We can do all three things at once

As someone who has actually looked into nuclear waste and the current storage techniques instead of relying on knee-jerk fear mongering, yes. Store it in my area. Hell, store the casks underneath my house for all I care. If you are surprised by this answer, it's because you don't know shit about nuclear waste and how little of a problem it is.

(Below is my opinion, I respect you have yours, and I'm not having a go at you. I just want to take part in the discourse friendo!)
To me, if they wanted to store it in my area by encasing it now (or, any time in like the last 40 years), I wouldn't mind either.
The issue that isn't fear-mongering that people continually overlook because of all the knee-jerking people lamenting that it's "unsafe", is that we then have to maintain containment for thousands upon thousands of years.
That's the issue, permanent storage, not all the temporary storage that is happening now.
Nuclear is not a great solution to immediately reducing emissions, in my opinion. Takes way too much capital and way too much time to get operational. Don't close still operating plants, but damn, we need to be building the fastest shit possible, right now. Not something that takes a decade to build. We have solutions ready, governments just aren't getting their act together and build it. Even if the business-case doesn't make complete sense; we don't have time.
Sand batteries, liquid air energy storage, lithium ion batteries, flow batteries, (plus a bunch of other contenders) they're all immature technologies but they do work right now, anywhere, no terrain for pumped-hydro required. Sure they're not very efficient, or have crap lifespan in the case of Li-ion, but solar plants literally aren't being built in some places because prices go negative during the day, and plants are being curtailed.
We need to build storage, now, even if it's not a silver bullet. And we can't wait for expensive-as-fuck nuclear.
Someone should call me when we decide re-enriching spent nuclear fuel is fine and we can do nuclear waste recycling, actually getting our money's worth. Or when thorium gets good.
My personal opinion conclusion:
Nuclear waste is not immediately that concerning for safety, it's the fact we're signing up to store it for longer than recorded history.
It's expensive and takes to long to build
The technology needed for the energy transition already exists
Also agree, that turning off operating nuclear doesn't make sense.
Thanks for reading, looking forward to hearing people's thoughts.

The waste doesn't pose any danger as long as it's stored securely and doesn't cost that much space. The only downside of the waste is that it needs to be stored forever, but that's a very, very, small price to pay for not destroying the planet..

But its also possible without nuclear waste. You are just pushing the problems with the waste to the future generations.
- There needs to be a future generation to push it onto first...
  
  Agreed, the future generations already have enough problems. Thats why we should invest into stuff that brings solutions and does not create problems.
  
  You and your fearmongering is the problem
  
  No, money is the problem. If nuclear wasnt that expensive then sure, go for it.
  
  Money a problem? We have individuals with more money than entire cities and companies with more money than entire nations. Money is not the problem.
  
  Yes because nuclear plants are so expensive which means electricity price will go up for the non rich people. Unless of course they use tax money to bring down the cost but that means you still paying with your taxes to make it more affordable.
  
  Tax the rich or better yet abolish them completely.
- No one who makes decisions so far has cared about future generations.
  
  Well renewables are better for future generations. Maye you shuld push for that instead of an overly expensive water boiling maschine
  
  Nearly every power plant ever, including green ones, is an overly expensive water boiling machine
  
  I'm actually pushing for degrowth. It's the simplest path to ending oil use
- Nuclear fuel came from the ground, it can go back in the ground. Future generations aren’t going to be impacted by nuclear waste storage.
- What problem? If they're stupid enough to dig it back up, they get what's coming to em

Weird how y'all haven't figured it out yet considering Finland has and Germany has had nuclear power plants for longer.

But I suspect it's more of a lack of wanting to do what's needed for storage because 'politics' and boomers than it is because it's not possible.

Nobody has. Nuclear casks need maintenance for their life time. We haven't invented any kind of nuclear proof forever material that's immune to entropy. And every single one of these solutions people propose have flaws that render the solution not viable so for now we end up storing it all above ground
Everything in life slowly degrades over time and the longer the life span of something the more it degrades. Especially when that contained is filled with something radioactive.
There are lots of people who are justifiably not comfortable expecting a private company to continue a maintenance cycle that brings in zero profit and all costs for a few thousand years without cutting corners. I don't like the idea of the Elon musks being the Smaug of nuclear waste
- I know there's the joke that Finland doesn't exist, but didn't know people like you who took it seriously.
  https://yle.fi/a/3-10847558
  From 2019. Yes, we've figured out how to store it permanently. The country of 5 million somehow figured out what the hundreds of millions in Germany, USA, and others couldn't.
  Or more accurately, actually did it. The solution has been known for awhile.
  Also, never said a private company had to do anything - that's just a strawman you brought up.
  
  its even easier if you just use a borehole.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_drillhole_disposal
  
  That's basically what Finland is doing, with a few extra steps.
  The whole waste thing isn't an unsolved issue, it's purely a political one.
  
