

And yet, it is still true. Renewables that work via environmental factors like wind and solar will always be reliant on something else to help store excess power, and those storage options are still very limited. Battery storage is taking off, but it is still nowhere near the level to run an entire city for an extended period of time like overnight.
We still need a base load option that’s reliably available at any time and quickly scaleable to handle burst demand. That is currently handled by fossil fuels, and can be directly replaced via nuclear, essentially as a drop in nearly 1 for 1 replacement.
The only obstacles are a general lack of real world experience.
Both Thorium and Uranium were being researched in the 60s, but only one can readily be made into nuclear weaponry. So that’s where the research was focused, and not just in the US. Thorium molten salt reactors aren’t a particularly new idea, they date back to the same time period.
Now that nuclear weaponry isn’t the focus, we’re finally seeing real research like this in alternative nuclear sources. Thorium is much more abundant than Uranium, and is fairly readily available worldwide. The byproducts are much less reactive, and the amount of nuclear “waste” is a fraction of uranium. Even there though, the nuclear waste issue has been blown way out of proportion. Most nuclear waste is not long term, only a small fraction is the stuff that lasts thousands of years, and the US already has more than enough storage built to store all long term nuclear waste for every reactor in operation several times over. But most of the programs to actually implement these processes have been cancelled because of various anti-nuclear and NIMBY groups. So instead in most cases… That waste just gets stored on site, at the nuclear plant. Which isn’t particularly an issue, but I think we can all agree is the worst option of all if you’re worried about potential contamination.