With containment techniques combined with the ridiculous amount of uninhabited desert the US has, this is a non issue.
(But of course "waste" is not really waste, it's fuel spent for a few per cent; a breeder reactor + reprocessing should burn it again and again and again.)
https://www.power-technology.com/analysis/managing-nuclear-w...
Yes, short term they manage it.
When we are discussing the future, our concern is long term.
If we could build the nuclear reactors now, keep the spent fuel (whether or not we're going to reuse it in breeder reactors) as safe as we know how, and solve the long-term problem later, then we'd have a much better chance of there being a later to worry about.
People proposing nuclear energy as this wonderful overlooked strategy are not consider why it's consistently self limiting.
It's not a "solved" problem inthe long term
Having said that, dry casks are a perfectly cromulent way to deal with spent fuel.
The question of how to dispose of nuclear waste - in a manner that is satisfying to the residents of the state where it is being disposed - remains an unsolved issue in the US. And the current policy is to basically just ignore the waste. It’s being stored for the time being at reactor sites in steel and concrete casks - which I don’t think anyone would argue is a sufficient solution.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste...
> in a manner that is satisfying to the residents of the state where it is being disposed
No, that is basically NIMBY. Of course some residents won't like nuclear waste buried underground, 100 miles from them in a place they'll never go and where no one lives. I don't know how to not sound callous about that.
We do this all the time.
People object to living next to the airport. They object to new roads. They object to schools being built, rail lines, bus stops, even hospitals.
Yet, we weigh the pros for society against the cons for specific people. That's why we have a country with any infrastructure. If we simply gave in whenever someone said no, we would all be dead in an empty field.
As someone else says, "People object to living next to the airport. They object to new roads. They object to schools being built, rail lines, bus stops, even hospitals."
Where I live, the old Orchard Supply store is being turned into a Costco. There are people objecting to that, too.
I have little doubt the NIMBY's are recalling one or more of these incidents.
And this is just limiting the scope to power plant related waste. If you talk about industry in general you have many decades of weird cancers and nonpotable tap water in various parts of the country. The lack of trust comes from precedent.
Treat nuclear the same way. Don’t ask towns to host nuclear facilities out of the goodness of their hearts. Make it worth their while.
If nuclear power starts raising real estate value, the NIMBYs shut up.
The nuclear industry doesn't generate the money for that kind of lubrication; they demand more subsidies and immunities than they already have to build anything as it is.
But that was the problem with Yucca - it was chosen exclusively for its “scientific” value - remoteness. They didn’t event take transportation costs into account.
If you start with the political aspects, it becomes really, really easy to solve.
How many towns and cities are there with plants shutting down? How many with a history of military and nuclear facilities?
I know one town in particular that is trying to specialize in nuclear work. They have consultants, training programs, etc. Why not call them?