[ncmncm]

We might compare to what happened next to the Farallon islands, off California. At least 47,500 barrels of nuclear waste, weighted with concrete, just dropped in the water. (Those that floated anyway were shot.)

The fate of the barrels was an example in my differential equations course. (tl;dr: They burst when they hit the sea floor.) Wikipedia suggests that "by 1980, most of the radiation had decayed". Excepting what hadn't, of course.

All that observed, the problem with nuke plants is absolutely not the waste. The overwhelming problem is the outrageous cost, and that they don't start displacing fossil fuels for years, if ever. A dollar sunk into a nuke plant instead of renewables is simply sunk, as far as the climate is concerned.

[opo]

>The overwhelming problem is the outrageous cost,

The cost of consumer rooftop solar is as high or higher than nuclear, do you also think that cost is outrageous and we should abandon it?

>...and that they don't start displacing fossil fuels for years, if ever.

Solar, wind and nuclear have about the same carbon footprints. A few links:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low...

https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/LCA-2.pdf

[ncmncm]

Oddly, my solar projects have not had 5x, 3x, or even 1.5x cost overruns, never mind multi-year unplanned delays. And, they started producing immediately.

Carbon footprint is not in play.