Liquid fluoride thorium reactor burn radioactive waste as fuel.
Back in the when they started this research they decided against LFTR because it doesn't produce plutonium like Light Water Reactors. Needed it for the bomb programs.
They also can't melt down. Material science still has some work to do as I understand it to make it feasible to deal longer term with the hot liquid salt, but it's already proven to be a net positive reactor that's scalable. I know 10 years ago China was investing heavily in this research, but as a country they're not great at advanced metallurgy- it's why they buy Russian jets, strip the engines, and put them in their craft.
Not just use nuclear but also reprocess the waste back into fuel instead of burying it in the ground
That would get rid of a shit ton of their complaints right there
Liquid fluoride thorium reactor burn radioactive waste as fuel.
Back in the when they started this research they decided against LFTR because it doesn't produce plutonium like Light Water Reactors. Needed it for the bomb programs.
They also can't melt down. Material science still has some work to do as I understand it to make it feasible to deal longer term with the hot liquid salt, but it's already proven to be a net positive reactor that's scalable. I know 10 years ago China was investing heavily in this research, but as a country they're not great at advanced metallurgy- it's why they buy Russian jets, strip the engines, and put them in their craft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY - you should find Kirk Sorensen's full talk if this interests you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F92L6F0INYk - Illinois Energy Prof Talk
There are concerns about LFTRs too.
There aren't serious concerns.
We should be doing both LFTR should be most of them tho.