There’s 90000 tons of nuclear waste waiting for disposal around the US. And every proposal in the last 60 years has been rejected

https://www.gao.gov/mobile/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_...

That number is potentially misleading. Only a small portion of that waste is high level waste, like fuel. 90% of that does not need to be stored for 1000 years.

Once you look at waste, most of nuclear waste is not 'waste', and some countries like france and Russia use chemical reprocessing to separate long lives waste from unburnt fuel. That gives a further >90% reduction.

What you are left with is a small amount of High level waste, that can be stored in deep repositories like sweeden is doing. That's a permanent solution, because we know that bedrock has not moved for 10s of millions of years.

To downvoters: it's a waste of time to discus nuclear waste without realising that 95% is the original fuel and only 1% of it is the actual long-lived waste.

Is there something in the tone of my comment you are unhappy about?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/TCWrO7OFt4I/AAAAAAAAIF...

Yep, that's more like 30 barrels high. The parent's point still stands though - there isn't that much of it.

If it is so simple, I wonder why the problem takes so much discussion to be solved...

That is actually the hint it isn't a problem. It is being treated as though it isn't a problem and that is working.

If it were actually a problem, someone would have to do something about it. The volumes are so small they can simply be stored in an ad-hoc matter.

It is a mystery why people get so fixated on the waste. It is very hard to articulate a problem apart from the fact that it goes away eventually (unlike most waste which sits there pretty much forever). We produce a lot of dangerous substances; nuclear waste isn't the worst of them.

Because there's little reason to solve it right now. The amount of waste is low enough and technology advances so quickly that we're better off putting this decision off. There's a good chance that some of the waste could be used as fuel itself in the future. There's also a good chance that a century from now, we can build a much better permanent storage facility than right now.

Because of the irrational fear of nuclear.

The waste is irrationally still radiating for 10.000 years? A reactor might be safe in some sense, but the waste certainly is not.

I mean, the chemical waste from photovoltaic production is also still poison for 10,000+ years - lots of heavy metals and other nasty shit there. But we don't seem to be quite so afraid of it...

Obviously nuclear waste is dangerous, but it's still safer for the planet than the massive amounts of gasses emitted to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. As opposed to radioactive casks, these gasses cannot be contained deep, deep under ground forever, they can only be released to change our environment in ways neither we nor the nature are prepared to deal with.

I'd rather manage nuclear waste in a remote site for 10000 years than needing to build up a permanent desalination effort to keep mankind supplied with drinkable water.

Don't forget that there are already nuclear waste sites that are managed by the government. It's just a small operational cost for today's governments.

There doesn't seem to be a believe that governments will be around for 10000 years to keep this managed securely. But honestly, if society deteriorates to the point it can no longer organize a government, a few highly radioactive spots on earth are not going to be a huge deal.

Nuclear waste facilities also have nice economies of scale in the sense that a single site's incremental cost of storing an additional ton of nuclear waste is negligible. So unlike global warming, you're not saddling the future generations up with a massive bill.

What percentage of the waste is radiating for 10000 years? And how radioactive is it? Without facts, precise facts to back it up your statement looks irrational indeed.

A location has already been found and selected, but the Democratic Party has single-handedly blocked it for decades to win Nevada votes through a cycle of misinformation whereby they have convinced votes that Las Vegas will somehow be at risk if the approved repository, Yucca Mountain, is used.

It's an indictment of double think that the party which believes we will all die from climate change (rightly) is also the party that has made sure the one power source we have that could have saved us in the last 70 years wasn't used.

Had we voted republican across the board in the 1960s we could have solved climate change without ever talking about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace

Noor II CSP is a 600GWh solar plant which is 2.6 square miles or ~1700 football fields. That's space permanently lost if the powerplant is run forever. A nuclear waste dump is tiny in comparison. Land use of solar is gigantic.

> That's space permanently lost if the powerplant is run forever.

Many Australian farmers who lease their land to electricity companies for use as solar farms run sheep on those same solar farms.

Since the solar panels track the sun, grass grows under them and sheep being small enough to fit under the panels are perfect at keeping that grass under control.

So the farmer actually gets two incomes from the one field.

>> Since the solar panels track the sun

Really? Such tracking systems do exist, but outside of CSP they are generally not economic. I would be surprised if many PV solar plants in Australia use tracking motors.

Not to say grass won't grow under static panels. I have no idea about that.

It does. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPTetKHb7Yw

Open pit brown coal mining destroys bigger areas in irreversible manner. Solar plant at least doesn't exhaust.

I think everyone here wants to move away from fossil fuels. The discussion is bout what to move to next.