@PeterGray @martin @tymoty I am not posting this because I am without my own doubts... as for the waste, you just commit yourself to full "plutonium economy" with fast breeder reactors. The total amount of plutonium available is going to be ever-increasing, but the highly active waste half-life would be short lived.

The long term storage is something, which really nobody means seriously. No amount of money would force locals to voluntary agree with it, so it is waiting for some international solution in the future, which just won't happen during our lifetimes.

So the actual result is kind of "medium time storage", were the spent fuel is waiting for final decision if it is going to be reprocessed or "permanently" stored.

Still, because the waste is already here, there is no significant difference in generating little more or little less. It is sad to say, but true. Closing existing (modern) reactors in Bavaria was perhaps tactical mistake, because it made CDU to loose votes to AfD instead of Greens (and even most of Green voters were not really very radical about closing the two remaining viable power plants, because they also don't like coal mines and so).

Nuclear power is strategical mainly for Finland and Sweden, because these two countries have really arctic conditions inland during winter (Swedish people solved this by spending winters in Thailand :-)). Norway is different story, because they have lot of hydro power: lot of mountains close to the sea, lot of rain.

Poland wants nuclear power to power industry and also it is located quite in the north.

My country has certain mix of problems: high elevation and inland location means, that our winters are harsher, then in Germany or Netherlands We are also quite far in the north and the average insolation through the year is not great, especially form November to February there is little to none solar power. But I hate, that local NIMBY fueled by fossil propaganda oppose wind power ... this is so dumb...