The only answer I'm aware of is, ironically, the regulatory structure. It takes a lot of red tape to get a nuclear power plant approved - the cost is in the billions. An entirely new design with a new fuel cycle might be even more difficult, and businesses might find it to be risky.
I think there are a few prototipes in development. but the US had a working thorium reactor in the 60ties, and basically went for uranium power since it can power subs, and other weapons technologies. Why didnt some other nation pick up where the US left off.
Then there are folks like dronester, who argue so strongly against nuclear power in general that we tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater. That's just my best guess.
From what i know of thorium reactors i wouldn't be protesting stop nuclear power but change to thorium and more of it.
But I'm with you - I'd be all on board for a Thorium fuel cycle. And I believe you're talking about a molten salt design, which is passively cooled and passively temperature-regulated and passively shuts down in case of an emergency, which is all great.
Thorium also has a longer usable fuel cycle than Uranium, so we can get more power out of it on top of its increased abundance, and the waste material after reprocessing is both minimal and only radioactive for a relatively short time (if I remember correctly, hundreds of years, not thousands or millions).
Yea that one 300 years is the time waste remains radioactive, and its al primarily alpha radiation that is stopped by skin only dangerous if such material is ingested.
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.