[zuhraliyana]

It's not my definition.

Whose definition then (of sustainable)?

As far as saying the amount of waste is tiny...I'm thinking in terms of exhaust gasses, since lately, more green means less carbon. That's your definition of sustainable, more or less carbon?

The fuel waste could be reprocessed into more useable fuel (and there are new designs that essentially self reprocess the spend fuel and only need refueling after several decades.) Reprocessing fuel/breeder reactors increase the problem of nuclear proliferation. I don't think that South Korea regards Kim's possession of weapons grade nuclear material as sustainable.

I think, if properly run, nuclear can be very green. Like I said, not now.

Look at one of the advantages nuclear has over wind or solar (not that either can really replace it) Now you're changing the discussion to which is better as an energy source. That involves other criteria besides sustainable.

Nuclear power is a highly complex, potentially dangerous technology. Regarding it as green could lead to a head-in-the-sand approach, passing on problems to the next generation that become difficult to deal with. That's not sustainable.