Why aren't we building more Thoriumreactors /g/?

>>57344231
I don't know the exact details, but I know that the thorium is extremely corrosive, so finding a suitable container is difficult.

A friend of mine working on his PhD in nuclear engineering told me that LFTR reactors are basically pipe dreams

File: 1.jpg (59KB, 2331x63px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 2331x63px

>>57344268
I have honestly never heard about that downside.

Is this what you meant?

On another note, will we ever make nuclear fusion feasible

>>57344231
Because extremely cheap, abundant, pollution/war-free energy would turn society and power structures on their head. Also, nobody would really want oil anymore.

>>57344644
And India would become a world provider of thorium

I work in nuclear.

The reason is because they're not fully fleshed out.
Most of the current models have never been tested.
There have been only a handful of tests in the 50s and some small Chinese stuff recently, but nothing more than that.
Nobody wants to be the first to spend billions of dollars to fund research, because once they figure it out, everyone else knows "for free".
You will need a ton of good theoretical models, then to build a prototype, then the prototype will need to be redone and re-engineered several times, then you need to get NRC and DOE clearance, then you need to find someone to INVEST in even building one of these fucking things.
Thorium might make an appearance in fifty years at the earliest.

>>57344231
Because oil/coal lobbyists.

File: 1466657472073.png (307KB, 635x590px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 635x590px

>>57345536
>tfw the generation that hates them will still oppose thorium when they get into power because MUH EBUL NOOCLEER

>>57345362
>Thorium might make an appearance in fifty years at the earliest.
no need, we'll have based fusion then which is far superior

Because USA has more coal than any country on earth.

>>57344231
>frozen salt

So, room temperature salt?