[Schroedingersat]

> Because greens don't have the political capital to institute a zero tolerance policy toward fossil fuels, and probably don't want to implement such a policy as it would mean their standard of living would regress 80 years.

So you agree that the power to stop it didn't come from the greens but from general political will and the complete lack of any economic or practical viability? Good.

> My understanding was that breeder reactors are already producing surpluses and the only issue being that they're not economical because they have higher capital costs and it's cheaper to just enrich or use more uranium.

Give me a single example of a breeder reactor running a full load of fuel without prolonged shutdowns for repairs or to deal with it catching fire in breeding mode and coming out with more. It hasn't happened. A reactor that could, in principle, breed if it was operated completely differently like BN-800 whicb has the primary function of destroying plutonium doesn't count.

> I know this is not true but I'm open to seeing any credible source that proves me otherwise.

Phenix, Superphenix, the french MOX program (which existed only to serve Phenix and cost even more), IFR, the BN series.. the list is very long. They cost tens of billions each.