing with the spent fuels. These fools are quite the profit-mongers, they ignore the facts that the "spent fuels" are still quite hot and could be used as a source of producing steam in a less efficient generation system. They seem to be overlooking many possibilities to be more cost effective while being more environmentally sound, and just going for the Big Bucks which are easier but much more risky.
There was a Canadian company that used a MUCH Safer Uranium Compound is a lower-level reactor, I remember the TV ads from several years ago. The music was "Funky Town" and it had simple animation showing the process. Never heard any more about that method or Company... Go Figure :P