The mistake you are making is this one:>even normies can stomach the idea of building one in the middle of big metropolitan city.
What "normies" can stomach is based off the consent that industries with large sums of money can manufacture. They can stomach the invasion of Iraq or Vietnam, they can stomach the arrests of Assange, Manning, and Snowden, they can stomach the disease and millions of lost life-years brought on by low-nutrition high-carb diets, not because those are fine states of affairs but because monied interests get to set the narrative. In the case of nuclear energy it is about continually having to reprove that it is safe and viable as if there are not already hundreds of plants in operation that have been generating power with no issue for decades– and as if the existing alternatives, such as coal, gas, or oil, ever provided such a proof before being made the backbone of the energy infrastructure of most of the industrialised world. And in the case of nuclear energy, the fossil fuel companies demonstrate that normies are prepared to stomach gradual degradation of the climate as well as a considerable risk to the planet's capacity to sustain complex life.
The main point is that the details of the drawbacks of one nuclear reactor design versus another has nothing to do with the viability of nuclear power, which has already been demonstrated. The principle reason nuclear power is marginal is that it is not as
profitable as other sources.
(There is the matter of nonproliferation but this is not central since the largest consumers of energy are already in possession of nuclear arms and countries like Germany and Japan demonstrate that even with the non-thorium technology a reactor does not entail an arms program.)>>85193
A paper constitutes proof only in formal fields such as mathematics and theoretical physics, but we are talking about practical problems whose solutions require verification in the miasma of unknown variables called the "real world". I know that there exist people who research these subjects and they write papers about their findings (so the existence of a paper sitting next to you is not very impressive or shocking although I am glad you take your studies seriously enough to reach out to professors at your university), but it is a fact that old-fashioned nuclear reactors have proven viable to supply the world's largest net-exporter of energy with the bulk of their power grid and thorium-based reactors have not yet risen to such prominence. So there is no reason to head off criticisms of nuclear power with advertisements of reactors that are unproven when existing technology is demonstrably adequate.
Additionally you seem to have misread my post, since in your case you presumably are in the course of studying the matter seriously. I did not prompt people who are doing what you are doing to self-reflect. If the profs who gave you that paper intend to review it with you later you'll want to take more care reading it than you have taken reading my post.