Nuclear engineer here. I've spent lots of time fighting against persistent myths about thorium. All the things you mention are characteristics of breeder reactors, not just thorium breeders. Uranium-based breeder reactors can do these things as well.

Thorium has only one actual physical advantage, and that is that it can do breeding with slow neutrons rather than fast ones. This is a technicality and has lots of complications.

[1] https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html

A big advantage is that thorium is a non-proliferating nuclear technology, which may explain why so little effort has been put into it.

You can still make bombs https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html#myth3

Yup. This myth is particularly pervasive. Less effort was put into thorium because it was inherently more expensive to get going and didn't offer sufficient advantages to motivate the additional expense.

Yes, this. I am a huge fan of thorium breeders and there are few other minor advantages but people have gone of the deep end.

If you are not doing a breeder, uranium is just fine.

You can make your own thorium battery. [0]

[0]:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optoelectric_nuclear_battery

> A failure of containment would release high-pressure jets of finely-divided radioisotopes, forming an effective dirty bomb.

I'll let you do that first. Please do it somewhere remote kay? :D

You're not thinking of a Tritium battery are you?

They produce very little power (W).

To the down voters, which company or authority do you trust enough to operate this systems for decades?

The Navy.[0]

> By 2003 the U.S. Navy had accumulated over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-free experience, and operated more than 80 nuclear-powered ships.

They've been sailing nuclear subs since the 1950s without major safety incident. The big carriers supply grid power when they're docked in Hawaii.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy

Yeah, because the military never lies or tries to cover up something. https://apnews.com/article/559da885ca7c3f6252d67e400e92a846

> a minor mishap in which ″there were no serious injuries or radiological problems, the ship remained fully capable to perform any mission required of it and there was no damage to the reactor.″

> Lt. Cmdr. Craig Quigley, a Navy spokesman, responded: ″We did not try to cover anything up. Everything about this incident was properly reported through Navy channels.

That's neither a cover-up, nor damning evidence that the navy cannot safely operate reactors.

Have Florida build it.