You do not understand Nuclear power. The exchange of pollutants you mention is a fallacy for a number of reasons ranging from CO2 is not a pollutant to the ability of capturing, with current technologies, any real pollutant fossil fuels emit. So on that front I agree keep fossil fuels!
However Nuclear generates WAY less waste than the uniformed public knows and is quite easily managed and disposed of. Given the massive energy density of nuclear it should also be part of the energy mix. Without going all technical, literally it is shocking just how little space and how easily it is safely disposed of.
A better answer is nuclear for bulk needs like cities, homes and industry and fossil for transportation or remote areas where distribution is more challenging.
A handkerchief in the pocket of a nuclear worker’s coveralls is nuclear waste
I do not fully understand, I am sure, as I am not in the industry.
Can you explain to a lay person how nuclear waste is “disposed of”?
My understanding is that all of the spent rods used at the San Onofre power plant are still stored there. It is also that Fukushima is still a source of radiation, as it is in the same condition, but damaged.
I agree that nuclear waste is concentrated and the energy available is dense. Nuclear certainly has a place in energy generation. But the world’s use of energy is increasing. I don’t believe that an increase in nuclear waste output is a good idea.
I don’t get your point about a “fallacy”, since you agree with it. I don’t consider fossil fuel output to even be “waste”, in fact. But, even if I did, I believe it is absorbed into the environment far more rapidly than nuclear waste decays.