Should molten-salt Thorium reactors be embraced?

[Blue3]

Should molten-salt Thorium reactors be embraced?


They were originally an option in the US, but were abandoned by the US government because it would be very difficult to get enough material to use for a nuclear bomb by them.

But while uranium/plutonium is like 1% efficient, thorium is 99% efficient, and thorium is much more abundant (over 3 times more abundant), with the biggest observed reserves in India and the United States. One ton of thorium can create as much energy as 200 tons of uranium or 3.5 million tons of coal. It’s easier, cheaper, and more environmentally-safe to mine too.

China is currently building one, and it has the potential to make electricity nearly free or cost less than a dollar a month for most US households.

It produces very little nuclear waste, the waste it does is less radioactive and shorter-lived, and it can convert existing nuclear waste into fuel.

Using a molten salt reactor, it also makes nuclear meltdowns and accidents like Fukushima/Chernobyl impossible. It’s easier to shut down and doesn’t require the extreme pressure to work.


The negatives from my research just seem to be we don’t have as much experience actually using it yet and would likely need government investment up-front to kickstart it, that molten fluoride salt takes higher temperatures, and the short-lived radioactive energy when being used produces gamma rays which would need expensive shielding.



Thoughts?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Think of how many anti-nuclear activists would be salty if this happened.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Yes