Then we can talk abou lift capacity. That big honking huge Saturn V engine was needed to get that teeny lunar lander to the moon, and the command module into orbit.

None of that stuff was all that heavy, and you are talking about tons of material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

I wouldn't take the waste to the moon. I'd send it toward the Sun. It doesn't have to get there anytime soon. Just get there. Aim it up from the solar system plane so that it doesn't hit Venus or Mercury, but not far enough that it escapes from the sun. Done and done.

And if we ever figure out something constructive to do with all that stuff, go get it again!

You give hyperbole a bad name. We are not drowning in waste. The plants currently operating are reliable (most have been running over 30 years) and how do you propose to replace the electricity lost by shutting down nuclear plants?

The Fukishima plants were a disaster waiting to happen. What, build nuclear plants near the ocean and in a place known for its high seismic activity, great idea.

When our current plant's operating licenses expire, they'll either get an extension or close down and decommission.

The bad part about nuclear plants is how close they put them to population center/fault lines or both.

Yes, there's risk but we can't have a risk free society, it's impossible to attain although a noble goal.

You talk about waste, what about the nuclear material in the US'es arsenal? We have 9,600 bombs ready to go.

http://www.neatorama.com/2010/05/03/just-how-many-nukes-does-the-us-have/

What do we do with them as well as ones from Russia, former Russian states, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Korea (maybe) and Israel and soon to be Iran.

As long as they don't license any more (there are disturbing reports that a plant in Georgi has received a permit to build another unit) the ones we have now will eventually succumb to entropy.

Childish hysteria.

Perhaps it not only sounds bad, but also it is really bad.