> Where are the storage facilities?

Yucca Mountain was bulldozed by the anti-nuclear faction. Hooray?

> Is Hanford a disaster or not?

Unquestionably.

> Pointing out that other stuff is "just as bad as nuclear" is not helping the argument for nuclear.

That's generally how decision-making works: you weigh the tradeoffs and make the best choice.

Well, that's how it's supposed to work, I suppose. If you refuse, well, nature just punishes you accordingly. In this case, we get an atmosphere full of CO2. Hooray?

> > Is Hanford a disaster or not?

> Unquestionably.

Hanford is a disaster... But just Hanford. Upstream and downstream are both fine. It's a few dozen square miles of contamination that affects people more than it does nature. (Look at the Chernobyl exclusion zone)

Compare to something like ocean acidification, caused by burning coal and oil, which is killing all the coral reefs, worldwide.

Hanford is just $6 - $10 billion per year, with cost estimates up to $667 billion total over its "lifespan", but we know some of the nuclear waste will be with us for thousands of years, so this number will only get bigger. There is no end in sight.

WIPP also had a leak issue with cost estimates of up to $1.4 billion to fix.

There are also dozens of sites orphaned and essentially the problem for the DOE to figure out. The cost of nuclear waste has been heavily socialized. The problem won't be going away anytime soon.

Yucca Mountain was controverse at best. you know a storage facility needs to withstands over thousands years. It's basically impossible to plan for that with our limited living years.

>That's generally how decision-making works: you weigh the tradeoffs and make the best choice.

You weigh the tradeoffs and make the least bad choice. We've decided as a society that we cannot live without electricity. No method of generating that electricity is without negative implications. (yet?)