Talk:Thorium fuel cycle

MIT concludes there is little incentive?

A 2011 MIT study concluded that although there is little in the way of barriers to a thorium fuel cycle, with current or near term light-water reactor designs there is also little incentive for any significant market penetration to occur.

That sentence in the History section doesn't make sense. Where in that 250 page report does it conclude that "there is little incentive for any significant market penetration to occur"? And why would that be the case with "little in the way of barriers to a thorium fuel cycle"?

I propose to clarify or remove this sentence altogether.

List of thorium-fueled reactors

This seems to be a list of reactors where any thorium was ever inserted and burned, with no distinction between ongoing use, one time at commissioning, for fuel enhancement, research projects, etc. Is that really useful? It might be better to distinguish at least between primarily thorium-fueled reactors (at this point just prototypes as far as I can tell) and reactors where thorium was used but is not the primary fuel. --Geoffk01 (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

From the article: "Th-232 is transmuted into the fissile artificial uranium isotope U-233 which is the nuclear fuel". --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge, your comment about PRIMARY fuel is correct; we could re-title that table to "List of reactors in which Thorium was experimented with as fuel". It is definitely hard to be both accurate and concise. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)