Er, no. If you generate the same volume of waste per year, but for a fusion reactor the waste stops being a problem within a century and for a fission reactor i

Er, no. If you generate the same volume of waste per year, but for a fusion reactor the waste stops being a problem within a century and for a fission reactor it takes 10,000 years, at any point in time after the first 100 years, waste from a given fusion reactor will be less prevalent than waste from a given fission reactor. It also doesn't matter that no specific nuclear reactor will have a lifetime of 10,000 years. The problem is that per megawatt of energy generated, fission theoretically creates (much) longer-lived waste than fusion. Over a longer-than-one-hundred-year timeframe, equivalent amounts of energy generation result in vastly different waste carrying costs. Fusion's waste carrying costs are much lower. And obviously that number is even more in favor of fusion if it only takes 10 years. (ITER claims 100 years though: https://www.iter.org/sci/Fusion https://www.iter.org/sci/Fusion)