This article is pro-nuke propaganda.

1) "a new system that, when fully developed, would use fusion to eliminate most of the transuranic waste produced by nuclear power plants."

Technically true, but highly misleading and still dead WRONG.

2) "The invention could help combat global warming by making nuclear power cleaner and thus a more viable replacement of carbon-heavy energy sources, such as coal."

The teaser. No doubt when people like me object to it we are called environmental extremist anti-nuke Luddites and obstructionists because we are critical of all the "solutions" presented to us.

3) "fusion can be used to burn nuclear waste, producing energy and getting rid of much of the long-lived waste generated by nuclear reactors."

You cannot "burn" nuclear waste, especially not the extremely dangerous reactor fuel residues, because they consist of many different types of radionucleides. No single chemical or nuclear process could dispose of them all at one time. In fact, most of them cannot be neutralized at all, they must be stored away until they decay naturally.

4)...that uses transuranic waste as nuclear fuel. The fusion-produced neutrons augment the fission reaction, imparting efficiency and stability to the waste incineration process."

Total gibberish, transuranics can already be removed from wastes through chemical means (which is how Plutonium 239 and Uranium 235 is recovered for weapons and other fission devices). Neutrons from fusion could be used to utilize them as fuel once they are removed, but there is no pressing economic or technical reason to do so. It's the removal process that is difficult, dangerous and expensive. Besides, the fission products are not transuranics and they are the real danger. The neutron flux from the fusion reaction would also create new radioisotopes (still more radioactive waste) from the stable nuclei already mixed in with the fuel jacket and cladding surrounding the fusion reactor.

5) "First, 75 percent of the original reactor waste is destroyed in standard, relatively inexpensive LWRs. This step produces energy, but it does not destroy highly radiotoxic, transuranic, long-lived waste, what the scientists call "sludge."

This is all wrong. Waste is created in LWRs, not destroyed there. The 75% figure comes from years-long natural decay in the fuel elements AFTER they are removed from the reactor vessels and stored in cooling ponds. The transuranics are only a small part of the problem, and they can be chemically removed for weapons use in a proper waste reprocessing facility. The real killers are fission products, and these guys don't even mention them.
Fission products are the fragments of U235 nuclei that have fissioned (split) in the reactor, they can be any of a number of highly radioactive elements, each with different chemical and nuclear properties. Because they are different, they are difficult to remove chemically.

Sludge is the first step in the waste recovery process where this happens, where the metal-clad fuel elements are dissoved in acids so they can be chemically differentiated, it is the most dangerous material known to man, is produced by the ton, highly radioactive and chemically corrosive, and must be handled by remote control. After you've extracted everything of value from the sludge (transuranics, unused U235 fuel, inert U238) what is left over is the soup of fission products and other radioactive species which are the true waste. After you remove the acid solvent, the remaining precipitate is supposedly encased in glass solution so it can be safely (sort of) disposed.

6) "In the second step, the sludge would be destroyed in a CFNS-based fusion-fission hybrid. The hybrid's potential lies in its ability to burn this hazardous sludge, which cannot be stably burnt in conventional systems."

Wrong again, this system may be able to utilize transuranics for energy production (a good thing because it keeps them out of the hands of terrorists) but does nothing for the vast bulk of the dangerous stuff in the waste. Since this stuff, inert nuclei and radio isotopes, act as neutron absorbers, it must be separated from the transuranics before the latter can be used as fuel.

I'll be charitable and say these researchers have been deliberately misquoted and misrepresented here, for political reasons. The system as descrbed seems to me a good way to utilize the fissionable transuranics which can be extracted from spent fuel for energy production, and to deny them to terrorists or rogue states for weapons production. But the piece has been phrased and composed in such a way that it implies the waste problem is "solved" and totally ignores the fission products (highly radioactive pices of fissioned Uranium 235 and 238 nuclei which are what's left of the original chain reaction, plus stray inert materials which have absorbed neutrons and become radioactive. These researchers are probably going after a way of utilizing Plutonium (the reason Jimmy Carter banned nukes in the first place) but the rest of the nuclear waste problem has been swept under the rug.

A proper waste recycling program would extract the transuranics from the fuel and either store them under guard, put them in weapons, or use them as breeder reactor fuel (a process which is technically possible, but too dangerous to carry out on an industrial scale. We have known how to do this since the 70s, but have chosen not to because of its expense. If this device can handle transuranics, the Jimmy Carter objection is resolved, and we would be a step closer to nuclear power in this country. But we would still have the problem of reducng thousands of tons of incredibly dangerous sludge to glass cubes suitable for safe storage/disposal. The device as described here is essentially a Plutonium reactor utilizing fusion as a neutron source. A good idea, but not a magic bullet for the waste problem.

In my opinion, this article is a deliberate distortion of legitimate material in order to trivialize the nuclear waste problem, and to demonize those who are concerned about it. It's the sort of stuff those guys in skinny ties and crew cuts who used to hang out in airports in the 80s liked to hand out.

Don't blame the messenger, given proper safeguards, I personally support nuclear power, but shameless propaganda like this is one of the main reasons why the public no longer does. Nuclear power is one of the few things I actually know something about, and almost everything I read about it in the popular media, regardless of its political origin, is deliberately crafted to persuade, not inform. It's why I am so suspicious of "published facts".