This is such a misguided argument. Amount of nuclear waste is so negligible compared to common waste, it doesn't deserve to even be argued about. Not only that, but today's nuclear waste in couple of decades could become a treasure for next generations. Discussion should be: we either develop new energy sources or we don't. Either works for me, but if you don't want to go on with progress, then shut up about climate change and stop calling yourself progressive

The proliferation concerns probably got worse. I wouldn't invest in this in the US unless there was like a constitutional amendment saying we can reprocess.

We're actively building new nuclear weapons anyway, I don't see how reprocessing changes any of that calculation?

The investors didn't put money toward it because it had no economic foundation. Uranium is too cheap, enrichment became cheaper, and separated plutonium has negative value. The French have admitted their reprocessing was net more expensive than not doing it.