I am very familiar with the arguments you link to, they are repeated often in these discussions but they don't hold up to scrutiny.

The key mistake for most of these arguments is that nuclear waste is harmless and nuclear plants are safe on their own and don't need to be kept safe at great costs.

Any argument that rests on that idea is not going to hold up.

Just to take one example - one argument presented is basically that nuclear waste only requires a few acres of land where you can place dry casks, then you're good.

Try to find actual scientific and financial support for that idea from anyone else than the author.

>Early nuclear builds were cheaper to build:

Early cars were too, for many of the same reasons. Lower wages, worse quality, less safety.

>Spent fuel is mostly reusable:

How do you handle it while it is being reused? Does it become harmless after being reused or do we still need to deal with it for longer than the US has existed as a nation?

>Low-dose radiation risk is a contested harm:

Low-dose is not what we're talking about here. A kilo of nuclear waste in a van filled with fertilizer is not a contested harm, it's a nightmare scenario.

>And no, solar is NOT free

Building is not free of course but it has no running costs once built.

Nuclear has immense running costs, and they can't be stopped entirely. Even after it has been decommissioned and the company who made the plant has gone bankrupt it keeps costing society money.