Nuclear Power?

The waste is not, technically speaking, "waste." It can be used to produce power. This would make breeder reactors a good deal, since they produce fuel as well as energy. The problem is, the fuel they produce is plutonium. Since plutonium can be diverted easily to weapons use, it's believed to be safer to consider it as waste. It could be used as fuel though, and burned down a level or two if that were considered an acceptable use. If I remember correctly, you eventually get lead for the most part. That assumes that you burn the fuel rather than letting it lie in the ground to decay, which you are correct in stating takes many thousands of years.

I'm no nuclear engineer but from what I understand you have to bury it very deeply, well below the water table, on the order of a mile or more and then mark the site with a form of sign language that future generations may understand. I think it was Sweden that dug a huge pit, thousands of feet deep well into the bedrock with channels running off to the side for storing nuclear waste. It is very costly initially but what else can you do with the stuff? Right now we are storing most of it above ground because no one nuclear entity wants to assume the expense. This is a good thing for the Government to take care of. I think nuclear energy is the only viable alternative that is capable of addressing our enormous energy needs and I think it can be done safely--maybe with a windfall profits tax?