>I dont know if you realize just how small of a drop in the ocean it really is compared to the shit we are doing now.

It's such a small problem, that beyond all the environmental regulations and monitoring we have to do, we also have an entire government program dedicated to the security of just nuclear waste:

https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Nuclear%20SRMA%20Fact%20Sheet_508.pdf

It's literally described as "the most highly regulated and heavily guarded of all civilian infrastructure."

But tell me more about how small an issue it is.

>Using vitrification? Anywhere.

Which currently isn't being practiced in any substantial quantity in the US.

Even if it were, vitrified waste is still radioactive and must be carefully stored. While it does make the issue a little easier to manage, it is not a solution to the storage problem.

You cannot store vitrified nuclear waste "anywhere."

>I wonder why there are none after the big stink people made about nuclear. Putting the cart before the horse.

Actually it has nothing to do with that.

Breeder reactors were phased out primarily for two reasons:

We found more uranium fuel sources, so the need to get all the energy out of the uranium we had greatly diminished.

The navy needed pressurized water reactors because they were the only design that could be shrunk down to a size that would fit on ships - submarines in particular.

Because the navy poured so much money into the research and development of PWRs, the cost to build them commercially was highly subsidized. There was far less research completed on making reliable, safe breeder reactors, so the costs to pursue them were substantially higher.

I also appreciate that you didn't address the fact that per dollar, we can get almost ten times the power output from offshore wind, and we can do it faster.