s/weapons//g<p>hmmm..
thorium reactors would still produce unmanagable high level nuclear waste (tho not as bad, not as much), and would still open up significant weapons proliferation vectors, both material and capacity. As for safety, these designs merely substitute one catastrophic failure mode (meltdown) for another (volatility of the continuous onsite reprocessing)<p>inarguably, thorium designs offer stepwise improvements to the major disqualifications of catastrophic failure, unmanagable waste production and WMD prolifertaion. But I'm concerned that we should judge the nuclear industry on its present day detriments and hazards, not the promises of future designs.<p>there's a big thorium mine down the road from me - well, a big rare earths mine, where the dominant product is thorium. They're planning to come and bury all the (enriched) thorium back on site after extracting the lucrative rare earths. I read that as a pretty clear indication of the state of the market. (incidentally, and as far as minesite impacts go, the thorium mine is going to be at least as hazardous as a comparable uranium mine)<p>When Chernobyl went off, we were told don't worry, it's an outdated design, the new reactors would never do that. When Fukushima went off, we were told don't worry, it's an outdated design, the new reactors would never do that. Who can guess what they'll tell us when Indian Point goes off?<p>this is an industry that has consistently over-promised and under-delivered. Remember "energy too cheap to meter"?<p>by their deeds, not their words. let's try to manage the industry by the realities of today, not the promises for tomorrow.