> They have very high double standards in Nuclearstan.

Don't worry, they're lobbying to lower those standards in order to be more cost-competitive with renewables.

We've had breeder reactors for decades, what are you talking about?

We've had demo reactors with various issues, none of which demonstrated they could compete even with burner reactors.

I remind you the double standard involved criticizing renewables "at scale", so a few problematic breeder reactors won't dispel the hypocrisy.

For what it's worth, I'm not suggesting using breeder reactors as a primary source of electrical power, but as an option for reprocessing transuranic waste and spent fuel. So totally different levels of scale.

Also, the main reason we haven't invested in breeder reactors is that it turns out uranium isn't actually scarce enough to justify it.

Oh but you have to use breeders (or perhaps sea water uranium extraction) for a global nuclear-powered economy. Burner reactors run out of sufficiently cheap uranium in less than a decade at that scale. That pesky "scale" thing again.

That doesn't mean every single reactor needs to be a breeder reactor; it means you have a small number of breeder reactors, which we've done over half a century ago.