Раз тут так много фанатов тория процитирую еще ряд недостатков из статьи au
ThO2 dissolution is not as easy as that of UO2, but this problem can be overcome with the addition of buffered fluoride in the dissolver solution. This presents a risk of corrosion of the stainless-steel equipment, which must be overcome by careful addition of a complexing agent such as aluminium nitrate, a process which has been used successfully in industry. However, with zircalloy hulls (in the case of an LWR), some zircalloy will dissolve in the hydrofluoric acid and this will complicate reprocessing. It seems that during dissolution, the production of radioactive krypton will be about double that of uranium, which could be considered as a drawback.
The toxicity of freshly separated thorium and even of aged thorium at equilibrium is superior to that of uranium due to aggressive beta and gamma emitters in its decay chain, which are the same as those mentioned above for U-232 (Fig. 4). Large amounts of thorium must be handled behind shielding. Ingestion of thorium compounds is more dangerous than that of uranium
2Татарин - Если мы считаем, что у нас так много левых нейтронов,чтобы дожигать U232, мы также можем сказать, что будем дожигать всякую бяку в обычных урановых бридерах. Или в ториевом цикле намного больше нейтронов по сравнению с бридерами?
Да и стронций/цезий - не главная проблема, учитывая их период полураспада - 30лет.
Интереснее заселенность всякой долгоиграющей гадости - йод-129, технеций-99 для урана и их аналогов для тория.
У тебя в ссылках где-нибудь нет таблички по типу
Fission product yield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , но для ториевого цикла?