Fine Structure

Wired is currently running an article about Thorium nuclear reactors, an idea pioneered by Alvin Weinberg at Oak Ridge in the 1950s. Thorium is apparently a better nuclear fuel than Uranium, Uranium only won out in the 60s because the result of Uranium reactors - highly dangerous and weapons-grade plutonium - was in demand for the upcoming arms race against the Soviets.

Thorium reactors are based on similar principles to todays reactors; neutron in, energy and more neutrons out. But the Wired article seems entirely too positive about Thorium. Here's the pro/con breakdown:

Pros:

• Requires significantly less acreage than traditional reactors
• Thorium is incredibly abundant and cheap, 1000 years of use in the current US "stockpiles"
• More efficient than Uranium (more power per ton of material)
• Produces short-lived (hundreds of years) waste and in much smaller quantities with no risk of weaponization
• Automatically regulating, no risk of meltdowns

Cons:

• Needs a lot more money for research before it can be commercialized
• Corrosive to machinery over time, little research into how long parts last
• Exxon supports traditional Uranium reactors

Those are the major points and, let me tell you, I really had to dig for those cons. Every time I read an article and come away with a sense of "Wow, this is amazing! Let's do it now!" there's always a catch. Someone please tell me where the catch is. No one passes up this kind of opportunity for 40 years because they're happy enough with Uranium reactors. From this article, Thorium is better is every way imaginable, it could solve our energy problems for 1000 years or more. WHAT IS THE CATCH? Please, comment below if you have some insight.