The quantity of nuclear waste is rather small: on the order of an ounce per person per year.

FUD is the bigger problem.

> I'd prefer solving that problem first, before creating incentives to produce ever more nuclear waste.

I think that makes about as much sense as insisting on a better storage solution before we waste any more time looking at these solar or wind things.

It's not FUD when nuclear waste is already leaking in some places. Other stuff is stored in unsafe caves and the like, if not right in the open. You may call it a "small quantity per person", but it is already more than can be stored safely at present. And don't forget about the "little" problem of containing the Tschernobyl reactor. Or the difficulties in even accessing the fuel rods of Fukushima.

The disposal of waste associated with renewable energy is a lot easier. It doesn't irradiate anything, it doesn't kill people, even when disposed of improperly. The comparison is just ridiculous.

A large part of the poor handling of waste, is that developments in the field are severely hampered by politics.

There's a large amount of ignorant good intentions. Ironically, those that pseudo-scientific bandwagons have probably caused more dangerous storage than they prevented through their loud, blind denouncement of nuclear.

I've seen so many posts, even in this thread, asking for examples of one thing or another--and if there are none, then well, aren't they right? But somehow missing the point that maybe such rhetoric and sophistry is the reason why the examples are lacking. How far would solar or wind have come, if facing the immovable wall of entire populations of ignorance?