Thorium is an abundant, fertile metal that can be transformed into nuclear fuel. Its proponents point out several advantages over conventional uranium-based reactors: thorium is about three times more common than uranium in Earth's crust, all but a trace of natural thorium is the fissile isotope (Th‑232) so it needs no costly enrichment, and thorium cycles produce far less long-lived waste. In a thorium reactor the Th‑232 absorbs neutrons and breeds uranium‑233, a fissile fuel, but in doing so yields far fewer heavy actinides (plutonium and beyond) than a uranium‑based core. In practical terms, experts estimate that thorium waste remains radioactive on the order of centuries instead of millennia, and that it is produced in only a tiny fraction of the quantity of conventional waste. Thorium's fuel cycle also tends to be self-limiting for safety: because Th‑232 is non‑fissile, a reactor will only run so long as neutrons are supplied, and turning off the source immediately shuts down the reaction.
Figure: The 1960s Oak Ridge molten-salt reactor (MSR) was fueled by uranium‑233 bred from thorium. Like modern designs, it used liquid salt coolant and could be shut down simply by draining the fuel salt.
Crucially for climate and security, thorium has negligible weaponization potential. Unlike uranium-235 or plutonium-239, thorium cannot be used directly to make bombs, and even the U‑233 it breeds contains U‑232 impurities that emit strong gamma rays, making covert weapon production difficult. This non‑proliferation edge was a big reason thorium was ignored during the Cold War. In the 1950s–1960s, nuclear research in the U.S. and Soviet Union focused on fuels that could produce plutonium or U‑235 for bombs. Thorium, which "could not produce fuel for nuclear weapons," simply got "short shrift," as one analyst put it. In effect, military and political priorities locked in uranium‑plutonium technology. (A modern analogy: just as cheap gasoline and policy support led to gasoline cars dominating over early electric vehicles, Cold War geopolitics locked in uranium reactors as the standard.)
Today the thorium fuel cycle is gaining renewed interest. All thorium reactor concepts require an initial fissile "driver" (U‑233, U‑235 or Pu‑239) to kick-start the chain reaction. Typically, Th‑232 is irradiated in a reactor (often a pressurized heavy water or fast reactor) so that it decays via Th‑233 and Pa‑233 into U‑233. That U‑233 is then used to sustain fission. Advanced designs like molten salt reactors (MSRs) can even breed more U‑233 than they consume, achieving breeding ratios >1.0 in principle. In practice this means a thorium MSR can in principle run for decades on a single fuel load, gradually converting thorium to U‑233 and burning it up.
However, thorium also has challenges. It is fertile (not fissile) so no reactor can run on thorium alone – an external source of neutrons or fissile material is always needed. The chemistry and materials for thorium fuels are more complex than for uranium: for example, ThO₂ has a very high melting point, making fuel fabrication difficult. When irradiated, thorium fuel generates hard-to-handle daughter products. Expert reviews warn that thorium fuel fabrication and reprocessing "require more expensive remote processes" and specialized equipment to manage highly radioactive byproducts. Economically, there is no mature industrial chain: thorium is currently mined only as a byproduct of rare-earth extraction, so its cost of recovery is higher than uranium unless demand grows. And no proven commercial thorium reactor has yet been demonstrated, so utilities and investors face uncertain licensing and technical risk.
Historical Perspective: Why Thorium Was Overlooked
In the early atomic era, thorium showed promise (the technology was actually demonstrated at Oak Ridge in the 1960s), but strategic choices pushed reactor R&D toward uranium. Oak Ridge's famous Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) used U‑233 bred from thorium and ran from 1965–1969. It proved molten-salt technology feasible, but by 1969 the U.S. cancelled the program. The reason was geopolitical: nuclear power was tightly linked to weapons programs, so fuels that produced bomb-grade material won the race. As one recent analysis notes, thorium was "the world's nuclear fuel of choice" except for mankind's "insatiable desire to fight" – the Cold War "pushed research toward uranium" and left thorium's advantages unexplored.
