That is wrong. The only reason nuclear is expensive is because low volume production and build. In fact, the money needed for waste storage has long been accum

That is wrong. The only reason nuclear is expensive is because low volume production and build. In fact, the money needed for waste storage has long been accumulate by a fee in the US and is literally on the bank account of the government . There is already enough money to build a facility. The problem is all political. > At this point it makes more sense to invest in solar, wind power and energy storage capacity to reduce CO2 emissions. No its actually not. Countries that try to reduce CO2 with these methods are pretty slow and struggle heavily. Even worse, the larger part of your overall grid depends on these the more difficult it sill be to balance the grid. Furthermore, any sustained drop-down in one of these can shut down part of the country. Why do we keep claiming that climate change is a existential problem but then we are like 'we can't do the easy solution because nuclear waste is slightly problematic'. Guess what, I much rather deal with nuclear waste in 100 years then with the result of climate change. France showed the world 50 years ago that it is a pretty easy thing to have low CO2 electricity and had other countries adopted this, we would be in a better situation. Germany is the perfect example, had they done their 'Energiewende' towards nuclear they would be closing their goals by now.