Hm, reading that, it doesn't seem to disprove or actually illuminate that much IMO: Misconception #1: I assume this is listed first because it is the biggest r

Hm, reading that, it doesn't seem to disprove or actually illuminate that much IMO: Misconception #1: I assume this is listed first because it is the biggest reason Thorium reactors weren't pursued? But really most MSR people seem to view it as political, and the bullet points in "Misconception #1" only underline that. Misconception #2: Almost all MSR presentations seem to assume a fissile "ignition" supply of uranium, that isn't hidden. And it seems to dovetail with the political opposition, since the regulatory agencies will block the supply of fissile uranium to start an MSR with. So this point seems to again highlight artificial/bureaucratic blockades. Miconception #3: Well, ok, this seems to be a decent answer based on the fundamentals of the science and engineering. Misconception #4: This seems to ignore the fact that a very very small amount of uranium is naturally fissile, while the Thorium all breeds to fissile. It also spouts off about seawater extraction, which hasn't happened AFAIK. This answer seems very misleading. Plus, the fact the author is from a competing design (a pebble design I believe, and one of the reasons pebble designs seem to exist is because of the prohibition on research labs from booting up a liquid reactor). I do agree the unknowns are the vessel degradation from the salts, but materials engineers these days are just so amazingly good. It just seems frustrating that the overarching influence of regulatory agency stubbornness and lobbying influence of solid fuel rod reprocessors and other fuel makers (who have a monopoly on nuclear fuel production I believe due to the regulatory agencies) is evident in this article. If it is true that China gets breeder/thorium/liquid reactors going, it all doesn't matter. The US will be a decade behind, and with the anti-nuclear opinions of the US voting populace, that will afford the entrenched interests cover to keep suppressing nuclear. I suppose it doesn't matter right now. Solar/Wind/Battery is improving so quickly you can't forecast/target a price/budget for a reactor design that is invariably 5-10 years out.