Thorium Nuclear Reactor: A Sustainable Future for Clean Energy-A Review Study

Notice

This is an unedited manuscript accepted for publication and provided as an Article in Press for early access at the author’s request. The article will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and galley proof review before final publication. Please be aware that errors may be identified during production that could affect the content. All legal disclaimers of the journal apply.

Year : 2026 | Volume : 16 | 02 | Page :
By

Rekha Mithal,

Kamlesh Maharwal,

Renu Sharma,

Jasmeet Kaur Suneja,

  1. Professor, Department of Chemistry, JECRC Foundation, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
  2. Librarian, Department of Librarian, JECRC Foundation, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
  3. Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering with Artificial Intelligence, JECRC Foundation, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
  4. Student, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, JECRC Foundation, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

Abstract

Thorium-232, a naturally abundant and fertile element, is increasingly regarded as a viable alternative to uranium-235 as the basis of future nuclear fuel cycles. This review examines the physical and nuclear properties that make thorium attractive as a reactor fuel, the mechanics of the thorium- uranium-233 fuel cycle, and the principal reactor concepts developed to exploit it, including pressurized heavy water reactors, pressurized water reactors, fast breeder reactors, advanced heavy water reactors, and molten salt breeder reactors. Attention is given to India’s three-stage nuclear power programme, conceived specifically to harness the country’s large monazite-based thorium reserves. The paper evaluates the safety, non-proliferation, and waste-reduction advantages commonly attributed to thorium fuel cycles, alongside the technological barriers that have limited their commercial deployment – among them the fabrication difficulties linked to the high melting point of thorium dioxide, the radiological hazards posed by uranium-232 formed during irradiation, and the immaturity of thorium reprocessing (THOREX) technology. Environmental and economic considerations are also weighed, contrasting thorium’s resource abundance and waste-reduction potential against high upfront research costs and the absence of established supply infrastructure. The review concludes that although thorium-based reactors offer a credible pathway toward safer, more sustainable nuclear power, sustained investment in materials science, fuel reprocessing, and reactor engineering will be required before large-scale deployment becomes feasible.

Keywords: LFTR, Thorium, Nuclear Reactor, Three-Stage Programme, Molten Salt Reactor

How to cite this article: Rekha Mithal, Kamlesh Maharwal, Renu Sharma, Jasmeet Kaur Suneja. Thorium Nuclear Reactor: A Sustainable Future for Clean Energy-A Review Study. Journal of Nuclear Engineering & Technology. 2026; 16(02):-.
How to cite this URL: Rekha Mithal, Kamlesh Maharwal, Renu Sharma, Jasmeet Kaur Suneja. Thorium Nuclear Reactor: A Sustainable Future for Clean Energy-A Review Study. Journal of Nuclear Engineering & Technology. 2026; 16(02):-. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/jonet/article=2026/view=253090

References

  1. Zohuri B. Generation IV nuclear reactors. InNuclear reactor technology development and utilization 2020 Jan 1 (pp. 213-246). Woodhead Publishing.
  2. Endicott N. Thorium-fuelled molten salt reactors. Report for the all party parliamentary group on thorium energy, Weinberg Foundation, Somerset House, Strand, London. 2013 Jun.
  3. Schönfeldt T, Klinkby EB, Klenø KH. Conceptual design of a thorium supplied thermal molten salt wasteburner. In17th Meeting on Reactor Physicsin the Nordic Countries, Göteborg, Editor (Sweden, 2015) 2015.
  4. US Atomic Energy Commission. Division of Reactor Development. An Evaluation of the Molten Salt Breeder Reactor: Prepared for the Federal Council on Science and Technology R & D Goals Study. US Government Printing Office; 1972.
  5. LeBlanc D. Molten salt reactors: A new beginning for an old idea. Nuclear Engineering and design. 2010 Jun 1;240(6):1644-56.
  6. Colton AV, Bromley BP, Wojtaszek D, Dugal C. Evaluation of uranium-based fuels augmented by low levels of thorium for near-term implementation in pressure tube heavy water reactors. Nuclear Science and Engineering. 2017 Apr 3;186(1):48-65.
  7. Hall S. Uranium 2014: Resources, Production and Demand (the” Red Book”) supply and demand projections to 2035. InInternational Symposium on Uranium Raw Material for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Exploration, Mining, Production, Supply and Demand, Economics and Environmental Issues. Book of Abstracts 2014 (No. IAEA-CN–216, pp. 6-6).
  8. Hebel LC, Christensen EL, Donath FA, Falconer WE, Lidofsky LJ, Moniz EJ, Moss TH, Pigford RL, Pigford TH, Rochlin GI, Silsbee RH. Report to the American Physical Society by the study group on nuclear fuel cycles and waste management. Reviews of Modern Physics. 1978 Jan 1;50(1):S1.
  9. Williams H, Scarlat RO. A case for nuclear chemical engineering in the era of fission and fusion reactors that employ molten salts. Nuclear Technology. 2026 Mar 4;212(3):622-33.
  10. Vazhappilly T, Pathak AK, Sundararajan M, Modak B, Kancharlapalli S, Choudhury N. Multiscale Modelling and Simulations for Nuclear Fuels, Waste Management, and Radiation Damages. BARC Newsl.. 2024 Jan:24-9.
  11. Cacuci DG, editor. Handbook of Nuclear Engineering: Vol. 1: Nuclear Engineering Fundamentals; Vol. 2: Reactor Design; Vol. 3: Reactor Analysis; Vol. 4: Reactors of Generations III and IV; Vol. 5: Fuel Cycles, Decommissioning, Waste Disposal and Safeguards. Springer Science & Business Media; 2010 Sep 14.
  12. Hacker BC. Elements of controversy: the Atomic Energy Commission and radiation safety in nuclear weapons testing, 1947-1974. Univ of California Press; 1994.
  13. Malik S, Sahar S. Myths and Realities of the Indian Nuclear Program. Journal of Security & Strategic Analyses. 2025 Dec 31;11(2).
  14. Sinha RK, Kakodkar A. The road map for a future Indian nuclear energy system. InInternational conference on innovative technologies for nuclear fuel cycles and nuclear power. Book of extended synopses 2003 Jan 1 (No. IAEA-CN–108, pp. 80-81).
  15. Elsheikh BM. Safety assessment of molten salt reactors in comparison with light water reactors. journal of radiation research and applied sciences. 2013 Oct 1;6(2):63-70.
  16. Glaser A, Ramana MV. Weapon-grade plutonium production potential in the Indian prototype fast breeder reactor. Science & global security. 2007 Oct 23;15(2):85-105.
  17. Escorcia-Ortiz D, François JL, Martín-del-Campo C. Comparative study of the neutronic performance of thorium-based metallic fuel and MOX fuel in an ASTRID-like fast reactor core. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 2019 Jun 1;347:122-31.
  18. Ramaswamy MA, Rao Badri S, Thirumali NC, Suresh NS. Centre for study of science, technology and policy. Annual report. 2013 Mar:84-95.
  19. Lamarsh JR, Baratta AJ. Introduction to nuclear engineering. Pearson Education, Incorporated; 2018.
  20. Buongiorno J, Corradini M, Parsons J, Petti D. Nuclear energy in a carbon-constrained world: Big challenges and big opportunities. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine. 2019 Feb 18;17(2):69- 77.
Ahead of Print Subscription Review Article
Volume 16
02
Received 28/07/2026
Accepted 10/08/2026
Published 22/08/2026
Publication Time 25 Days

Login

My IP

PlumX Metrics