One thing that's very striking to me is the anti-nuclear folks have managed to strand something like 400,000 TONS of nuclear waste in temporary facilities. Thes

One thing that's very striking to me is the anti-nuclear folks have managed to strand something like 400,000 TONS of nuclear waste in temporary facilities. These are often surprisingly high risk (on large time scales) with many other negatives. There is obviously a lot less high level waste, but the point generally holds. Addressing the nuclear waste storage issue has value. Credible science I've seen suggests current approaches are poor relative to almost all other options. I also like repossessing, and other countries do this (most spent US fuel has actually a huge amount of remaining life). US fuel is generally a solid that is more controllable, repossessing can create some high level by products that require vitrification as I understand it and the US doesn't have that as well established. There are folks looking at ultra deep burial, below water tables in rock stable for millions of years. That's also interesting. We are arguably facing a relatively pressing current issue with global warming. Nuclear does not have a lot of GHG emissions relatively. It seems we should be spending reasonable sums at least on research and perhaps very small scale demonstrator plants and waste options to see if anything can be proven out.