I find your content compelling and intellectually stimulating. One thing I am curious to hear your take is waste from nuclear. My perception is that this issue has been and will continue to be used as part of the gaslighting to poo pop any material shift to nuclear , whether or not it's legit. If you have a post on it already would appreciate a link. Thanks for helping to reinforce what se to be my similar views on the insanity of green energy and the real viable long term solution to reducing fossil fuel use (the reasons for reduction having zero to do with global warming )
You need to define the kind of “waste” you mean. Low level. Intermediate. Spent nuclear fuel from light water reactors. Every type is different and has a different answer. Most people are thinking about spent nuclear fuel from light water reactors. The truth is that this is not waste. Spent nuclear fuel from white water reactors still has over 90% of its thermal value remaining. Throwing this away is not smart. Using it as fuel in fast spectrum reactors to recover the 90% thermal value of the uranium is smart. What we really need is more fast spectrum reactor technology. This will solve most of the “waste” problem. 
The construction of geological storage facilities for high-level waste in Finland and soon in France and Sweden will make this argument increasingly unworkable. It will still be possible to defend the idea that past geological stability does not ensure future stability, even over a relatively short time period. The recycling of waste in fast reactors would reduce this duration to about 300 years
I would question the 10's of $billions that have been wasted on geological storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. For much less than that amount pyroprocessing or molten salt processing of SNF could easily have been developed, which separates valuable isotopes, fissionable fuel U-235 & Pu-239/Pu-238/Pu-240, depleted Uranium and the real high level waste of isotopes like Cs-137 that will degrade in 300yrs, a small amount that can be buried in a borehole. Even some of them are useful isotopes for Medical, Agricultural & Industrial applications. Since they don't separate plutonium or U-235 they do not pose a weapons risk. These plants can be made quite compact so most nations with nuclear power can build one on a PWR NPP site.
All industries produce waste: fission products and long-lived intermediate-level waste cannot be recycled. Geological disposal is therefore necessary. It's cost is spread over several decades, so that a parallel with the cost of a reactor may be misleading.
Fission products are a tiny portion of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Intermediate level waste is almost all short lived waste. The issue is Spent Nuclear Fuel actinides. And they are all recyclable. ~83% of the fission products are valuable for applications, can be sold at a profit. What waste is left will easily fit down a borehole which can be sealed with concrete. There is no better method than that.
Noting that fission products are a tiny portion of spent fuel or that short-lived intermediate waste is more voluminous than long-lived intermediate west does not solve the problem. We still need a safe way to dispose of them. And if fission products can be sold for a profit, it should be brought to the attention of the French who have been separating them for decades.
Intermediate waste is not stored in a deep geological repository. You get equivalent waste from other industries like the oil & gas industry. It goes to a certified hazardous waste dump like ten's of thousands of others all over the planet. Far, far less dangerous than any of hundreds of industrial waste products, and not a weapons risk. It would be crazy to use an expensive deep repository for that. And fission products are trivial volumes compared to SNF. What you don't sell you can dump down a borehole, easy-peasy. As for fission products, a plant I worked in had 27 Cs-137 radiation sources and one Co-60 source. They are commonly used in industrial instrumentation. In the interim The Blue Ribbon Presidential panel concluded that storing SNF in dry casks on site is entirely safe and manageable for a hundred years or more. Long before that there will be accelerator driven or fusion driven methods of burning it.
I find your content compelling and intellectually stimulating. One thing I am curious to hear your take is waste from nuclear. My perception is that this issue has been and will continue to be used as part of the gaslighting to poo pop any material shift to nuclear , whether or not it's legit. If you have a post on it already would appreciate a link. Thanks for helping to reinforce what se to be my similar views on the insanity of green energy and the real viable long term solution to reducing fossil fuel use (the reasons for reduction having zero to do with global warming )
You need to define the kind of “waste” you mean. Low level. Intermediate. Spent nuclear fuel from light water reactors. Every type is different and has a different answer. Most people are thinking about spent nuclear fuel from light water reactors. The truth is that this is not waste. Spent nuclear fuel from white water reactors still has over 90% of its thermal value remaining. Throwing this away is not smart. Using it as fuel in fast spectrum reactors to recover the 90% thermal value of the uranium is smart. What we really need is more fast spectrum reactor technology. This will solve most of the “waste” problem. 
The construction of geological storage facilities for high-level waste in Finland and soon in France and Sweden will make this argument increasingly unworkable. It will still be possible to defend the idea that past geological stability does not ensure future stability, even over a relatively short time period. The recycling of waste in fast reactors would reduce this duration to about 300 years
I would question the 10's of $billions that have been wasted on geological storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. For much less than that amount pyroprocessing or molten salt processing of SNF could easily have been developed, which separates valuable isotopes, fissionable fuel U-235 & Pu-239/Pu-238/Pu-240, depleted Uranium and the real high level waste of isotopes like Cs-137 that will degrade in 300yrs, a small amount that can be buried in a borehole. Even some of them are useful isotopes for Medical, Agricultural & Industrial applications. Since they don't separate plutonium or U-235 they do not pose a weapons risk. These plants can be made quite compact so most nations with nuclear power can build one on a PWR NPP site.
All industries produce waste: fission products and long-lived intermediate-level waste cannot be recycled. Geological disposal is therefore necessary. It's cost is spread over several decades, so that a parallel with the cost of a reactor may be misleading.
Fission products are a tiny portion of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Intermediate level waste is almost all short lived waste. The issue is Spent Nuclear Fuel actinides. And they are all recyclable. ~83% of the fission products are valuable for applications, can be sold at a profit. What waste is left will easily fit down a borehole which can be sealed with concrete. There is no better method than that.
Great comment! I would like to pursue. Do you have any links?
Noting that fission products are a tiny portion of spent fuel or that short-lived intermediate waste is more voluminous than long-lived intermediate west does not solve the problem. We still need a safe way to dispose of them. And if fission products can be sold for a profit, it should be brought to the attention of the French who have been separating them for decades.
Intermediate waste is not stored in a deep geological repository. You get equivalent waste from other industries like the oil & gas industry. It goes to a certified hazardous waste dump like ten's of thousands of others all over the planet. Far, far less dangerous than any of hundreds of industrial waste products, and not a weapons risk. It would be crazy to use an expensive deep repository for that. And fission products are trivial volumes compared to SNF. What you don't sell you can dump down a borehole, easy-peasy. As for fission products, a plant I worked in had 27 Cs-137 radiation sources and one Co-60 source. They are commonly used in industrial instrumentation. In the interim The Blue Ribbon Presidential panel concluded that storing SNF in dry casks on site is entirely safe and manageable for a hundred years or more. Long before that there will be accelerator driven or fusion driven methods of burning it.