It requires uranium to start the reaction and that it is hugely dangerous whilst in use. It has a very short half life which would make any containment breach would be even more disastrous than if Uranium was being used. This is why it would make such deadly dirty bombs.
[off top of head]
When you stop the liquid-salt-fuel cycling (either deliberately or due to a break or power cut), it melts the salt-plug at the bottom of the reactor vessel and pours out into separators on the floor of the container. It’s not reacting as soon as it pours out the vessel because it’s being at volume inside the vessel is what keeps it critical. It then solidifies. To re-start you melt it and begin cycling through the vessel again. It then needs a bit of Plutonium poked into the vessel to restart reaction. At Oakridge they just cut the power on Friday at 5pm and re-start at 9am Monday (postgrad students, what are they like eh!).
Managing liquid fuels are safer than solids like Uranium rods and pellets whos integrity depends on them staying solid. Liquid Thorium salt is it’s own primary coolant. Spent thorium is dangerous for just a few hundred years. Re-processing the old coal tips in the UK may provide enough fuel to power the UK for a couple of hundred years. It doesn’t make bomb material. It’s a very attractive solution.
There are downsides:
* The complex part is that you have to do some chemical processing on the liquid salt as part of the cycling.
* It’s less energy dense than Uranium
* You can’t make bomb materials – arguably the main reason why the Uranium reactor technology we have today was developed instead
BTW. UK Uranium reactors ARE SAFE.