You're confusing fusion with fission. Fission is a practical way to make electricity, but there are no practical fusion plants in existence.

Fission produces tons of highly radioactive waste. Nobody has solved the problem of what to do with all of it. In the US, nuclear power plants store their waste on-site, and for that reason no obsolete plant has ever been fully decommissioned and decontaminated. Every former nuclear site still hosts spent fuel facilities, either a pool or dry casks. The nuclear industry survives with the hope that someday, a method will be found for tidying up.

There are alternative fission technologies that bubble up from time to time, such as thorium fueling. None of these fully solve the waste problem, and none are in widespread use. Even if you solved it, there's a powerful "not in my backyard" reaction to every proposal. I think there would be enormous push back on new plants anywhere in the world. There have been only two new plants approved in the US in the last 30 years. There's no reason to believe that will change.

Fusion is a different story, but better? Maybe, maybe not. Fusion is likely to produce less troublesome waste. But the safety of a fusion reactor can only be assessed when there is an actual fusion reactor to evaluate. A practical fusion reactor would produce significant volumes of deuterium and tritium, which are chemically identical to water if liberated in the environment. And a fusion plant using a lithium blanket poses a chemical explosion risk. That's a new and different sort of hazard: mass volumes of low level nuclear waste that's highly bioactive. A fusion reactor would also be a powerful neutron source, which could make it the ideal machine for producing bomb materials. So the future may not be any more rosy with fusion power.