IMHO no, it doesn't. Funding and research for Nuclear dried up ages ago, and given the impending doom most scientists think we are facing, it would be rational to be spending gazillions on developing new tech, processes etc. including storage. What we take out of the ground is radioactive - it's rational to think we can find a way to put it back with slightly less radioactivity. Obviously that's a crude way to put it to the point of metaphor, but it's not irrational either.

If Greenpeace had not killed nuclear, I suggest we might be in a considerably better situation vis-a-vis climate change. Possibly a couple of Fukishimas worse off, but that's not hugely bad either, given the upside.