If we have a choice between a swimming pool worth of material that's violently radioactive but can be reprocessed, and a planet that's choked to death from coal

If we have a choice between a swimming pool worth of material that's violently radioactive but can be reprocessed, and a planet that's choked to death from coal pollution because nuclear has radioactive waste, I'll take nuclear every time. Wind, solar and geothermal should be able to fill the gap, but this technology takes time to devleop and deploy. Nuclear's been around since the 1960s, and it works. If we need 20-40 years to switch to fully-renewable energy, nuclear could get us there.