Millions of years huh? Which material would that be, specifically? Since you're clearly an expert on the subject.

Also, breeder reactors exist. They literally re-process the spent fuel for more power.

It's radioactive before you dig it up, and it's radioactive after. The difference now is that we have the tech to keep using it as fuel after it's "done".

There is a plan. It's putting it in the ground where it's perfectly safe, just like the radioactive ore that's also down there.

Here’s a radical idea- store it.

There's truth in this, but there is also a certain subset of internet users which obnoxiously gloss over all of the challenges and limitations of nuclear fission, pretending that it's a flawless energy source to the detriment of everyone's sanity

True, and that means there needs not be an ideology ban of nuclear. We should just do whichever option that's the best, and that won't be nuclear.

Saying nuclear is unfeasible because building new plants is too expensive and takes too long is like saying swimming is too hard; but then it turns out you insist on carrying a 100lb anchor whenever you get in the water.

The reason it's expensive and takes a long time is because of the absolutely massive amount of red tape built up over the years. Some red tape is obviously a good thing, but fear around the word "nuclear" has caused so many unnecessary regulations, committees, and testing that it causes plants to take 5x what they should cost and 10x the time.

Literally having to build safety mechanisms and procedures for failures that aren't even physically possible. All because the average person knows jack shit about nuclear power.

You're not exactly wrong, nuclear is a terrible pairing with renewables for the reasons you listed, but it's still probably cheaper than batteries under extreme conditions, which is something we do have to deal with.

90% renewables is cheap, 99% is more expensive, 100% is really really expensive. Batteries are great for 24 hour storage, but storing energy for longer starts to become uneconomical and to hit 100% you have to buy enough capacity for the absolute worst case scenario. Anything that baseline nuclear cuts off from renewable demand is potentially cheaper than the theoretical worst case 1% of renewables (eg if there's no wind and it's cloudy mid-winter, how much solar/wind do you need to power the country, or how much battery do you need to maintain power for weeks under these conditions?).

I might just be behind the times.

I look over at France, who have managed to keep their energy prices low and keep their independence thanks to their large amount of Nuclear energy, and I'm jealous.

Maybe we have fixed the energy storage issue now, and I'm just not aware of it. It's not my area of expertise.

I genuinely want us to have more renewables, but I was still under the impression that you needed a "base" energy source to round things out. I don't want that to be coal or gas, so nuclear seems like the lesser evil.

But if that's no longer an issue, then great!

nuclear is a massive waste of money now renewables and storage are so cheap.

And how cheap are renewables when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?

Renewables and batteries are awesome and we need more. But they aren't suited to all weather in all countries at all times. The UK has periods where there is not enough wind or sun or battery storage to sustain demand. Nuclear is not my first choice but it is a practical choice that can be helpful.