  So government then. Give the Responsibility to fund this all cost and zero profit social good endeavor to politicians like Trump or a Bolsonaro.
  Finland and a few other countries are testing this out. But unfortunately like every other solution, there ends up being some unforeseen problem. Time will tell. Which is part of why a lot of people are hesitant and not wanting to rush into these things.
  We also are finding other solutions in the meantime. Its not a bad thing if at the end of the day we don't need nuclear.
Could be that Finland is a big country with only 5,5 million people living there compared to 83million in germany. Easier to find a place.
- Yeah, and like most of Europe, that German population lives in cities, not random forests and mountains in the middle of nowhere where you could also do underground storage like Finland has done.
  Not to mention Germany has more land.
  
  Don't you think it sounds crazy to build a underground storage just to have it closed for a million years. I just can't understand why anybody would want that.
  
  Compared to Fossil fuels that'll stay in the air for thousands of years while they essentially terraform the planet into something way less habitable for humans? How the hell is that more logical???
  Finland is a bit too north and cold for rapid deployment and storage of renewables. Although summer is excellent for solar, winter makes solar barely useful and can decrease some wind (newer designs help a lot with the snow issue).
  Germany is more stable, but electrical storage is still an issue, along with the larger population. Having planned at least 1 new power plant while decommissioning the older ones would have made a lot more sense while transitioning to 100% renewables. Spent nuclear fuel doesn't use much space - the spent fuel can be stored underground in containers in deep bed rock in drilled shafts and then cemented over. It's less effort and resources that what Germany's many mining companies use extracting minerals or fossil fuels.
  Can't do the same for all that pollution your damn lignite plants make though.
  
  No, investing in nuclear costs sooo much money. Money that would be missed for building reneweables. If the conservatives wouldnt have blocked the renewable boom we had in 2012, we would be much further. Im glad were out of that nuclear stuff.
  
  Isn't water an issue under ground
  
  not that deep, also Fossil fuels are currently devastating our water and air. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_drillhole_disposal
  
  Its neat that the hole phases through the ground water aquifer without ever touching it.
  
  Not really no, it sounds logical and fairly simple.
  
  FFS do some research, you dig a big hold drill sideways for a bit and back fill it.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_drillhole_disposal
  
  But why would you do that if you can just without.
  
  Well you see we kinda are failing at the whole mitigating climate change issue and we and we only have so many rare earth minerals to exploit for large scale battery storage banks. And every year we are burning more Fossil Fuels and shutting down more reactors and building no new modern designs and giving nuclear none of the funding the fossil fuel industry receives or the renewables industry receives.
  
  Because funding nuclear is just a hole with no bottom and it takes too much time. Money should be spent on other things.
  
  Brother its a mine-shaft or borehole not a resort and casino
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_drillhole_disposal

The US has a fuckton of space not being occupied by anyone or anything.

Then why dont you have 100 nuclear plants on that space
- Because it's not profitable for the oil companies
  
  I tell you a secret, It's not profitable for anyone.
  
  Electricity is a public utility. Profit shouldn't come into the question. When it does you just end up using coal and gas, which isn't good for the planet or people at all.
  
  Surely all that cheap electricity would help someone
- One of many reasons is the issue of distribution at a distance. It's terribly inefficient to deliver power to distant locations because you get drops the further you go. Another reason would be strategic. You don't want to have too much infrastructure centralized on a single location in case of war.
- Unfortunately I do not make these decisions for our country.
  But placing power generation far from consumption is probably not the move.
  My response was about where to put waste.

It just needs to be buried deep enough. Problem solved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

Even better: reprocess the fuel. The linear fuel life time decommissions nuclear fuel as useless while it still has 90-something percent of energy potential left. Having a more cyclical life cycle allows for the spent fuel to be reconstituted into new fuel, and to be used anew. All the waste that does end up being produced is only a fraction of the waste produced in a linear process, and only dangerous on a societal timescale instead of a geological one.
- The places where that is done don't have a great track record.
  
  I'm pretty sure France is one of those places and they have an amazing track record.
Start digging then
- They often put it in the mine it came from. It was there long before and can stay there long after
  
  It wasn't in the same form when it came out.
  
  True, but when encased properly, it leaks less radioactivity then when it was in raw ore form.
  
  They often put it in the mine it came from.
  Good luck trying to convince Uranium mining countries to take it back.
  
  Well, Netherlands has a contract with France for exactly that.....

And uranium mines. Nuclear is an energy transport medium rather than a source. You have large dirty dangerous destructive mining.

Nuclear waste is stored in water tanks. Its quite safe there.