As has been typical over the last year or so of writing about thorium power in the press, this article glosses over the difference between using thorium in a conventional water-cooled reactor and using thorium in a liquid fuel configuration, which is what lots of thorium advocates want. Many of the benefits (particularly in terms of increased fuel burn, and automatic shutoff in the event of failure) are dependent on the LFTR design, but one could easily read this article and assume they also apply to the MOX design being developed in India; for the most part, they don't. Certainly, you get some of the benefits of thorium fuel in that configuration (more abundant fuel as compared to uranium, for example), but it's an important distinction that needs to be part of the conversation.
The Thorium publicity spree is about rebranding nuclear power, not about having a technical discussion. If the only message that gets across is "new thorium reactors are safer than old reactors," it's still a win for everyone involved because this message is a subset of the truth (new reactor designs are safer than old designs in general).
I don't think the public properly appreciates the extent to which nuclear safety mechanisms have improved dramatically over time, not least because a design's safety profile is largely "frozen in" when it is built, so we occasionally see a half-century old "bug" rear its head (Fukushima). The public sees it as evidence against the safety claims of future nuclear plants, even though it is not (quite the opposite: building newer, safer plants lets us retire the old, dangerous ones). Rebranding might get them to take another look.
Actually, I think including as much detail as the parent post did might be a net negative because it muddies the core message. Simplicity and straightforwardness are key.
One big thing that always gets mentioned in any Thorium discussion is that originally, Uranium was chosen over Thorium exactly because it is inherently less safe; it can be used to make bombs, which is what all the nuclear powers were really interested in. So Uranium research got lots of government support while Thorium research was dropped.
I'm no nuclear physicist, so I have no idea if Thorium really is inherently safer than Uranium, but if it is, I'm all for it. But if it is indeed safer and cheaper, and old tech that's been ignored for decades, then why aren't there new Thorium reactors popping up all over the place? Or are there? Is anyone still investing in the Uranium/Plutonium cycle?
