Many modern reactor designs (Thorium LFTR's being the most prominent) are actually designed to help mitigate the problem of current waste by burning it as fuel. So if its waste that you are worried about, it seems sensible to support limited construction of modern reactors to address this problem.

You guys know about the problem of climate change, right? You've read plenty about it, right?

Because this whole "it hasn't caused an apocalypse yet" argument in favour of every-feasible-alternative-to-nuclear-power is just a tiny bit short-sighted. If you make your software like you reason about every-feasible-alternative-to-nuclear-power, send me a note naming your products so I know what to stay away from.

Perhaps attempting to solve a major problem with something that also causes major problems isn't much of a solution.

Eh.

Fossil fuels will destroy the biosphere. They regularly and fairly brutally destroy rather large swaths of it (see nigeria/etc.).

Hydroelectric plants destroy parts of the biosphere. They massively damage aquatic life and fish species and they have the rather nasty fact that if they fail they wash away a good portion of whatever is downstream (read: that city.).

Renewables tend to be very energy disperse, require large amounts of energy/land to produce and generally can't provide baseload power except for hydro power.

At the end of the day, there isn't any perfect answer, but all the effort directed at stopping nuclear power research seems very short sighted, seeing as it is currently the best answer to baseload power that we have.

The half life of most software is 18 months or less (the number of users decreases by half), so you can be way sloppier in it's construction.