Hey Deep Blue, James Lovelock -the creator of the 'Gaia Hypothesis' addressed your concerns in terms of pure bulk.
Whereas Carbon sequestration would require storage in terms of cubic kilometres, depleted fuel rods require storage of only a few cubic metres.
You would have to say the logistics are favourable. Also, recent evidence from Chernobyl tends to indicate that the natural world is far more resilient when it comes to radioactivity than anyone ever imagined.
I'm not a great advocate of nuclear energy, mind you; although immensely abundant, uranium is still a finite and irreplaceable resource. In a society that prays so fervently (at least in lip service) to the great god 'efficiency', to use up irreplaceable resources when they are so many replaceable ones, is just dumb.

n a society that prays so fervently (at least in lip service) to the great god 'efficiency', to use up irreplaceable resources when they are so many replaceable ones, is just dumb.

Yes grim... I agree. Its all been done backwards, and in the end solar-power and such will replace the finite situations. The new tec's are in the pipe-line as we speak. But at the moment.....the band-aid game with all what the earth has will just have to continue.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nce.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fenergy%2Ffirst-nuclear-store-is-on-track%2F8603522.article&rct=j&q=first%20nuclear%20store%20is%20on%20track&ei=hBjfTPqPBYu4vgPzovnzDg&usg=AFQjCNGrOK3W_1SoO3HMYr9hkaLbo9ZGVQ&cad=rja

And then we have

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnuclear-news.net%2F2010%2F11%2F03%2Fdangers-weapons-spread-and-mounting-unsolved-problem-of-nuclear-wastes%2F&rct=j&q=%20Nuclear%20waste%20storage%20dangers%202010&ei=3hnfTP6AG4HuvQOq8MXjDg&usg=AFQjCNEc6QsVPOFXkpXoHfmNaO02HUfDRg&cad=rja

and

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.greenpeace.org%2F~comms%2Fno.nukes%2Fwaste01.html&rct=j&q=%20Nuclear%20waste%20storage%20dangers%202010&ei=3hnfTP6AG4HuvQOq8MXjDg&usg=AFQjCNHoQWKJXlzINsiqXbwTE5dMtsy3wg&cad=rja

These are some of the things Iam reading. Its a little disturbing because the reasons that nothing can be guaranteed.

However, thanks for the information.

I'll look at it more closely.

Thanks

BLU

"1...In the long term, can the spent-fuel-rods and tailings etc, be safely stored for all time?"
-Deep-Blue

Before I answer your question, I'd kust like to say that I feel the stipulation 'for all time' is rather unreasonable, given the countless other industries that generate toxic waste (the non-radioactive kind, i.e. the stuff with an infinite half-life, that never decay into less toxic substances) who are not required to ensure that their waste is stored safely for all time, merely to take appropriate measures to prevent environmental contamination.

In answer to your question: high-level waste (the really nasty stuff that everyone worries about) can be safely stored until its radioactivity has decayed to very low levels (i.e. comparable to background levels). The non-radioactive toxins will not decay, as I said before.

"2...And what are their plans that include the concerns of the environments since ground water contamination and earth movement are always an on-going event?"
-Deep-Blue

First, you wrap up your waste really well. There a few methods for achieving this: vitrification (not so great), synroc and copper encapsulation (both quite good). Then you dump it. There are a few promising methods for doing this. In my opinion the best is making use of subduction trenches - ocean trenches where one tectonic plate is sliding under another. You drop the waste into a subduction trench, where it is forced down into the Earth's mantle, completely and safely removing it from the biosphere. The only downside is that there are treaties and agreements which prohibit dumping into the ocean.
to be continued...

...continued
The option most considered is underground dumping. This should of course be done in geologically stable site, of which there are plenty in the world - Australia currently holds the record, with rock provinces in the northwest of the continent having been dated at nearly 4 billion years old. Earth movement may always be ongoing, but it doesn't all move at the same time or the same rate. There are plenty of suitable sites where tectonic activity is not of concern.

When discussing underground waste disposal it is encouraging to look at the case of the Oklo reactor - a natural nuclear reactor in Africa which dumped its waste about two billion years ago. The fission products from the uranium were formed in the presence of flowing water, which would have removed the radioactive gases and some of the more soluble species. Most of the other fission products remained within the reaction zone. This fascinating case study suggests that groundwater will not be as big a problem as envisaged when disposing of high-level waste.

"As to "it just is more expensive" you're basically suggesting that having a cake and eating it (to total depletion) is less expensive than having a cake, eating it and still having your cake."
-Grim

No, I was making a statement of fact: renewables are more expensive than non-renewables. That's why you pay more on your electricity bill if you go for the green power option (well, that and profiteering by electricity providers). They're not necessarily more expensive, which implies that one day they might not be more expensive. Logic... why don't they teach logic in these schools?

"Do your 'logicians' find this logical?"
-Grim

They're not my logicians - they're everybody's, and we can all benefit from their wisdom. And they devote themselves to a nobler pursuit than economics.

"They're not my logicians - they're everybody's, and we can all benefit from their wisdom. And they devote themselves to a nobler pursuit than economics."
According to dictionary.com:
"Economics- the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind."
Which nobler pursuits are you referring to, Riz?
Perhaps trying to justify the logic that a-b=0, > a-b=a?
The only reason fossil fuels are 'cheaper', is because they are massively subsidised -by us. In 2007, the US spent $44 billion protecting middle east oil fields. Their allies probably threw a bob or two into the tin also.
How much have they spent on the military acquisition of Iraqi oil fields?
And I have already pointed out, not only are fossil fuels massively subsidised, they are also massively under costed, as people yet to be born can't bid in the marketplace.
And the people who can, obviously don't care about the people who can't.

"According to dictionary.com:
"Economics- the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.""
-Grim

Yeah, quoting sources who are demonstrably incorrect doesn't actually help your case much. And dictionary.com is demonstrably incorrect, as economics is not a science.

"Which nobler pursuits are you referring to, Riz?"
-Grim

Umm... logic, Grim. I rather thought that that was implied by the term 'logician'. My copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines logic thusly:
Logic: 1. The branch of philosophy that treats of the forms of thinking in general, and esp. of inference and scientific method.

Sounds pretty noble to me.

"Perhaps trying to justify the logic that a-b=0, > a-b=a?"
-Grim

Firstly, this is a mathematical expression. Mathematics and logic are close bedfellows, and laymen like yourself may not always appreciate the difference, but logical expressions don't really have any need for zero - that's something mathemeticians worry about.

Even as a mathematical expression it doesn't make sense. "a-b=0" makes sense, but "> a-b=a?" makes no sense. This symbol: > means 'greater than', but your expression doesn't have anything in front of the >. If you meant nothing, you should have typed 0.

"The only reason fossil fuels are 'cheaper'..."
-Grim

Is completely beside the point. The point is that fossil fuels are 'cheaper'. And that no amount of sagely elucidating the reasons for their 'affordability' will make them any more or less 'expensive'. Logic... why don't they teach logic in these schools?