It just vexes me that thorium research is not a national priority. How can a technology that, by many estimates, has at least a 50% chance of being a viable replacement of all energy needs over the next 1000 years not be worthy of the US investment? We lose hundreds of billions of dollars per year in oil imports. Why is that not worth avoiding?
It's because nuclear reactors, of any kind, are politically untenable at the moment. Especially unproven designs. Nobody's going to allow one to be built in their back yard, no matter how promising the technology.
I'm not familiar with Thorium reactors at all, so forgive me for asking: how much long-lived nuclear waste do they produce? Because we have no viable way to do with that.
They use about 1/200th amount of fuel compared to current uranium reactors, so the amount of total waste is small.
About 1 tonne thorium per one gigawatt-year.
And the wastes they produce have a far smaller portion of long lived isotopes, because the reactor controls very well what substances receive neutrons.
> I'm not familiar with Thorium reactors at all, so forgive me for asking: how much long-lived nuclear waste do they produce?
Almost none of the 250,000 year stuff. Almost entirely the 300 year stuff. Also, about 1/4 the total mass of all waste product.
Additionally, according to their documentation, the 250,000 year stuff is ultimately cycled back into the reactor to be destroyed. Most long-lived nuclear waste is fissionable, so you can just use it as more fuel, given that you can remove the fission products from the fuel easily.
