Good question Chris. And because we're hamstrung at the behest of a right-wing dominated, conservative government.

The danger with conventional nuclear has always been the extreme pressure, 150 atmospheres, they were required to operate at and the fact that they needed electromagnets that had a guaranteed electrical assured supply. To maintain effective control

This is where MSR beats them hands down in both areas. They do not need to be pressurised, given the boiling point of fluoride is 1400C and the max operating temp for MSR is capped at 1200C.

Cannot brew up a runaway reaction, given as the reaction heats up. The medium expands, pulling the nuclear grains further apart, thus slowing the reaction and then causing the medium to contract bringing the atomic material closer and thereby allowing the reaction to speed once more, forcing the resultant expansion and all self-regulating like your very own pulse.

And pumped around and through the immediately adjacent reprocessing plant which refreshes the fuel allowing it to be burnt and burnt until all that remains is completely depleted plutonium, that is still useful as long life space batteries.

As to your question? Nobody wants this technology!

Not big nuclear who'd have yo kiss the fuel fabrication business goodbye and that's where all their real profit is! Not the fossil fuel companies, who'd be ruined by energy at less than 3 cents PKWH!

Big pharma who'd likely see the billions they generate from managing cancer with sublethal doses of lethal medicine and the latter palliative care which generates around 60% of their cancer care profits.

Last but not least are rooftop solar installers and merchants and associated battery bank installers/merchants.

So there are a lot of self-interested voices out there who'd kill to prevent the foregoing? Or the truth being told/promulgated!

It's because it MSE thorium, is so good, that that is so!

Read the Authors I've suggest or take butchers at their U Tube incapsulated presentations. And stop asking infantile questions when the answers are as obvious as the nose on your face, but only if you're looking! Capisce?
Alan B.

ChristinaMac1,

Renewables are an ideological obsession. They can never supply much of the world's ever growing demand for energy.

On the other hand, nuclear is the only energy sources that can supply all our energy needs effectively indefinitely. There is enough fission fuel, at what will eventually be economically recoverable concentrations, to supply the worlds energy needs (all of it including transport fuels) for tens of thousands of years (for a population of 10 billion consuming at the current rate of the US per capita average). And fusion energy is effectively unlimited. The message: the only currently known energy source that can power the world in future is nuclear.

Regarding the safety issue (always raised by the greenies), the arguments about nuclear safety are more green alarmism. Nuclear power is the safest way to generate power and always has been, since the first power reactor went on line in 1954. Read the relevant Note in Appendix C here: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm

See the main points of why nuclear here: https://www.thegwpf.com/what-could-have-been-if-nuclear-power-deployment-had-not-been-disrupted/

Chris Lewis asks: "if the nuclear option is so viable, why not all countries doing it and using it for 100% of energy."

The reason is because of the fear generated by the anti nuclear power protest movement beginning in the 1960s - and the disruption that caused. Read this to understand: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm

Thanks Jim Green

For another excellent article.

Nuclear power industries are seen by militaries wouldwide as enablers for nuclear weapons.

Australia's refusal to build nuke power stations has denied engineers, in ever-suspicious INDONESIA, reasons to build nuclear power stations.
See Indonesia's healthy anti-nuclear movement at http://youtu.be/SNSR38M1Eek clicking the cc button for subtitles.

Indonesia sits on the highly dangerous "Ring of Fire" which is very earthquake, Tsunami and volcanic eruption prone. Indonesia also has a poor record of industrial safety. See http://youtu.be/UM4-fyndJyI?t=1m55s

I wonder how Indonesia would handle a Fukushima style nuclear power plant gas explosion with northerly winds blowing fallout on Darwin?

________________________________

@ChristinaMac1

A great comment.

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2020/02/french-russian-israeli-to-india-nuclear.html

Unfortunately I may not be around to see what is happening after all the coal and gas fired power stations have been closed down and no nuclear stations have been built. I wonder what expensive solutions the greenies will have devised to cover the shortfall. Please explain Jim Green.
David

JG, I might not be the brightest light in the street, but I know BS when I come across it.
You must be aligned to the anti nuclear losers.
Your facts in your header statement are false and misleading and therefore render your whole premise moot.
What IS true is that nuclear IS the cheapest of power sources today.
Even cheaper is Alan's thorium salt offering, which seems a better option to straight out nuclear.
But what is also true is that the greens are amongst the biggest vandals, liars, and con-men around today.
Renewable's are like a fart in a bottle compared to the existing and past forms of power generation.
Because it is now being shown that GW is a con, at least the part where we caused ti, we can happily continue with fossil fuels until another REAL and VIABLE source of power generation is found.
Renewable's at present are a failure, they are just a means for some govt mates to steal money from the public purse

Daffy Duck asks - "Meanwhile as far as I know the advocates of full scale nuclear power never tell us what happens to the 400 or so nuclear power plants that are now in use when they come to their use-by-date and are de-commissioned."
Exactly that question should asked about the disposal of hundreds of millions of photovoltaic solar panels that reach their use by date in 20 years or less.