> "Environmental group Greenpeace"
Let's be honest here, Greenpeace is an environmental group the same way PETA is an animal rights group.
One thing I think a lot of people forget is that many of the same problems that nuclear has are issues with other power sources. For example, coal also has radioactive waste. To put it into perspective, an average coal plant produces 5-10 tonnes of Uranium and Thorium ash per year.[0] Let alone the 400tonns of coal ash. I should also note that ash is more dangerous.
I'm not trying to say here that these aren't concerns. But I'm trying to say that when people mention these things that it always feels either uninformed or disingenuous. There is an issue of scale, so if the concern is about radioactive contaminants then we should be prioritizing the one that is producing more.
> That's really not a lot.
Which shows an understanding of scale (which is difficult). For reference, total waste per person from most nuclear powered countries is about a liter bottle per year, which only ~3% is high level waste[1] (~30ml, < a 10th of a soda can). So taking into account the scale, even when including toxicity and radioactivity, it is still one of the cleanest forms of energy we have. But the reason for that is scale. More radioactive, more toxic, but magnitudes less waste.
[0] https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-sta...
[1] Only shows UK, but it is relatively similar waste levels across most countries. https://nuclearpoweringvision2020.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/h...