This has gotten a lot of attention in Norway. Both from media and politicians.
The thing with thorium is that it self offers no revolution in nuclear technology, the Americans even tested it for use in reactors in the 50s, but concluded that Uranium was a better choice of material. Indian uses thorium in their reactors, but mainly for energy dependency issues not because its safer or more economical.
The Rubbia reactor which is really the thing that is discussed in this article(many journalist get confused) is revolutionary in it self by being an accelerator driven reactor(external source of neutrons), thus in theory safer. But when I say in theory it is to underline the fact that Chernobyl had no meltdown, but rather an heat explosion spreading radioactive material. There is nothing to prevent some human error from overloading the Rubbia reactor as well.
The the third thing is that the Rubbia reactor needs 10-20 years of development and thus must compete against other hypothetical designs in a R&D perspective. And they can be just as awesome and safe.
Having talked to prof. Lillestøl myself I must say that my enthusiasm for the Rubbia reactor was just like the journalist portrays it. But several years later and having discussed it with professors and friends I have reached the conclution that this reactor is little more than one of several different suggestions for the future nuclear industry, and I leave it to them and their scientists to decide which is the best design, and no one has yet opted for the Rubbia reactor.
Now a fusion reactor that would be something!
