[tjoff]

You don't answer the parent.

Parent: "[...] but if LFTRs can provide a better and safer nuclear? Then it's about time environmentalists started pulling their heads from their asses and reconsider nuclear before we irreversibly fuck up our entire planet and ecosystem."

Your article: Nuclear isn't economically/politically likely.

Well, if the safest and greenest form of electricity was also the cheapest and most politically friendly alternative then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If the environment was prioritized enough then neither would pose any obstacle, what remains is the debate of whether nuclear really is the greenest and safest form of energy.

[spenrose]

I linked to a write-up of peer-reviewed research which focused on the "if" and demonstrated that the odds are daunting. That ... is an answer. I linked to a second article showing that renewables are reducing emissions from natural gas today. "If the environment was prioritized enough" then either would work. Renewables are making headway given the current political economy of energy, nuclear is not. And to repeat: I wish it were!

[tjoff]

Odds are daunting that it is a green and safe source of energy?

[spenrose]

That new nuclear will be deployed at scale in the next two decades that wind and solar are being deployed at now.