If nuclear - Thorium not Uranium is a cleaner way ahead for the waste is less of a problem. I've not read anything as to how long a Thorium reactor / plant might last and what the clean up costs at end of life would be but I imagine the metal around the reactors would be equally contaminated by nuclear radiation regardless of the fuel source.

There is a large somewhat unrealised issue of decommissioning large uranium nuclear plants when they reach end of life. [1] [2] Perhaps the newer smaller reactor plants proposed atm might not quite the same level of trouble decommissioning them.

[1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Cs8I-6PkQ [video 27 mins] How a Nuclear Power Plant Is Actually Decommissioned — The Full $20B Process

- can take 30 to 60 years - average US nuclear plant decommission cost sits around 10 billion dollars.

> Perhaps the newer smaller reactor plants proposed atm might not quite the same level of trouble decommissioning them.

Not as much material per single decommissioned site - but in total, simply to laws of scale, a lot more.

For the US this doesn't matter anyway, the US has ample amounts of geologically stable desert areas where they can just bury anything from UFOs to nuclear waste without anyone being bothered by it or it posing a danger to its surroundings, but Europe... outside of the Nordic countries with their granite rock formations, good luck finding a suitable site that doesn't risk contaminating the groundwater that is the source of drinking water for millions of people (see e.g. the Asse storage site and its issues).