Thorium's story is akin to other historical path-dependencies. (For example, early electric cars lost out to gasoline vehicles despite environmental benefits, because oil was cheap and infrastructure adapted to combustion engines.) In nuclear's case, the "winner takes all" scenario meant once uranium/plutonium tech was established (and billions invested), switching gears became very costly. Even when studies in the 1960s and 1970s examined thorium fuel cycles, they often concluded it wasn't "economically viable" under prevailing conditions. Today, however, energy economics and climate policy are very different. Renewed interest in climate-safe baseload power is opening up funding and research into advanced reactors — and thorium is back on the table as an option.
How Thorium Reactors Work
In practice there are several reactor approaches. The simplest uses existing heavy-water or graphite reactors (like Canada's CANDUs) mixed with a thorium-uranium "MOX" fuel. In these, Th‑232 is paired with a small amount of U‑235 or Pu‑239. As the reactor runs, Th‑232 absorbs neutrons and gradually decays to U‑233, which then fissions. For example, Clean Core Thorium Energy (a Chicago startup) is developing a patented ANEEL fuel – a blend of thorium and low-enriched uranium – that can be "seamlessly deployed into existing reactors." They claim it delivers immediate benefits (better economics, safety, non-proliferation) without new reactor designs. This incremental path can leverage today's nuclear fleet: CANDU and pressurized heavy water reactors can use thorium fuel rods with only modest modifications.
A more ambitious path is Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs). These integrate the fuel and coolant into a liquid salt, often fluorides. Molten salts allow very high core temperatures (improving efficiency), operate at ambient pressure (enhancing safety), and enable continuous fuel processing on-line. In a thorium MSR (often called a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, LFTR), thorium fluoride salts surround a "blanket" while a fissile driver (uranium-235 or plutonium) sits at the core. Neutrons breed U‑233 in the blanket, which can be chemically extracted and sent to the core fuel. MSRs have a self-regulating physics: if the salt heats up, it expands and neutron flux drops, passively damping the reaction. Studies have repeatedly highlighted their appeal: MSRs can burn nearly all the U‑233 (or plutonium) with minimal leftover waste.
Heavy-water reactors can also play a role: India's Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) is designed to demonstrate a largely thorium fuel cycle using conventional technology. Other concepts include molten chloride fast reactors and accelerator-driven subcritical systems using thorium. In fact, the World Nuclear Association notes seven reactor types are capable of using thorium at least as a part of the fuel (including pressurized light-water, boiling-water, CANDU, graphite-moderated, and several advanced designs). Five of those types have been built and operated at one time or another; a handful of experimental thorium reactors have already been built (mostly in India, Canada, Germany, and the U.S.).
The bottom line of decades of R&D is clear: thorium can produce fuel and electricity, but it always needs a conventional fissile input to start. After that, thorium's fissile breeding capability (basically U‑233 production) and its waste advantages can kick in. As one IAEA review notes, thorium "can generate more fissile material (U-233) than it consumes while fuelling a water-cooled or molten salt reactor, and it generates fewer long-lived minor actinides than plutonium fuels". Moreover, no greenhouse gases are emitted during operation, so thorium reactors – like other nuclear plants – would provide firm zero-carbon power.
Current Projects and Milestones
China's Gobi Desert Reactor
In 2023–24 China announced the first concrete steps toward a thorium power plant. The Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics (SINAP) has been developing thorium MSR technology since 2011. By 2021 they had built a 2 MWt prototype molten-salt reactor ("TMSR-LF1") at Wuwei (in Gansu province) and tested fuel continuously. In June 2023 China's regulators even issued an operating permit for this experimental reactor. In mid-2024 SINAP announced that construction will begin in 2025 on the world's first commercial thorium molten-salt power station in the Gobi Desert. This small modular plant is designed for 60 MW thermal (about 10 MW electric) to come online by ~2029. It will use liquid fluoride salt and CO₂ cooling, requiring no water supply. Importantly, China reports it has enough thorium reserves for 20,000 years of such production. If the pilot succeeds, China plans by 2030 to scale up to a 373 MW commercial LFTR at the same site.
