You are certainly entitled to your opinion and the right to express it - despite the preponderance of information that disagrees with you.

A quick search yields: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nuclear-waste11-2009mar11,0,6987225.story You may try to hide from the truth, but you can't ignore it forever.

I must disagree with you. First of all a significant amount of waste is not being stored above ground. A significant amount is being stored underground or is planned to - as soon or if they can figure out a way to stabilize it for 10's of thousands of years. France is into breeder reactors. The problem is they have bred so much they don't know what to do with it. They are running out of storage capacity. So naturally they are encouraging others to build fission reactors as well - which will help them get rid of their surplus. Of course this can snowball. As more breeders are built more excess starts building up. Eventually you land up with a huge pile of waste. That is the nature of fission. Millions are being spent right now to figure out how to handle it but no long term solution exists. Projects include condensing it down and incorporating into synthetic rock. They know that drum storage simply will not last. There is even a signage project to figure out how to mark radioactive dump sites to warn future generations. Additionally nuclear waste sites are a 'candy store' for terrorists. It is time we started thinking about serious long term solutions instead of wasting time and money on quick fixes.

And everyone you mentioned is either unreliable, not cost effective, is dependent on random events, or is costly to maintain. You seem to lump all nuclear together. I am absolutely opposed to nuclear power by fission. Fission creates byproducts that potentially spell disaster for future generations or terrific opportunities for terrorism. I couldn't agree with you more in respect to fission. Nuclear Fission is an absolutely horrible short sighted solution. Fusion on the other hand virtually eliminates all of these problems. Its current problems right now are designing the proper containment vessel and sustaining the reaction. Sooner or later these issues will be resolved and the world will switch to fusion given its cost of operation and virtual elimination of hazardous byproducts. Why not now instead of later? Why waste money on already limited or obsolete technologies instead of committing to an emerging technology that promises to produce virtually unlimited, cheap, and green power?

The only long term exit from fossil fuels on the horizon is Fuson. -Solar:unreliable (rain & night); materials are exotic, costly, and manufacturing creates toxic waste or environmental damage -Wind: unreliable and takes up a lot of space. -Fission: byproducts are highly toxic and waste management is a nightmare. -Fusion: Fuel is extracted tritium (H3) gas or heavy water; waste is hydrogen gas or water. Abundance of fuel-virtually unlimited. If fusion goes on-line it will be so plentiful and cheap that meters may be abandoned for a nominal monthly charge for all the electricity you want to use. The only limitation will be the ability of the power grid to supply it.