I actually did produce a technical solution: stick it deep in yucca mountain and forget about it. It's safe, and there's more than enough room for the little waste that can't be turned back into fuel.

▲

awesome_dude 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not.

The time frame we are talking about invalidates the "safety" because the earth's crust moves and warps, which allows water to access that sort of storage

▲

zdragnar an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The Earth's crust will take far longer to move yucca than the nuclear waste will be a problem. That's the whole reason that site was chosen. Even Yellowstone isn't set to blow on that time scale.

▲

protocolture 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why dont you suggest what "safe" looks like, and we can discuss your understanding of safety. Its clear to me that the issue is your standards and not actual waste disposal.

▲

awesome_dude an hour ago | parent [-]

My understanding is that this material remains toxic to life for thousands, to tens of thousands of years.

Safe means that it's stored such that there's no harm to the environment for that lifetime.

In all "bury it" scenarios, the place where the waste is buried will be subject to change resulting in water, air, able to interact with that waste when normal tectonic and erosion processes do their thing.

	▲	anonymous_user9 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Tectonic and erosion processes take place over millions of years, so they aren't an issue for waste that's only dangerous for tens of thousands of years.