bob haller wrote:
There are MANY solutions to the problem of nuclear waste (shooting
it into the sun, encasing it in molten glass and dumping it into the
ocean, pumping it into salt domes, shipping it to Nigeria, etc.).
The reason none of these has been implemented is because there is no
need to choose one. We'll simply wait until the need is urgent.

The longer we wait, the greater the chance an even better solution
will become clear.

No, the silliness of the anti-nuclear crowd, "We have no solution
for the waste", is a red herring.

nearly every option has large downside potential.

like shoot into deep space or sun, what of launch failures

breeder reactor reprocessing has issues of its own

any of these choices have astronomical costs involved,

Agree, but they ARE solutions which refutes the notion that there are no
solutions. Each of the difficulties you mention can be overcome - for
example, build the lauch facility in Sudan where no one of any consequence
would object. You are correct in that the process would be expensive -
that's another reason to wait.

Perhaps someone working in his garage could perfect a method for
concentrating nuclear waste, taking the spent fuel rods and condensing the
nasty bits to something that would fit in a mayonnaise jar.

My point still stands: There is no urgency to deal with nuclear waste today
and tomorrow may bring a better solution.