You asked why it sounded desperate. I gave you an answer. Now you're saying that you're "REALLY desperate." Then why did you ask the question when you already knew the answer? Ahh, but at the end you said it was "really just an exercise to make the reader think", so I take it it was not meant to be convincing.

I already addressed your point about "very good educated guesses." That is, the people in the 1950s said that they made "very good educated guesses" about the reactors then being designed, which in turn were based on "already successful experiments." It's the same sort of people making the predictions now - how do we know that their predictions are any more well grounded? Freeman Dyson, in "Disturbing the Universe", gave a reason which resonates with me. In short, you need multiple iterations to get a the technology working well, and the reactors which came online in the 1950s-1970s were too early in the evolution cycle. The exception was military reactors, which went through lots of iterations, but of course which aren't appropriate for utility power generation.

Which is exactly how the Moon missions worked - build plenty of rockets, watch them explode, figure out what went wrong, and do a new iteration. How many iterations of thorium power plants will we need to develop in order to make safe, efficient, economical thorium power plants? One, ten, one hundred? What practical experience justifies that estimate? So permit me to feel skeptical when I read echoes of the rose-colored promises from the Atomic Age which mention nothing about the practical matters learned the hard way.

You may say that all you want is "some form of energy that does not create green house gases" but the article barely mentions other non-greenhouse-gas systems, and mostly dismissively in the ambiguously written line "The newest reactors produce far less waste, run far more safely and are far more reliable than solar or wind." (It's ambiguous because it reads like 'the newest reactors run far more safely than solar or wind', when it's trying to say that they are safer than older reactors.) It also mentions nothing about improved energy conservation.

I never said anything about preaching to the President to lie. You (since you say you are the author) are the one who calls people liars, specifically the "self-serving opponents of anything nuclear science."

Your comments about the political system are only somewhat applicable. The US is not the only political system in the world. India has strong economic incentives to go towards thorium, and have a technological base at least equal to the 1960s US, yet they don't predict working thorium reactors for at least another few decades. BTW, your argument seems to be that everything's getting corrupted, and you just want things to go corrupt in the way you want it to be. I am morally opposed to that justification.

You mistake the lesson I took from TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, which is that people don't like reactors because dense power sources which can't trivially be shut off are suspect. Coal is 'safe' because its direct failure modes is to catch on fire, and that's easily handled. Solar is 'safe' because its direct failure mode is to stop generating electricity. Wind is 'safe' because its failure mode is to fall down. Hydro based on large reservoirs is less safe, because the history of dam breaks shows that they have some pretty nasty failure modes. All of these 'safe' systems have have hundreds of design iterations and improvements, and real-world failures. Note that by 'safe' I am not including environmental impact. The term "safe" has several different meaning, and I'm limiting it to just this one.

This article was supposed to make me think? It made me think that the author understands neither people nor politics nor history.