Huh. Buzzword fueled stupidity might have a positive effect for once.

I hate on the waste that pushes AI in everything.

Maybe Tom Scott should make a video about the Asse salt mine. It's where the "yellow barrel == nuclear waste" meme comes from look here a picture.

This stuff is the driving factor behind nuclear energy being a political no-go in Germany: We just don't trust anyone, including ourselves, to do it properly. Sufficiently failure-proof humans have yet to be invented. Then, aside from that: Fission is expensive AF, and that's before considering that they don't have to pay for their own insurance because no insurance company would take on the contract.

Fusion OTOH has progressed to a point where it's actually around the corner, when the Max Planck institute is spinning out a company to commercialise it you know it's the real deal. And they did.

"if we store them safely" - here's the problem with the entire argument. Nobody wants to pay for it, so they won't unless they are forced to. Carbon capture is a viable technology but it costs money to implement at a net financial loss, so nobody uses that if they don't have to either. The problem is the same as always - nobody who stands to lose money gives a damn. The planet dying is somebody else's concern tomorrow, and profits are their concern today.

I think a even better solution might be to not unnecessarily waste energies 😉

It's also not as if there are not other nuclear power stations in existence. There is plenty of storage capacity as you say.

This is just the standard hating everything tech companies do because, AI equals bad

Also nuclear fusion has essentially zero waste.

If it ends up working though it's not a waste of power is it? And if it doesn't work then, oh well.

Big tech companies do a lot of cramp, but this one I actually don't really mind. You never know we might actually get the Star Trek utopia we've always wanted from this, it's unlikely but it's not impossible.

Fusion does not produce nuclear waste.

Your comment doesn't stand up. It seems you've got something against fusion energy for some reason.
On cost: it's a best guess, since we don't yet have a working fusion reactor. The error bars on the cost estimates are huge, so while it is possible fusion will be more expensive, with current data you absolutely cannot guarantee it. Add to that the decreasing costs as the technology matures, like we've seen in wind and especially solar over recent decades.
On nuclear physics PhDs: that's no different to any energy generation, you need dozens of experts to build and run any installation.
On waste: where are you getting this info on the blanket? The old beryllium blanket design has been replaced with tungsten and no longer needs to be replaced. The next step is to test a lithium blanket which will actually generate nuclear fuel as the reaction processes.
This is the important fact that you have omitted, for some reason.

Nuclear fusion reactors produce no high activity, long-lived nuclear waste. The activation of components in a fusion reactor is low enough for the materials to be recycled or reused within 100 years

And that is why it's so important this technology is developed. It's incredibly clean and, yes, limitless.

As for your advice, there was a time not long ago when we didn't understand how to build fission plants either, and it cost a lot of time and money to learn how. I wonder if people back then were saying we should just stick to burning coal because we know how that works.