Those copper canisters--is there enough copper in the world to duplicate the Swedish method in other countries?
It is my understanding that the corrosion-resistant alloy the Yucca Mountain Project in the US has adopted works pretty well, and would be even more corrosion-resistant if given an amorphous film coating.
In terms of subseabed disposal, the Nuclear Energy Agency of OECD participated an an international program of oceanographic institutes, American national laboratories, and other groups to investigate disposing of high-level nuclear waste 30 m underneath ocean-desert clay sediments (which immobilize radioactive particles and which are highly impermeable)in the stable area in the middle of tectonic plates. Subduction zones are not a good idea for such disposal because of abundant marine life in those warm waters. But in mid-plate under 6 km of ocean, the conditions are pretty barren and the temperature is (if I recall) about 2 C. The idea was to put the waste in pointed steel canisters that would continue sinking through the muck. Meanwhile sediments would bury the waste deeper. Harder to retrieve the spent fuel.
In the current Scientific American, there is an excellent article by Deutch and Moniz on the future of nuclear energy, given the global carbon problem, and discusses the question of controlling the nuclear fuel cycle. Does not seem to be posted online yet.
In the December 2005 Scientific American, a good article on "Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste". Fast neutron reactors could in effect recycle nuclear waste, produce more energy more efficiently, mitigate global warming significantly (replacing coal, which is the worse contributor to greenhouse gases), and guard against weapons proliferation. http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf
There are ethical problems with ocean storage. What if the stuff leaks? Then it will hurt all nations on earth, not just the one responsible for the waste. And its harder to retrieve the stuff if needed, and harder to fix if something goes wrong during the process of stashing the stuff down there. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
If this is supposed to be an ethical problem, then why can a coal plant kill 75 people per year through air pollution and nobody gives a f*ck?! Get a grip on reality, folks. For details, see http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html
Why don't people care about coal? Because they're ignorant and scientifically illiterate, that's why. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I don't think ignorance can explain the people's disregard for the deaths caused by coal. I rather think, these 75 people per GWa are a price most would be willing to pay. The problem is the wrong perception that a few grams of plutonium would kill millions if they came in contact with water, so people think a radwaste repository much more dangerous than it really is. Three decades of propaganda by liars like John Gofman have pretty much ensured that.
