Thorium reactors are a dead-end, as European research found out. They had stopped all work years ago. There were major accidents with this type of reactors and one even happened at the same time as the Chernobyl disaster: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_THTR-300#St.C3.B6...
For some reasons some countries don't want to learn from history.
For some reason users who post links don't want to read them. From the first paragraph:
"Despite its designation as a thorium reactor , it was essentially a normal on uranium fission ( 235 U) based reactor"
Additionally, a lot of the recent hype on thorium reactors is that they are actually molten salt reactors (see the oak ridge national lab experiments - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment). By using a liquid fluoride salt, you can run a thorium reactor at ambient pressure and high temperatures, leading to safer operation and better utilization of thorium in feed stock. I think one of the main concerns for this implementation is material durability and corrosion resistance. If we can figure this stuff out, this reactor model looks promising. See Kirk Sorensen's company Flibe energy and the wiki for the LFTR - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR.
Also potentially safer failure mode: in a run-away vent, it heats up, melts through a plug in the reactor base and drains out into a settling pan, which stops the reaction dead.
The worst thing about modern nuclear power is we won't shut the old reactors the hell down, so when you get a Fukushima it's because at every junction proposals to replace it were held up, but no one would brook just shutting it down either.
I always find it amusing when links provided by "nay sayers" present contrary evidence or no evidence at all.
From the link:
The nuclear power plant THTR-300 ( thorium high-temperature reactor) was a helium-cooled high-temperature reactor of the type pebble bed reactor in North Rhine-Westphalia Hamm with an electrical output of 300 megawatts . Despite its designation as a thorium reactor , it was essentially a normal on uranium fission ( 235 U) based reactor: While there was his nuclear fuel to 90 per cent of thorium, but this was holds less than 30 percent of its energy. Because of its high cost and because of his unsatisfactory, short operation he is widely regarded as the greatest technical debacle in post-war Germany.
The reactor was in fact a URANIUM REACTOR!
I still need to see relevant proof that Thorium technology failed for any other reason than good sales and marketing from the Uranium camp.
> While there was his nuclear fuel to 90 per cent of thorium, but this was holds less than 30 percent of its energy.
Hint: Maybe there was a reason for that? Like ... that was/is the best way to build a Thorium reactor? But yeah, the engineers were probably all monkeys. That must be the reason.
Sure, there was a reason to do a project which: "Because of its high cost and because of his unsatisfactory, short operation he is widely regarded as the greatest technical debacle in post-war Germany." (from the link).
Not saying the engineers are all monkeys, but this specific project was a complete failure and yes, there are countless better ways to develop a Thorium reactor (see LFTR et all).
It's an accu battery pack (lithium-ion), no nuclear reaction, the name is misleading.