It would never fly politically, but we could effectively deal with nuclear waste in a future-proof way if we dissolved it into sea water. Uranium's natural concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion and there are 1.3e21 kilograms of sea water. This comes out to 3.9e9 metric tons of uranium already in sea water; all these numbers utterly dwarf all the nuclear waste we could possibly ever create. Even when you consider that natural uranium is merely a toxic heavy metal and high grade radioactive waste is substantially more radioactive, that doesn't change much. The intensity of radioactive waste drops substantially if you store it even for just a few decades, which is probably unnecessary but certainly manageable.
I don't seriously propose this though, it would be pointless to propose because it would never be accepted. Even Japan dumping a tiny bit of tritium into the ocean has turned into a big controversy. Seriously suggest something like the above and most people will think you're an insane troll.
That seems like an important idea. Has it been studied in depth? Ideas beyond the pale today, like geoengineering, can certainly fall inside the pale later.
I'd worry about how evenly the materials get distributed. Ocean currents are weird. The pacific garbage patch happened.
Rocket reliability has jumped over the last decade, and a trend that is likely to continue. But one could (and should) still encapsulate the material in an explosion-proof container.
I don't seriously propose this though, it would be pointless to propose because it would never be accepted. Even Japan dumping a tiny bit of tritium into the ocean has turned into a big controversy. Seriously suggest something like the above and most people will think you're an insane troll.