>I am not sure you have actually closely read what I have said.

I am very familiar with the arguments you link to, they are repeated often in these discussions but they don't hold up to scrutiny.

The key mistake for most of these arguments is that nuclear waste is harmless and nuclear plants are safe on their own and don't need to be kept safe at great costs.

Any argument that rests on that idea is not going to hold up.

Just to take one example - one argument presented is basically that nuclear waste only requires a few acres of land where you can place dry casks, then you're good.

Try to find actual scientific and financial support for that idea from anyone else than the author.

>Early nuclear builds were cheaper to build:

Early cars were too, for many of the same reasons. Lower wages, worse quality, less safety.

>Spent fuel is mostly reusable:

How do you handle it while it is being reused? Does it become harmless after being reused or do we still need to deal with it for longer than the US has existed as a nation?

>Low-dose radiation risk is a contested harm:

Low-dose is not what we're talking about here. A kilo of nuclear waste in a van filled with fertilizer is not a contested harm, it's a nightmare scenario.

>And no, solar is NOT free

Building is not free of course but it has no running costs once built.

Nuclear has immense running costs, and they can't be stopped entirely. Even after it has been decommissioned and the company who made the plant has gone bankrupt it keeps costing society money.

I don't really see why you think nuclear waste is a large storage problem. If you don't like that website, and as you requested, here's another government resource so i can't be accused of being biased (the government also made the rules here):

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...

"If we take that a step further, U.S. commercial reactors have generated about 90,000 metric tons of spent fuel since the 1950s. If all of it were able to be stacked together, it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards."

"Spent" fuel these days is 95%+ the same as the original fuel. If fully recycled then nuclear waste volumes could therefore be reduced 20x from where they are today. So that 10 yards deep would be 2 feet deep.

Most costs are actually self imposed. There is no reason for nuclear not to be the cheapest form of energy out there. If you don't like my original website, please see this one, which talks about the "regulatory ratchet". Regulations were increased on a highly profitable (read: cheap) sector until the industry was no longer profitable (read: as expensive as it is today)

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

I don't see why nuclear waste would ever make it into fertilizer.

The problem with nuclear and your cars analogy is that with cars the data is pretty clear that new cars are safer than old - this is not at all clear in nuclear!