India's Thorium Program
India holds roughly a quarter of the world's known thorium and has pursued it for decades. Lacking domestic uranium, India's "three-stage" nuclear plan culminates in thorium breeders. They are already testing thorium-based fuel bundles in fast reactors and heavy-water reactors, and are building a Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (500 MWe) to produce U‑233. India's Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) is explicitly designed to be largely fueled by thorium with passive safety. Some Indian officials have even projected supplying 30% of India's power from thorium by 2050. India's progress underscores that with political will and funding, thorium cycles can be advanced on a national scale.
Other Efforts
Beyond these flagship programs, a number of countries and companies are exploring thorium:
- USA: Oak Ridge and U.S. labs continue thorium R&D. In 2025 the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission began easing rules for small modular and microreactors, which could eventually help advanced designs (including thorium-fueled MSRs). A U.S. startup, Clean Core Thorium Energy (Chicago), recently raised $15.5M to develop a thorium‑uranium hybrid fuel for existing reactors.
- Europe: In France the government's "France 2030" program awarded grants (€10M each) to two MSR startups, Thorizon and Stellaria, which are partnering with Orano and others to build 250 MW thermal prototype molten-salt reactors. These companies emphasize safety-by-design and the ability to recycle used nuclear fuel actinides, promising to cut waste radio-toxicity to ~300 years. The UK, Norway and others also have small development projects. For instance, Norway's Thor Energy is testing thorium fuel pellets in the Halden research reactor. In the US, entrepreneurs like Kirk Sorensen's Flibe Energy advocate LFTRs, though these are still at concept stage.
- Institutional Research: International agencies (e.g. IAEA, OECD/NEA) and national labs are studying thorium. A 2023 IAEA review concluded that thorium "could potentially offer a long-term solution to humanity's energy needs" due to abundance and breeding, but that major hurdles (fuel fabrication, regulations, economy of mining) remain.
In short, thorium is no longer an afterthought: dozens of organizations worldwide are now working on various thorium paths. This includes government labs, universities, established nuclear firms (like Orano), and new ventures. The fact that investors led by energy-industry figures (for example, the founder of Indian renewable giant ReNew) poured millions into Clean Core's seed round in 2025 shows growing private interest.
Thorium vs. Other Nuclear and Fusion
Compared to Conventional Uranium Reactors
Most of today's 400+ commercial reactors burn uranium fuel (with plutonium recycling in a few cases). These established light-water and heavy-water reactors are well-understood and have large infrastructure, but they face fuel- and waste-related limits. By switching to thorium (often in novel reactor designs), one hopes to improve on those points: without needing enrichment, and with built-in safety features like passive shutdown (inherent to MSRs and some thorium designs). Thorium reactors can achieve higher fuel burn-up and generate less long-term waste. On the other hand, conventional reactors benefit from decades of optimization and manufacturing scale; utility companies remain cautious about unproven fuels. In practice, early commercial use of thorium may come via incremental routes (e.g. mixing ThO₂ in a CANDU or using thorium in small test assemblies) before breakthrough designs (like LFTR) are ready.
Compared to Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)
The entire nuclear industry is abuzz with small modular reactors (SMRs) for the 2020s–2030s, though most SMR designs still use uranium fuel. Thorium MSRs could be seen as a specialized SMR category – their salt-based, factory-built modules could fit into the SMR trend. Regulators are already adapting; the U.S. NRC's 2025 policy now allows fuel-loaded, factory-built "microreactors" to be licensed more flexibly. Entrepreneurs might leverage this by designing small thorium-MSR powerpacks for remote grids, industrial heat, or hydrogen production.
