What's missing in these kinds of propaganda takes is that: a) The cost of fuel is currently so low as to be practically zero. Fuel cost does not materially aff

What's missing in these kinds of propaganda takes is that: a) The cost of fuel is currently so low as to be practically zero. Fuel cost does not materially affect the cost of a nuclear power plant. b) The basic reason for this is that they use so little fuel, because the fuel is so incredibly energy dense, last I checked > 1 million times more dense than fossil fuels. This is essentially impossible to grasp intuitively, which is one of the reasons there are so many completely wrong takes on this topic. See: https://xkcd.com/1162/ https://xkcd.com/1162/ c) One result of the fact that fuel is so cheap, practically, is that we currently throw away 95% of the fuel after use. Because it's not worth the effort to actually use all of it. d) One upshot of throwing away most of the fuel is that we also throw away the fuel that current reactors generate in production. Alas, those are also the nastiest fission products. This is not some far away technology, we have been doing this to get fissile materials for atomic weapons for almost a century now. And we have been repurposing fissile material from nuclear warheads since at least the early 2000s (might have been late 1990s). e) So if we were to simply use all the existing fuel, we could do "this" for another 20x 100-150 years, so 2000-3000 years. The reason we are not doing this is that it's not currently economically viable, fresh Uranium is just too cheap, and since the political landscape is so irrationally negative there is no incentive for investing when current fuel reserves are sufficient for the current reactors. Fuel supply and waste are political problems, not technical ones.