Switching to Thorium is a good move: if only we could make it work. There are a number of projects around the world, but none have become fully commercially successful. However, unlike Fusion, which is always 20 years away, there's a whole host of engineers who believe that Thorium power can be achieved with strong effort in a matter of years. The main technical limitation is that Thorium is more stable (less radioactive) than Uranium, and so is more difficult to start on its path to radioactive decay.
Fission and decay are completely different things. Thorium is no harder to fission than uranium. And neither is particularly prone to decay - the commonly found isotopes of both are very long lived (if they weren't, there wouldn't be any left to mine).
Advantages of Thorium:
It is more plentiful than Uranium
True, but as neither is scarce, not really important.
It decays into non-radioactive products, greatly reducing nuclear waste
Decay is irrelevant. Thorium fission generates radioactive daughter nuclei, just like uranium fission does.
It does not produce by products that can be used in nuclear weapons, allowing any country to use it without proliferation risks.
True, but then, nor do well designed uranium power reactors. Making weapons grade fissile materials and generating electricity are different things, and it turns out that trying to do both in the same reactor isn't very effective as a means of doing either.
However the main reason that thorium power wasn't pursued in the 1950s and '60s is it's lack of weapons potential - which is the same reason that molten (uranium) salt reactors weren't pursued at that time.
A lot of Generation I reactors were designed to make plutonium for bombs, as well as making electricity; But it became clear very quickly that if you want plutonium, you are better off with a specifically designed plutonium production reactor, and if you want electricity, you are better off with a specifically designed power reactor.
No nuclear power state, outside the permanent members of the UN security council, has ever made a nuclear bomb using a reactor that also generates electricity. Proliferation of nuclear weapons via electricity generating reactors is a mythical monster, not a real concern. You might as well worry that vaccines cause autism, or that shipping might be imperilled by sailing too close to the edge of the world.
It is less radioactive by itself, which makes it easier and safer to mine, process and use.
Natural uranium isn't very radioactive, and is an alpha emitter. It's pretty much harmless - indeed, it makes excellent radiation shielding.
India, with its large reserves of Thorium and huge energy needs, is taking the lead on research, with many other countries following.
Yang is very correct. The advantages of Thorium almost completely cancel out most people's concerns with nuclear power.
As do the advantages of uranium. The only benefit of thorium in this regard is that people have heard of uranium and already decided it's evil. But neither is actually evil, or dangerous, or even problematic, as energy sources go.
I read once that the USA has enough Thorium that can easily be extracted from discarded mine tailings to last for centuries, let alone if we start mining it on purpose.
The USA also has a glut of uranium and plutonium. Fuel scarcity and/or cost isn't a problem, and likely never will be, for ANY fission technology.
