>>42020
>opinion/letters-editor
These are prohibited in the sticky, OP. >>6
Have a related albeit old news link:
http://www.theenergycollective.com/rodadams/2375968/lightbridge-metallic-alloy-fuel-provides-upgrade-path-for-lwrs

>>42020
>replace nuclear
it's still nuclear. just a different fuel source

I've more faith in thorium than fusion

Fission still has a lot of promise and it appears as if we are close to the next generation of nuclear reactors of which MSRs are one. Its just a shame it hasn't already happened considering the research Oakridge put in during the 50s/60s/70s into MSRs. We could already have vastly cheaper electricity if the research was applied and further experimental reactors were funded. These types of new fission reaction cycles are needed to bridge us from the present to a future where fusion is a reality.

>>42030
Except there's zero chance of nuclear meltdown with thorium. It is a big deal.

>>42929
I think what Anon was saying is that you're not replacing Nuclear Energy. You're just changing the fuel source. The Thorium Fuel Cycle is still a Nuclear Reaction, it just uses a different fertile material. And while I'll grant you MSRs are indeed inherently safer than say HWRs or LWRs not all Thorium Reactors are based on the MSR model. Most are either VHTRs or BWRs. Both of which can be incredibly dangerous despite being unable to meltdown.