If deep sea disposal is not an option and no provision has been made for long term storage of spent fuel rods then we shouldn't be creating more of them. End of story.
Maybe not so fast. We could be creating a lot less waste if we reprocessed the "used" fuel into new fuel using breeder reactors. These are not without risk, but
every type of electrical generation has risks. To permanently dispose of the "spent" fuel in a way that we can't later access and use it is to close the door on the ability to produce many decades worth of electricity without any more mining, without any greenhouse gasses, without using up our increasingly scarce oil, etc. It would be foolish and arrogant to assume we know exactly what the future will bring, and how we'll need/want to produce electricity.
We don't have a "solution" to the long term storage of the waste from coal-fired power plants, do we? Nor from the natural gas fired plants. We just spew the waste into the sky and it gets spread around. Nuclear power generation has the
advantage of keeping all the waste in one place, not spewed into the atmosphere. And it makes
very little waste.
There's nothing technically challenging about entombing the waste into casks (glass/cement) and storing it that way. Yes, we could bury it, but why? Why not move it to the Nevada Test Site and store it above ground. No tsunamis. Maybe some wind--not a factor. Then we just keep watching it, just as we watch and maintain every other aspect of our infrastructure (dams, powerplants, etc). The whole idea that we must find some spot that will remain unperturbed for millions of years is a strawman argument.
The problem of nuclear waste storage isn't a technical one, it is a political one.
