The main reason virtually all of the reactors in the U.S. use enriched uranium in a pressurized light-water design is that that is the only reasonable kind of reactor to put into a submarine or an aircraft carrier. The people who designed all of our reactors based their training on Rickover's requirements for a reactor that is light enough to power something reasonably-sized that floats, won't blow up/melt down as long as a big group of able seaman maintain constant vigilance over it, and helps the military out by producing plutonium for bombs as part of its waste. Carbon-footprint, environmental impact, efficiency, long-term storage of waste, and the like are all things that were never on the table in the first place. And once the machinery was put in place to crank basically the same Navy design out over and over, the industry got stuck in a rut.

I don't drive a tank to work, and I don't have a Howitzer in my backyard. My electrical power shouldn't be generated by a reactor whose design is a leftover from the Navy's think-tank.

The people who say "OMG! Thorium leaves waste that is much more radioactive! Cooties!" are poorly-educated. The more radioactive nuclear materials are, the sooner they'll burn up and become something less icky. "The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long" (to quote Blade Runner). Highly-radioactive waste is the good kind, not the bad kind.

Great. So we'll miss the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing, and probably trail the Chinese by several years. We'd better make sure our astronauts speak Mandarin, or they won't be able to order noodles at any of the lunar luxury hotels they'll land next to...