> And the best part of it, 95% of it can be recycled: That number is not actually supported by your source, as a matter of fact, your source points out that th

> And the best part of it, 95% of it can be recycled: That number is not actually supported by your source, as a matter of fact, your source points out that the US it not recycling any of the fuel at all. > Oh, but Germany has a storage for highly toxic chemicals in Herfa-Neurode with already over 3 million tons of waste Sorry, but I don't see the argument there? Just because there's already toxic waste, does not mean that more toxic waste wouldn't change anything. Or are you suggesting the nuclear waste should just be thrown into Herfa-Neurode with all the chemical waste? > Compared to that, Germany has only 11,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste. An amount that fits into a single hall. Germany also has quite a high population density, it doesn't have the luxury of large swats of unpopulated land where it could build it's "nuclear waste storage hall", and that's assuming that "just store it in a hall" is actually a good way to store it. If it really was as simple as that, then why did Finland spend billions on building their Onkala deep geological repository? Which is the only installation of that kind on the whole planet. Not even in the US a proper storage location has been found yet, as Yucca Mountain was not deemed suitable. The best answer anybody can currently give to that is "Just store it on site", which isn't a solution, it's the temporary band-aid for a rather permanent problem that's not actually solved. You can't just hand-wave that away by claiming it ain't a problem and allegedly never was.