It was early & my brain wasn't thinking.
Nuclear is synonymous with "uranium fueled reactor". When someone says "Nuclear" they're really saying "classical uranium based reactor like those currently in operation". Which aren't very economical when you count mining, refining(proprietary fuel rods aren't cheap), reacting, reprocessing, transporting & long-term storage along with safety hazards & initial construction costs. Plus the stigma attached to nuclear isn't helping it's cause.
The only benefit of current nuclear designs have is energy density which is really handy when you're on an aircraft carrier or submarine, but on a massive scale they really aren't that viable when you factor in all the costs associated with them. They do become viable if we have no other option(i.e completely out of fossil fuels & have no alternatives).
Thorium is more abundant, reactors are simpler to build, waste products are less toxic, with half-life as low as 100 years, plus there is less waste material.
Negatives: It's different than the current nuclear reactors, so engineers, businesses & regulatory agencies aren't really well versed or interested in doing a 360 on their current investment. There are no commercial thorium reactors currently available, until then Thorium is just a pipe dream. But the reasons it's not being used don't seem to be technical in nature, but more a mindset that needs to shift. We've tried uranium based reactors for decades now & there have been numerous failures & they really have not panned out as the end-all-be-all to our energy woes.
Everyone jazzed about Nuclear should hop on the Thorium bandwagon as it seems more viable & perhaps won't have as much stigma attached to it as "nuclear" does.
You can see the videos for more details.