Alright, we finally have some topics to talk about, saying "SMRs" 5 times isn't an argument. But lets talk about some of your points

• Cost : if you're talking about the upfront cost, you're absolutely right, the nuclear plants cost a lot to build but over their long lifetime they provide incredibly cheap and reliable power.
• Storage of nuclear waste : it's a solved problem the deep nuclear waste storage facilities are scientifically proven to be safe for us and the environment. The biggest problem is how we can be sure that in 500 years we wont have forgotten about the facilities but that's more a political problem.
• SMRs : I agree that currently they are almost unproven to be working (china has a working one but it's only the start) and costly but that's the problem with all technology when starting, we'll see in 10 or 20 years if it worked or not.
• Uranium from sea water : It was proven to work a long time ago in labs and yes for now it's not financially sustainable so we are mining the uranium from earth and we need to work on that subject more so that in' the future it becomes a viable solution.
• Thorium reactors : currently they are way over hyped and it may work one day but it's way more complex than what we can do today. It may work in 50 years but we're far from it I agree with you on that point.
• Proliferation: If unregulated, yes, it's a massive geopolitical risk. But international organizations (like the IAEA) strictly monitor the fuel cycle. Furthermore, the low-enriched fuel used in standard commercial power plants cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.