> In terms of the waste, right now nuclear waste can be recycled

Waste is not "recycled" it's reprocessed. Recycling is what you do with materials from renewable energy sources.

Also, it's not "waste" but only the fuel which is a tiny amount of the waste you have to store for decades and reprocessing is not making it go away. Those small parts which are added to fresh fuel come back later, the rest remains and needs to be stored too. Also: the whole process is extremely expensive and those costs also do not appear on the energy price.

You people sound sometimes as if you believe that the waste somehow magically disappears or something.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

"At present there are no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation."

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

"In January 2018, it was reported that "the first installation of the pressure vessel cover of the world's first Gen IV reactor" had been completed on the HTR-PM.[12]"

"Work on the first demonstration HTR-PM power plant, composed of two reactors driving a single steam turbine, began in December 2012 [...] On 12 September 2021, one of the two reactor achieved criticality, becoming the first 4th generation nuclear reactor in the world to do so, and is scheduled to be connected to the electricity grid before the end of 2021"

So you have ONE reactor. In China. It took 9 years to get it into operation. How is this again supposed to fight climate change? You don't even know how well it works...not even mentioning the costs in countries with proper safety and construction laws.

> The US government has been taxing power generated by nuclear power for decades and has collected billions of dollars to cover any costs in the future

Interesting.
I'm sure you have some facts to support this claim. I'm especially interested in the estimates for "future" and what they're based upon. Especially in the US where nuclear power has been known for different reasons regarding taxpayer money: https://news.yahoo.com/ex-ceo-oversaw-doomed-nuclear-0529034...

> The amount of waste is very manageable

This is a gross generalisation which has not source in reality. There are different storages of waste. Some are good, some are bad. Some leak. Others don't...yet. Some waste just lies around in remote areas. Stop spreading misinformation.

> the Netherlands actually stores their waste in an art museum

No they don't...museums can store their art in some of the nuclear storage facilities...my god the crap some people believe...https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-The_art_of_radioactive...

> and in a relatively short amount of time we will likely be able to use most of this "waste" to generate electricity.

No we won't.

As I said above and you could have found out with very little research (actually just reading some of the wikipedia articles you've linked would help), it is only the fuel which can be reprocessed and only if it has been properly stored just for this cause and if you have the facility which almost nobody has. Most of the fuel we have and is being used atm is not suited for reprocessing and never will be. We usually don't even know the state of the stored stuff because we don't even have the facility to "look" into the containers.

And as I said: fuel is only a very small amount of the waste a nuclear facility produces and which has to be stored for generations.

I won't even go into your whataboutism for coal because there is no connection to this discussion. You know...the one where you desperately try to play down the cost for nuclear waste storage instead just admitting that those costs are nowhere to be found in the energy prices.