Nuclear plants do have an impact on the environment too. What do you do with the toxic waste? The problem here is that you need to store it somewhere safe for thousand of years.
Wrong.
You only need to store the waste for a couple hundred years.
If the waste is reactive enough to be a real threat, it is reactive enough to be used as fuel. When it isn't reactive enough to be used as fuel anymore, it isn't reactive enough to be a real threat. Just throw it in a bunker for a couple decades and call it done.
We should be using pebble bed and breeder reactors. Better use of fuel, less production of waste, safer all-around.
The problem with breeders is that you get plutonium from them too witch i really don't like to be produced in any country.
The second thing is that failure of a nuclear power plant can produce a huge impact to the environment. I know that they have en insane number of redundancy build into the reactor but still it is operated by humans and the chance is not 0 that it might explode. I believe that the CANDU reactor is the only nuclear reactor that if anything happens is not able to explode because of it design ( no need to pull out the nuclear roods to stop the reaction) but on the other hand its efficiency is worse and it has got more waste afterwards.
Another option are fusion power plant. The research did alot of improvement during the last few years and the radio active waste has got a half-life of only a few years not really worth mentioning.
Fusion power generation is nowhere near becoming a reality.
You are right, but i have been at a research institute for fusion reactors before and what you realize there is that they have very limited funding mainly because politicians call it a non renewable energy. Which is true but fuel will run out after our sun will be exploded.