This is just false. Annual nuclear wast in the US in volume is "roughly equivalent to less than half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool."

With more modern plants you could recycle that material and cut it down to a fifth the size.

Its a political problem, forced by dishonest actors

>still an unresolved issue

>This is just false

>Its a political problem

Touche

But I would still argue it's an opaque argument at best, more likely intentionally deceptive.

Le Monde (french) made a special Edition titled Atlas of Energy with a section on Nuclear power (and of course nuclear power waste).

There is an article from science.org about finland plan to bury its own waste.

https://www.science.org/content/article/finland-built-tomb-s...

Tell me about olympic swiming pool.

Monde Diplomatique made a documented article about France plan to bury its own nuclear waste in Meuse department...

It has been a clownshow, with fire incident lasting weeks because an elevator tire went to flame, necessity to run a water pump for the next 10.000 or 100.000 years (no joke) because the underground storage facility would be underwater after 3 days and will probably leak radioactive materials in the surrounding aquifere and will go back to surface after a few hundred years. In short, they have no realistic plan for long term storage.

There was also huge controvercy in germany about storage of nuclear waste in an old coal mine.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-takes-first-sma....

Maybe there is just an olympic swimming pool of radioactive waste in the US (I suppose so it's about 4000m3), but it is not the way you store it for tens thousand of years.