Not to mention the waste associated with semi-conductors. Long term waste is not just a problem associated with nuclear. It is also worth mentioning that the major waste issues are associated with DoE weapon sites and not as much power sites.

I would also encourage other's to click on acidburnNSA's profile as this is where their expertise lies and they have written extensively (with plenty of links) on the subject.[0]

[0] https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html

That option doesn't exist in the US.

We have no permanent disposal facilities, not even in the planning stage.

https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear...

We do have a permanent disposal facility built, but congress chose to forbid its operation. This is a self inflicted problem: we don't have a permanent disposal facility because we refuse to use the permanent disposal facility we built.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste...

FYI, to the ready point, as Wikipedia notes: "The DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel at the Yucca Mountain Repository by January 31, 1998 but did not do so because of a series of delays due to legal challenges, concerns over how to transport nuclear waste to the facility, and political pressures resulting in underfunding of the construction."

The anti-waste-disposal crowd in the environmental movement feels exceedingly disingenuous.

The amount of goal post moving they've engaged in over the decades makes it clear that their actual goals are to prevent any waste disposal site from being constructed, rather than specific, actionable complaints.

Which is insane, from a net-benefit perspective, as the alternative is to leave nuclear waste dispersed around the country, closer to population centers.

https://www.wipp.energy.gov/ is one, though that's for government rather than commercial waste.

It's a matter of political will at this point.

The 2012 Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future report [1] literally said that:

"Ensuring access to dedicated funding – Current federal budget rules and laws make it impossible for the nuclear waste program to have assured access to the fees being collected from nuclear utilities and ratepayers to finance the commercial share of the waste program’s expenses.

We have recommended a partial remedy that should be implemented promptly by the Administration, working with the relevant congressional committees and the Congressional Budget Office. A long-term remedy requires legislation to provide access to the Nuclear Waste Fund and fees independent of the annual appropriations process but subject to rigorous independent financial and managerial oversight."

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20120807061024/http://brc.gov/si...

Unfortunately that doesn't quite solve the problem of getting waste from reactor to storage site.

Getting the waste to a storage facility is very easy. You put it on a semi trailer and move it to the storage site: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/avery-w2/images...

Nuclear waste is radioactive, but not so radioactive that it's unsafe to stand next to a container. Most waste is stored on site.

It actually doesn't make sense to move nuclear waste to permanent storage because some reactor designs can use this waste as fuel.

It’s not really much of a problem. You leave the waste in a cooling pond at the plant for a couple of decades while you wait for all the really threatening stuff to decay, and then drive it where it needs to go in a truck. It’s a bunch of big metal rods in canisters. It can’t really “spill” and if it does you just pick it up and put it back in the truck. Uranium and plutonium are really not very threatening to human life.

Besides the obvious NIMBY problems, are there any problems with sealed casks transported by train?

No. These things are tested to a VERY high standard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4