[venk12]

Do you believe we have the technology needed to safely dispose nuclear waste without affecting the environment and future generations?

[yaantc]

Do you believe the possible threat of nuclear waste to future generations, considering our current waste management technologies, to be higher than the impact due to more CO2 generation by running electrical coal plants instead of nuclear ones? That seems a more relevant question to me.

There's no silver bullet, and pointing problems on one side only may help win arguments (maybe?) but is not so helpful when trying to find the "best" option. Which, in real life, usually means the less bad option. Warts everywhere...

[venk12]

Indeed, you are correct! Is there an 'impartial' governing body that has examined these two alternatives and determined the advantages and disadvantages of each? Or is there any relevant literature that focuses on simulating/evaluating these options?

[VHRanger]

Easily, yes. It's easy and safe to dispose of, and doesn't take much space at all.

Disposing nuclear waste effectively means putting it under ~3m of water in a place where people won't mess with it.

As of 2016, France has produced 14,000 tons of nuclear waste *in its entire history*. That's about 7 normal olympic swimming pools in total volume.

We have much bigger issues with other forms of waste, nuclear waste has always just been a scaremongering tactic for the anti-nuclear crowd.

[pfdietz]

Nuclear waste is also the issue the nuclear stans like to bring up, to propagate the falsehood that it is the issue that's holding back nuclear (so they can then correctly argue that it's not that big a problem, so incorrectly claim building more nuclear is a good idea.)

[kirrent]

Yes.