Your point is reasonable as stated for sure. I'd like to add to the conversation that there's a used fuel repository facility in Finland that's under constructi

Your point is reasonable as stated for sure. I'd like to add to the conversation that there's a used fuel repository facility in Finland that's under construction now and is very likely to be the first permanent solution for nuclear waste [1]. The geologists I've talked to are very confident that deep geologic storage is a solid technical solution. I'd also like to point out that the magnitude of nuclear waste is extremely small, due to the unbelievably energy density of nuclear fuel (2 million times more energy per mass than chemical energy). All the waste ever generated in the US fits in a football field a few stories high. It's incredibly small, albeit dangerous stuff. But that means it's even more reasonable to think we can bury it responsibly, without kicking the can. There's also been good storage of waste in salt deposits down at WIPP [2]. We know that water moves centimeters in there in hundreds of thousands of years, so the radioisotopes will be well contained outside the biosphere until well after they've decayed to harmlessness. I'd also plead with you to advocate nuclear energy in addition to renewables and battery storage. We need them all. You obviously are aware that batteries and vast fields of solar and wind and hydro have land/waste/cost/and carbon footprints of their own. I beg you to fairly compare those footprints with the footprints of nuclear energy. Nukes and the intermittent renewables must be partners in our major quest to decarbonize. Future generations will be much happier with us if we stop emitting carbon than if we safely bury tiny amounts of radioactive waste. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant