Those options are not bad per se, they are just all less cost, space, and time effective than nuclear

Ah yes, the weakest argument against it. Nuclear energy has not happened in 12 years, Fukushima Daiichi (at most a minor accident in the history of energy) being the most recent. The only real issue on the list of disasters is Chernobyl, which only ever broke as OLD technology, WITHOUT it's safety systems on, and the workers were even misinformed on what button to press. A large series of failures had to happen to make it explode, and that tech is considered ancient compared to today. Regulations in place for those reactors make them take decades to build, and have heavy supervision. Nuc…  Read morelear waste storage has already been solved, and we've made methods that buy us several thousand years, while also being the single most reliable source of energy to power the world. It's the most energetic and viable option on the list, and is extremely useful to the transition of energy from fossil fuels to alternatives. America, in fact, is also the leader in nuclear technologies, and has only had one noticeable meltdown; 3 Mile Island. That accident had a death toll of 0, and the area is still not dangerous to humans, though it's not advised to live there.