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.
Freezing nuclear power expansion and phasing out existing plants on the other can be done without an immediate economic cataclysmic that would make it both politically infeasible, and perhaps for the greens themselves, undesirable.
If the greens weren't powerful, how do you explain Germany's Green Party successfully pushing to get the country's nuclear power plants decommissioned?
>>The most optimistic programs have breeders just barely producing a surplus in an experimental reactor in the late 2030s.
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.
What's your source suggesting otherwise?
>>It did. It's had trillions of dollars poured into it. Nothing happened.
I know this is not true but I'm open to seeing any credible source that proves me otherwise.
