Foie lumineux. 
You win one Internet.
So what exactly is happening to the nuclear waste while your politicians keep pussyfooting?
We don’t generate all that much of it (we get a much smaller percentage of our power from nuclear plants than France, and probably less than India does nowadays). Mostly, it sits in temporary storage facilities at the plants that generate it.
How long would ‘temporary’ be?
“Temporary” means “continuous until we make a collective long term decision or else the materials become inert” or, I suppose, a Zombie Apocalypse distracts us from caring.
They have different political systems, specifically, they do not have a constitution specifically designed to make it very difficult to do anything.
Although, in this case, it should be said, it is not particularly the fault of Republicans versus Democrats gridlock (which is what prevents rational action - whatever your ideology tells you that would be - to fix the economy and national budget). The nuclear issue crosses party lines. As others have noted, it is local interests versus national interest (with the US constitution devolving a lot of power to localities, which works great for some stuff, not so good for others) and it is pressure group politics.
One thing to keep in mind is that the nuclear storage industry has a terrible track record. The Hanford site is just a mess. And not just the storage stuff from 60 years ago. Fairly recent tanks are leaking as well.
Storing nuclear waste is at the limits of our technology. It, in principle, can be done reasonably well. But the practice is a completely different story. People cut corners, mistakes are made, assumptions about materials and methods turn out false.
It’s not political to have concerns about the reality of storage.
What generally happens now is that spent cores, irradiated items, etc., are stored on site at nuclear power plants until a permanent solution is found. And since no permanent solution is going to happen soon, this is a bad thing. Really bad.
Storing the waste in a deep mine in solid mountain is far better than this. But, please, don’t expect it to be anywhere close to perfect. Is just a lesser of two evils.
Nuclear “waste” is stuff that has energy, but not enough to be practical to use with current technology.
It’s too hot to be safe in a pile of junk, but not as hot as we would like to feed into a generator.
Why not improve technology to utilize this “waste”? Not a high-density source, but neither is solar, wind or wave power. Them is piss-poor, even. Convert low-density waste into useful energy…problem solved!
Tell me why this won’t work. I’m all ears.
The nuclear waste mess is an example of how our brain-dead congress can screw things up. Yucca Flats disposal site is secure-it is in a 200 million year old formation, in land with no water. The stuff you seal in there will be secure forever. Harry Reid stopped the government from using the facility, to play his political games.
though as others have suggested, nuclear "waste"will soon be needed to fuel advanced heavy water reactors. Repeat after me, sealed in a concrete lined deep tunnel, how does nuclear waste threaten anybody? OK, lets keep storing it in above ground, unsafe structures…that is MUCH better!:smack:
Because the technology to use waste to generate electricity could also be used to produce material suitable for nuclear bombs, and that scares people.
Given the lack of reliable electrical power, clean water, sanitation facilities, and so forth in India, I’m not sure I’d look to that country as a shining example of governmental competence.
It’s a 200 million year old formation that’s over a fault line, so it’s not like Nevadans are entirely unjustified in being worried.