This reference is a red herring in that all of its numbers rely on the statement, “assuming a once-through cycle”. The only reason we follow this cycle is natural uranium is so low in cost, and a presidential directive back in the 1970s banned it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing If the cost of uranium rises enough reprocessing will become viable again. Another reason this is a specious argument is that Thorium fueled reactors can produce aproximatly 400 times as much energy as Uranium in thermal reactors, http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/ . This gives us plenty of energy for a thousand years even assuming an increase in energy usage each year.

Thorium fueled reactors can produce approximately 400 times as much energy as Uranium in thermal reactors

You build one, then I'll believe it. I've seen vaporware tech come and go many times. Why is this one any different? I smell a scam. There's a lot of money in pushing this idea, for someone.

There were a lot of thorium fueled prototypes working very well including molten salts reactors; the question is not if they really work, but rather if their electricity production is really reliable and cost effective...it' s simply a matter of physics that one gram of thorium ~ 3,5 tonn of coal, no question about it

As someone who's followed liquid fluoride salt reactors for years, I would honestly be interested to know who's got all the money pushing this idea.

As for building it, its been built allready at ORNL over 40 years ago.