That number is potentially misleading. Only a small portion of that waste is high level waste, like fuel. 90% of that does not need to be stored for 1000 years.

Once you look at waste, most of nuclear waste is not 'waste', and some countries like france and Russia use chemical reprocessing to separate long lives waste from unburnt fuel. That gives a further >90% reduction.

What you are left with is a small amount of High level waste, that can be stored in deep repositories like sweeden is doing. That's a permanent solution, because we know that bedrock has not moved for 10s of millions of years.

To downvoters: it's a waste of time to discus nuclear waste without realising that 95% is the original fuel and only 1% of it is the actual long-lived waste.

Is there something in the tone of my comment you are unhappy about?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/TCWrO7OFt4I/AAAAAAAAIF...

Yep, that's more like 30 barrels high. The parent's point still stands though - there isn't that much of it.