--Providing HN the details about Thorium that the Forbes article lacks-- tl;dr - While the technology is solid, thorium reactor technology still has some pract

--Providing HN the details about Thorium that the Forbes article lacks-- tl;dr - While the technology is solid, thorium reactor technology still has some practical kinks to work through, the kind that have already been addressed in large scale pwr/bwr commercial reactors. -Drawbacks- 1. Thorium fueled reactors can still contribute towards the production of atomic devices, though not as readily, and most likely not the "classic" PU-239 based weapons. 2. The Oak Ridge reactor was built for a very specific purpose, with very high outlet temperatures and as little weight as feasible. It literally ran red hot. This is not the operating conditions under which a commercial power generating facility would operate. See the wikipedia article on the Oak Ridge reactors here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Reactor_Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Reactor_Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment 3. The handling of liquid fuels requires a complete paradigm shift in the regulation and methods of the existing nuclear industry 4. There were some hot corrosion issues of the Inconel alloys used in the piping of the MSRE. Evidently the Japanese solved these problems in the 1990s, but I have not been able to find the papers that talk about how. 5. In the US, at least, we will have to overturn Jimmy Carter's ban on nuclear fuel reprocessing to get the maximum benefit of the technology. This needs to happen independent of LFRs. There are probably other downsides on the tip of my tongue, but I cannot tease them out at the moment. Folks who are interested in more can contact me off HN at the email address in my profile.