And I'll stick to my original argument, that if the reactor runs for 20 years, but the waste takes 100 years for radioactivity to reduce to 'safe' levels, and you continue building new reactors for continuity, then you get a continual increase of waste and nowhere to put it.

However, compared to the millions of tonnes of radioactive waste from fission reactors currently produced, its definitely the preferred alternative IMO. I think they should spend huge bucks and get this technology going now. If there is a long term energy crisis and we need to build more nuclear facilities, we'll then have the option to build fusion instead of fission reactors. If I were them, I'd aim to have the technology ready to go in 25-30 years, not 45-50.