[_delirium]

It can be stored safely, but so far a good waste solution hasn't been implemented, at least in the US. With the cancellation of Yucca Mountain, the current "interim" long-term storage plan is basically on-site dry cask storage scattered everywhere. The spent-fuel pools are an even bigger mess. Many of them are filling up, and fuel isn't being transferred from them to longer-term storage even when it could/should be, because operators want to reduce costs.

I don't think many experts are that happy with the current spent-fuel story. They vary in why they're unhappy, ranging from environmental worries (more common on the left) to theft/terrorism worries (more common on the right). But overall there is just way too much nuclear waste hanging out in suboptimal interim storage.

[zxcdw]

A non-US citizen here, so I have practically no understanding of the politics related to US nuclear power.

However, the Wikipedia article for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository seems to mention that the cancellation was for political rather than for technical reasons. Wouldn't this imply, that the opposing forces aren't technological, but rather political? As in, if there's will, the problem can be at least partially solved?

[_delirium]

Oh, no disagreement there. I don't think there is in principle a problem with safely storing nuclear waste, in the sense that it would be technically impossible to do it or anything. The problem is that in practice the current solution is to have a bunch of it hanging out in "interim" storage that is not really well planned or designed as permanent storage. That's mostly a political problem, and secondarily an economic incentives problem.

[sliverstorm]

It's yet another example of the brilliance of the American public when it comes to power. Shut down the nuclear plants! (spin up coal plants instead). Block Yucca Mountain! (pile up spent fuel in short-term storage instead). So on and so forth.

[BrandonMarc]

It's yet another example of the brilliance of the American politicians when it comes to power.

Fixed that for you. Coal plants aren't doing so well, either. President Obama has stated many times a major policy goal is to destroy the coal industry - lack of viable alternative not mattering.

Regarding storing spent fuel only in temporary ways, that's just a sad artifact of neither side being able to agree on any long term solution, so no real long term solution gets implemented, and the can gets kicked down the road. It's lunacy not to face reality.

[joe_the_user]

Coal, oil and gas kill quite a number of people today, invisibly and at-semi-random. Say X people die.

If you had a power source that killed X/100 people. But to implement that power source, congress would have to introduce a bill in which every single person who had to die was named.

Could that power source be implemented in any democracy?

(not to say nuclear is exactly like this, just to say nuclear has a bit of this kind of problem and this kind of problem is very hard to solve)

[Daniel_Newby]

The trouble is that $4/gal fuel and an endless series of petro wars barely moves the needle on solving the political problems. Be afraid of any force that makes nuclear power look sensible to Americans.