ChooseThorium

A new era of clean, safe, and abundant nuclear energy is here — are you ready to discover it?

Thorium vs Uranium

Feature Thorium (Th-232) Uranium (U-235/U-238)
1. Fuel Cost and Availability Abundant and cheap. Thorium is 3 to 4 times more abundant than uranium and usually mined as a by-product. Current market price is lower due to underutilisation. Scarce and expensive. Only 0.7% of natural uranium is fissile (U-235), requiring costly enrichment. Prices are rising with demand.
2. Reactor Construction Cost (Potential) Potentially lower cost. Thorium in molten salt reactors (MSRs) avoids high-pressure systems, simplifying construction and reducing capital cost. High reactor costs. Pressurised systems require complex containment, leading to capital costs often exceeding $10 billion per unit.
3. Energy Yield per Ton Very high. 1 ton of thorium yields the same energy as 200 tons of uranium or 3.5 million tons of coal. Low efficiency. Less than 1% of mined uranium becomes usable energy.
4. Long-Term Waste Much lower. Waste decays to safety in ~300 years. No long-lived transuranics or large plutonium output. Problematic waste. Includes plutonium and other isotopes requiring 10,000+ year storage.
5. Meltdown Risk / Safety Inherently safe. Molten salt reactors use passive safety like freeze plugs to avoid meltdowns. Higher risk. Pressurised systems and high heat increase complexity and accident potential.
6. Proliferation Risk Low. U-233 bred from thorium is contaminated with U-232, emitting strong gamma radiation—making weapons handling extremely difficult. High. Uranium reactors produce plutonium-239, a core nuclear weapons material.
7. Operational Waste Heat Higher efficiency. MSRs operate at 600–700°C, improving electricity generation and supporting industrial processes like desalination. Lower efficiency. Most uranium reactors operate at ~300°C and require large cooling systems.
8. Mining and Environmental Impact Lower impact. Extracted as a by-product, thorium avoids dedicated mining and has less radioactivity in raw form. Significant impact. Uranium mining disrupts ecosystems and produces radioactive tailings.
9. Fuel Fabrication and Handling Simpler. Thorium does not require enrichment and can be introduced directly into suitable reactors. Complex. Uranium must be enriched, which is expensive and energy-intensive.
10. Reactor History / Readiness Tested but underused. Successful prototypes like ORNL's MSRE and India’s 3-phase program show promise. Commercially dominant. Mature technology powers ~10% of global electricity.
11. Regulatory & Infrastructure Support Emerging. Infrastructure is growing but requires regulatory modernisation. Established. Extensive regulatory and supply chains exist globally.
12. Public Perception Positive. Seen as a clean, safe nuclear alternative without the legacy of weapons and disasters. Mixed. Linked to past accidents, waste fears, and weapons proliferation.
13. Reusability and Breeding Highly reusable. Breeds U-233 efficiently and supports closed fuel cycles. Limited. Breeder reactors exist but are not commercially widespread.
14. International Interest Growing. India, China, and private companies are investing in thorium development. Declining in the West. New uranium plant builds are slowing in many developed nations.
15. Cost of Decommissioning Lower potential cost. Smaller, safer designs and less radioactive waste simplify end-of-life handling. Very high. Complex dismantling and waste storage for millennia increase decommissioning cost.
16. Modular Deployment / Scalability Modular design. Companies like Copenhagen Atomics are developing factory-built thorium reactors the size of a shipping container — capable of powering a town of 100,000 people. This allows rapid, decentralised energy deployment with reduced capital investment. Slow to adapt. Uranium-based SMRs exist but face cost overruns and slower development. Most uranium plants remain large and site-specific.

References

  1. World Nuclear Association – Thorium
  2. Oak Ridge National Laboratory – Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE)
  3. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – Advanced Reactor Fuel Cycle Reports
  4. Kirk Sorensen (Flibe Energy) – Technical presentations on LFTR technology
  5. MIT "Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle" Report (2011)
  6. International Thorium Energy Organisation (IThEO) – Thorium resource data
  7. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) – Nuclear Waste Factsheets
  8. NEA / OECD – Reactor Cost Estimates & Fuel Cycle Economics
  9. Harvard Energy Journal – "The Nuclear Renaissance and the Future of Thorium"
  10. India’s Department of Atomic Energy – 3-Stage Thorium Program Summary
  11. Copenhagen Atomics – Modular Thorium Reactor Technology: “Our thorium-based molten salt reactors are designed to fit in a shipping container, mass-produced in factories, and deployed globally — each one capable of supplying power to a town of 100,000 people.”