I wish nuclear power operators had to accout for all their waste, but that isn't true at all. And the rest of you comment is equal levels of ignoring reality.

What do you mean? What waste isn't accounted for? Do you mean water vapor? That's the only thing you could mean. The vast majority of the "nuclear waste" volume is stuff like protective gear, because even that is thrown away after using it once, because there's that much aversion to risk. They have to account for damn near every atom.

If you'd like to make an actual rebuttal, you're going to have to try harder. You aren't even making any specific claim, but just saying I'm incorrect broadly with no detail. You look silly.

Exactly, and nuclear energy is the opposite of that. It takes decades to build and those non-existing micro-reactors are the latest investor scam that make evel less economic and technical sense than regular sized reactors.

It does not take decades to build a nuclear reactor. It takes decades to deal with the bureaucratic red tape that is designed to keep us using fossil fuels. Reactors used to be built in less than 4 years. Most are built in 6-8 years, and very few take more than a single decade, let alone multiple. This is a silly myth spread by energy companies to prevent nuclear support, because it'd kill their business.

Now, tell me how this is wrong. I've given you the data. If you want to rebut, please give details so it can be discussed, otherwise you prove you don't have an argument.