While not cost effective in the slightest, jettisoning nuclear waste into outer space is one proposition.
Naturally, launching rockets filled with nuclear waste comes with its own safety concerns.
Naturally, launching rockets filled with nuclear waste comes with its own safety concerns.
You mention this like it is a "problem to be solved". It seems like a complete show-stopper to me. Rockets go down. Launch enough, and it will happen, regardless of all safeguards. There is no acceptable place on earth to shower hundreds of square kilometers with radioactive material with thousands of years half-life.
I looked it up, and underground storage seems to cost about the same as launching into space with falcon heavy launches, at about 1700$ per kg.
[1] https://www.smh.com.au/business/underground-nuclear-waste-fa...
[2] https://www.quora.com/Rockets-What-is-cost-of-sending-1-kg-w...
The Falcon 9 carries 147 metric tons of RP-1, which is functionally the same thing as Jet A (both are kerosene), while a 747-400 carries 165 metric tons of Jet A.
For a very broad estimate, I'd say the carbon footprint of a thousand Falcon 9 rocket launches is somewhat less than the carbon footprint of a day's worth of aircraft travel, globally.
1: where "easy" means "literally rocket science"