Storing nuclear material ('waste') is only a problem because it's not processed or exploited economically. Well, with the thorium cycle there is the possibility of burning a large proportion of existing waste and with electricity generation on the side.

This material can also be 'downblended' (the opposite process of enrichment) or simply mixed in with sea water in very small concentrations. Being long-lived radioactive sources also means the relative radioactivity (per volume) is low.

Sure, but as a competitor to this technology, that's just more to add to the cost.

It will cost many billions of dollars to develop infrastructure to "downblend" waste products, build thorium reactors, litigate, etc.

It would cost more to buy enough land to build the wind turbines described in the article.

"How about storing waste for a period of time longer than recorded human history?"

How about naturally occurring uranium? Isn't it just as unsafe as nuclear waste, it radiates too you know. You just need lot's of it to be dangerous.

Now let's assume that we have 1 sievert natural occurrence of uranium. Then let's assume we have ten times as bad pile of nuclear waste, so it emits 10 sieverts. Now, let's bury that waste in ten different locations, and it's no more dangerous as natural occurrence.. Am I right?

Let's then wind 100 years to the future. Unsurprisingly the natural occurrence radiates somewhat less than it did. And any one of our ten hideouts of radioactive waste radiates less than the natural hideout, because they originally had relatively big percentages of isotopes with half-lives less than 30 years.

If you just put the waste back where you took it in the first place what's the problem? (there are abandoned coal mines and mineral mines too, so there should be enough places).