How do you imagine life on US east coast with 10 Katrina-class hurricanes every year?
You just pulled that out of a place where the sun don't shine.
Oh yea its AGW, we are all gonna die. Everyone is dooomed i tell you. The end is nigh.
What a pile of crap. Do yourself a favor and read what the scientist say and not headlines from tabloids.
So I hope you like jellyfish.
Every geothermal plant has a steady reduction in heat after opening. It is not sustainable on terms of decades and useful power densities.
This is quite false.
Lets start with the basics. 232Th is fertile and is not a fuel. It absorbs a neutron to become 233Pa which, appart from being a neutron poison, decays after about 26 days into 233U which is the fuel in a Thorium fuel cycle. So now if we compare with a U fuel cycle we can only do so with a reprocessing fuel cycle, not as is often done with a once through cycle which Th can't even do. Note that with reprocessing the waste stream is reduced by about a factor of 65. Also fuel usage goes up by about the same factor.
Now note we are burning 233U rather than 235U in a traditional reactor. Turns out that is about the same in terms of fission products they are about the same from a waste management perspective. Of course you get less actinides since there isn't all this U238 sitting around causing problems. However its not the same as none, and actinides can be dealt with in a reprocessing cycle.
Because we are dealing with plain old Uranium fission we have all the same issue. We have decay heat. That is turn it off and the fuel still produces significant amount of heat for some time. So you still get all the same issues if you can't maintain cooling after a scram with Th fuel cycles as with U fuel cycles. Sure you can have passive systems. That doesn't mean they work when you need them too. There is more than enough decay heat to melt significant amounts of concrete.
For the same reason as above any core breach (you don't get to plan these btw). Would also be similar to traditional PWR core breach. It could even be worse since many designs have graphite moderators which would burn on exposure to water or air.
Now we come to the implementation issues. Th breeding ratios are marginal at best. A breeding ratio of 1 has never been shown. The theoretical models and numerical results seem to show it can be done. But its very close and is a show stopper if can't be managed. Note that the only MSRs ever run did not do any breeding whatsoever. This creates a very tight neutron economy and makes design more difficult and even more expensive. Even small traces of some elements in the materials used would simply mean they don't work as a complete fuel cycle.
The only big advantage of these things is the MSR part.ie molten salt. This is part of a larger class of reactor called homogenous reactors where the primary coolant is also the fuel. There are quite a few nice features with this type of reactor, but none of it has anything to do with Th and using U reprocessed fuel cycles look basically the same. The features include negative void/thermal coefficients (boiling/hotter slows down the reaction), potentially simpler passive cooling and scram systems (but these exist for PWR too...), load following (quick power response). Not under pressure. No fuel elements to compromise. None of these things has anything to do with Th.
But its not all pancakes and picnics. In particular the salts are either reactive with water (fluorides) or soluble in water (chlorides). Fluorides are pretty corrosive and that restricts material choice. The neutron economy makes this even more difficult. Any off design issue can cause serious problems just like at a pwr. And don't start with the "it can't happen in this design". That is what they said about pebble bed reactors. See the prototype for how well that turned out!
And last but not least we have particular issues related to just Th. MSR was suggested to overcome the many problems that Th fuel cycle has. But it doen't remove them. The neutron economy issues are mitigated with constant reprocessing and pulling out the 233Pa. You still get some 234Pa and so you still get 234U which is a nasty gamma emitter. Its so nasty that Th proponents claim that prevents or inhibits proliferation. Well you can't have it both ways. It also prevents and inhibits reprocessing.
And lets be serious. Do you really think that a corner cutting penny pinching corporation or state is going to run a "safe" design safely?
There are other problems too. Some of the radioactive components bio accumulate. So that the waste is concentrated in the food chain.
The waste lasts for tens to HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of years.
A pretty standard "nuclear is scary" misleading and incorrect piece of truthiness. Most of the activity is gone after just a century. Its still not all that good for you in the same way lead is not good for you. But its not in the same league it was at the start.
Guess how long you have to wait for DDT or asbestos to become safe? Its over a few HUNDREDS of TRILLIONS of years. Along with many other very toxic and very poisons chemicals that we do in fact spill and contaminate local areas with all too frequently.