Consider that the final nuclear waste passively disappears after a few hundred years, whereas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not passively disappear in a few hundred years - it must be actively removed by plants, but the plants can't keep up with humans.
200 years ago the world was a very different place. I'm struggling to think of any building not including houses still used for their original purpose, from that long ago.
So while I don't doubt that we could build a structure that lasts 200 years, I doubt we could build some kind of continuously used industrial building without it becoming some kind of ship of Theseus. Now that in itself isn't necessarily a problem, except what about a war or something. Unlikely? Yes, but how many countries havent had any war on their soil in the past 200 years?
And I cant imagine a 2219 health and safety person green lighting the reuse of a 200 year old containment vessel for storing nuclear waste either.
Perhaps that's the answer. If waste is stored in a warehouse next to the seat of government, I doubt there will be short-cuts, neglect and cost savings to the same degree as say putting it on the Cumbrian coast.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/pal...
So yes there probably would be 'cost savings'
It's too vast to be useful for much, but it does illustrate that the columns and so on in most buildings you do use are not actually obligatory (it doesn't have any). It's a bit like those huge buildings for building space rockets and jet liners, except built hundreds of years before the people who invented those were even born.
Though I thought it was just the palace, ie the Victorian bit put up after the fire (I'm not helping my case here, am I?), that was falling apart.
In the UK theres still some covered market square buildings that still hold markets also.
http://www.endeavourcottage.co.uk/whitby-blog/whitby-marketp...
A) We'll solve it later (we should research fuel reprocessing, we have an urgency to act, etc.)
B) It's not really a problem (people don't actually die from radioactive waste, most nuclear plants have proven themselves safely managed, etc.)
Both answer sound like sweeping the dust under the rug. What happens when (not if) a catastrophe occurs? If a war breaks out, how can you guarantee the safety of all nuclear power plants around the world? If a country economy collapses, how will nuclear engineers get paid? If an epidemic of a deadly disease spreads worldwide, how many people can die before there is not enough people to safely operate a nuclear plant?
We cannot sweep this under the rug. Nuclear energy may be theorically cheap to implement, but the potential cost of an uncontrollable failure is too great.