Pros/Cons of Thorium based reactors?

Question

Hopefully dx/dy is reading this (as he's probably the best qualified regular around her to comment on this).

Could thorium based nuclear reactors be the quickest and most cost effective solution for global warming? Is there any reason AGW doubters would object to this technology being promoted, even if they don't see the need to curtail CO2 emissions?

What are the pros and cons of thorium based reactor technology? It seems safer, far more abundant, and possible to drastically reduce the need for on-going coal power generation plants (and their associated environmental effects).

Answer 1

Thorium fluoride reactors generate 0.1% of the waste. And the waste that is produced has a half-life of only 30 years, compared to 10,000 years or so with waste produced by light-water reactors.

Fuel generated through Thorium, is the least radioactive substance known -- about 1000 x less radioactive than Uranium.

Thorium fluoride reactors can't melt down, because the fuel is already liquid in the reactor core.

Unlike traditional light-water reactors, the core liquid in thorium fluoride reactors is unpressurized, resulting in  less chance of leakage, and zero chance of pressure explosion. It is also  easier to engineer and build.