Comment Re:However (Score 1) 239
First of all, this is nothing new, it was covered here last year:
Specifically "However looking at the aspects of protactinium separation, I'm wondering if this could be a hole in the process which would allow for much lower U-232. U-232 is the daughter product of Pa-232 just as U-233 is the daugher [sic] of Pa-233. Pa-233 has a half-life of 26.9 days but Pa-232 is only 1.3 days."
They also say "protactinium is not easy to remove from molten salts." and "In a 2 Fluid design we can lower losses to Pa down to almost nothing by simply increasing the volume of blanket salt."
You also would have a problem in that thorium generates just enough neutrons to sustain the reaction. I would think separating the protactinium instead of letting it decay to fissile U233 would be counterproductive, as that would leave less fissile material in the reactor. Why not just build a bomb with the U233 you used as starter fuel?
I highly question whether this is geared toward using thorium in an IFR (integral fast reactor, or what the nuclear industry wants because it is solid fuel based like what they've got already), which also requires reprocessing and starter fuel for optimal usage and burns nearly all of its fuel (but is complex and expensive).