Versus Nuclear Fusion
Fusion remains the holy grail for carbon-free baseload power, but it's not a competing short-term option. Although there is enormous hype (e.g. optimistic industry articles projecting a 2030s fusion plant), credible experts caution that fusion electricity is unlikely before mid-century. Nobel laureate John Holdren recently called 2030–2035 fusion commercialization "hype," noting that true net energy gain and sustained reactor operation have yet to be achieved. In other words, fusion is a long-term bet. Thorium fission plants, by contrast, use proven physics; if the technical hurdles (fuel fabrication, regulatory approval, engineering) can be overcome, they could produce power in the 2030s or '40s. For climate-tech entrepreneurs, this means short-to-mid-term opportunities favor fission (including thorium) over fusion, which will likely remain R&D for decades.
Opportunities for Climate-Tech Entrepreneurs
The shift to clean energy is also an opportunity space. Thorium nuclear is in an early, pre-commercial stage – exactly where entrepreneurs and investors can make a difference. Key opportunities include:
- Reactor Design & Manufacturing: Startups can design and build modular thorium-fueled reactors (especially MSRs). Recent funding of MSR startups (e.g. Thorizon, Stellaria, Terrestrial Energy) suggests a growing ecosystem. Entrepreneurs might target niche markets: industrial facilities needing high-temperature heat, remote grids replacing diesel, or integration with renewables to smooth intermittency.
- Fuel Cycle Innovations: Thorium fuel fabrication and reprocessing require new techniques (remote handling, salt chemistry, irradiation testing). Companies like Clean Core are already commercializing novel fuel pellets for existing reactors. There is room for others in mining/processing (thorium is often mined with rare earths), fuel-forming technology, or advanced reprocessing that handles thorium's gamma-emitting byproducts.
- Services and Software: New reactor types need new simulation, monitoring, and licensing tools. Entrepreneurs skilled in nuclear modeling, AI for reactor control, or regulatory consulting have roles to play. The NRC's recent policy changes open doors for innovative licensing approaches, so legal/fintech firms that can navigate advanced-reactor approvals might thrive.
- Integration with Energy Systems: Because thorium reactors (especially MSRs) can produce very hot steam or process heat, they could complement green hydrogen or industrial decarbonization. Startups that pair nuclear heat with chemical processes or energy storage may find first markets.
However, entrepreneurs must weigh the challenges. Thorium nuclear will need huge R&D investment and supportive policy. The IAEA says nuclear energy investment must rise to $100 billion per year by 2030 to meet climate goals – a massive funding gap. National programs (China, India, France) and international bodies are ramping up, but private capital is still scarce. Startups in this space likely require patient capital and partnerships with big institutions (as Thorizon did with Orano). The payoff could be transformative: a commercially successful thorium reactor could offer abundant, high-temperature clean power, much reduced nuclear waste, and a way for countries to expand nuclear energy without proliferation risks.
Outlook
Thorium-based nuclear power is no silver bullet, but it has potentially game-changing advantages. It addresses several key pain points of conventional nuclear: fuel abundance, safety margins, and waste. Historical path-dependence put thorium on the back burner, but that may change. The first concrete thorium plants are finally being built or tested (China's Gobi reactor being the most advanced example). Over the next decade we will learn whether these prototypes can truly deliver on promise.
For climate-tech entrepreneurs and strategists, the question is: can we bootstrap thorium into the clean energy portfolio? Given the scale of climate challenge, multiple low-carbon options – not just one – will likely be needed. Nuclear fusion may dominate headlines, but in the mid-term, advanced fission (uranium and thorium) will be the workhorses. Entrepreneurs with engineering and regulatory savvy should keep a close eye on thorium developments. The space is early-stage but ripe for innovation – from improved fuels and salt chemistry to modular reactor hardware and integrated systems.
As one expert put it, thorium's "abundance and breeding capability" could offer a long-term solution to energy needs. If that promise holds, early movers in thorium nuclear could reap both climate impact and business reward.
Sources: Authoritative nuclear-energy analyses and recent news reports were used throughout this article. These include World Nuclear Association and IAEA studies, professional energy publications, and industry announcements, which provide detailed data on thorium's advantages, technical challenges, and current projects. Each cited source is linked in the text. (NS Energy/Mining.com commentary is also cited where it explains technical or historical context.) No claim is made without supporting reference to these sources.