AFAIK, 2% is on the high side - I've seen figures somewhere that were more like 0.5%. That said, there's a still a rather massive gap between 2% and 98%, also because the resulting waste has a half life measured in hundreds of years, not the galactic times of standard fissile waste.
So, simpler mechanism with far less demanding safety measures and FAR better fail safe processes, supports non-proliferation as it doesn't cook up kaboom plutonium, easy to obtain fuel (because it's a "waste" product of rare earth mineral mining) which needs very little enrichment AND it gradulaly chews away at the mountains of existing nuclear waste because it needs some to start the reaction: I honestly cannot see why someone would want to run a uranium based reactor for power anymore. Maybe a small breeding one to create elements for Xray gear and (inevitable) the plutionium stuff for bombs, but for power, this seems to be so far beyond what we do at the moment that it would be insane to continue down that road.
Oh, wait. Unless you're the one making profit off the fuel and the waste management, of course..