>> Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none. > There are certainly options in the wind Those are

>> Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none. > There are certainly options in the wind Those are mere hopes, not ready-to-deploy adequate reactors. > The Chinese TMSR-LF1 Its complete name is "liquid fuel thorium-based molten salt *EXPERIMENTAL* reactor" (emphasis is mine). > ( 2MW ) 2MW thermal, that is to say a lab toy. Even if it works adequately and for a reasonable total cost to obtain the aggregated thermal power of existing civilian US nuclear reactors producing electricity we will need approximately 47000 of them. As the existing fleet accounts for 20% of the nation's total electric energy generation in order to 'clean' the gridpower approx 235000 of them are needed. Then we have to convert to electricity many thingies now burning fossil fuel, therefore we probable need at best approx 2x times more electricity... > uses uranium fluoride but doesn't require it ... and yes, it now uses uranium. Maybe one day... Let's be realistic. This is a mere hope, nothing more (yet). Remember that in the 1970's many planned to be able to deploy sodium-cooled fast breeders industrial reactors, which were then WAY more advanced than other Gen4 (thorium...) because lab reactors already worked quite well. Yet this industrial fleet didn't appear anymwhere, as albeit huge volume of resources poured at the challenge no nation was able to design a satisfying industrial reactor. > a ten year licence while a second much larger version ( 10 MW ) is currently being built. Its output, if it is successful: 10MW, therefore to replace the existing US fleet we will only need about 9400 of them. > a full industrial GW scale version will break ground ~ 2028 ( but that's admittedly intended policy speak OK, let's wait while deploying what works right now: renewables.