So does wind power without the horrible terrible nasty waste.
What horrible nasty waste? Spent fuel? Spent fuel can be processed until it's harmless, it is only political policy preventing it from being reprocessed now, and instead stored in a mountain somewhere.
Wind farms have relativley little space efficiency, produce little power, and cost a fortune to contruct in comparison to nuclear power plants. One windmill takes about 40'x40' suare of land and is about 30 feet deep filled with concrete and steel.
The great misconception about nuclear is that it "produces waste". It can't, unless you believe that energy springs magically out of nothing. Natural uranium has a half-life of roughly a billion years. When we 'burn' it in reactors, we are using up a fraction of the energy it contains, leaving behind a mixture of unburned uranium and a transmuted mxture of breakdown product elements. Meany of these breakdown products are more stromngly radioactive than the original uranium, bt only because their half-lives are so mch shorter. Radioactive iodine decays away in a matter of weeks, for example. There is no way the total energy in nuclear waste can exceed the energy in the uranium you started with.
When nuclear waste is recycled, as at Tsukuba and Cap-La-Hague, these elements are separated. Unburned uranium is used to make new fuel rods; plutonium can be burned to create still more energy in specially designed reactors; short half-life elements are simply allowed to decay away quickly. Some of the intermediate-term elements have medical uses.
America could recycle too, but right now the process is expensive. Since we have the large stable deserts that Japan and France don't, we find it more efficient to store nuclear waste until recycling, like all technologies, gets cheaper.