Jesus Christ guy, I didn't take great offence, I simply pointed out the Greenpeace use of term "barrels" is factually incorrect, but they use it on purpose, in their media to mislead people, like I showed in those pictures. THAT is why using the correct terminology is important. If you want to get all butt-hurt over it, go right ahead, but I wasn't out of line in correcting you. And, if you notice, I ALWAYS write long posts. I type 140+wpm, I can afford to be verbose.
No, Finland is building the DGR to store their own waste, just like we are getting ready to build one in Ontario here for ours (once site selection is complete). The US will have to overcome its own issues with Yucca Mountain or another site if that ends up being the choice made. In the interim, it would make far too much sense to pursue something like PUREX to reprocess the SNF and turn it into more fuel like France is doing (they even import SNF from Japan and reprocess it for them).
But the earth is better off in the latter scenario. SNF decays over time, as I explained, quite unlike other waste streams which are perpetually toxic. Building more nuclear IS doing something about it, curbing pollution and abuse of the planet is the goal.
The problem is that the same folks fighting any new nuclear, and pushing for existing sites to be shutdown, are fighting against DGR's and any form of long term waste disposal. They know that if the waste problem gets solved, then they'll lose a significant component of their argument. It's far better for them that no solution is built, because then they can continue to rail against it.
Politicians are weak-kneed and cave to these extremist demands. If they didn't, Yucca Mountain would be operational. The best that Average Joe can do is rally and drown out the voices of these nutters/"cookers" (to borrow an Aussie phrase) so that politicians no longer feel obligated to listen to them. We've had very good luck doing this in Ontario against groups like the OCAA.