Its not “just bury it underground”. Thats extremely reductionist and makes it seem far less safe than it is.

The spent uranium is not a liquid or a loose green sludge. It consists of solid, durable ceramic pellets that do not melt or dissolve easily in water. Those pellets are then sealed inside airtight tubes made of zirconium, which are then placed into massive canisters made of thick carbon steel thats coated in copper. The canisters are engineered to withstand extreme pressures and resist rusting for hundreds of thousands of years.

Those canisters are then placed in underground tunnels and packed tightly with bentonite clay. If any moisture ever seeps into the tunnel, this clay absorbs it, swells up, and creates a waterproof seal that locks the canisters in place. But even then, the repository is built at least 500 meters (about 1,600 feet) underground inside exceptionally stable rock formations, such as solid granite or deep salt beds. These areas have virtually no water movement and have remained seismically quiet for millions of years

Its perfectly safe, and significantly more thought out than “just put it in the ground”

Oh I'm inclined to believe that, but even ignoring Chernobyl and similar situations, fact remains that nuclear waste would pile up and create another generation's issues. Better than oil? Absolutely. But renewables are where I'll place my bets for a better tomorrow now.

Also in both cases we need batteries, as nuclear isn't quick to start or stop, and peaks or drops in usage need covering, so if I'd make one wish it's advancement in battery tech.

Except the whole continuous power part.