No, not “any step.” If they can do it cheaply and reliably that’s great but it’s never happened. Wasting time and billions of dollars for nothing is not a step in the right direction.

If we rely on nuclear plants to replace fossil fuels hundreds of millions of people will die from extreme weather events and loss of arable land. Yes progress is good, but if this is just more of the same it’s not progress, it’s just a waste of time and resources the could go into actually replacing fossil fuels.

If nobody is willing to put up the money to wait decades to profit for normal nuclear, why would they do it for new, potentially more expensive nuclear?

Even if it doesn’t take a decade and it costs less (fat chance it costs less, the article literally says the designers think it will costs up to 50% more to generate electricity) the infrastructure to mass produce them won’t be ready for decades, well past every tipping point for 1.5 and 2 degrees average temperature increase.

Honestly, when people are advocating for nuclear it really makes me think they have zero understanding of the timeframe and urgency involved in needing to replace fossil fuels