Systematic review evaluates neutron economy and thorium fuel cycle for sustainable nuclear energy.
This study investigates neutron economy and the thorium fuel cycle within Thorium Molten Salt Reactors to evaluate their potential for sustainable nuclear energy production. Using a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) methodology, this study synthesized recent research published between 2020 and 2026, while also using selected foundational sources from 1960 onward for core nuclear-theory parameters. Data were analyzed using a qualitative and comparative approach, focusing on thorium-232 conversion pathways, uranium-233 production mechanisms, and neutronic performance parameters. The findings indicate that U-233 is a superior fissile fuel for the thorium cycle, exhibiting a high neutron reproduction factor of 2.28 for thermal neutrons and 2.50 for fast neutrons, which supports efficient fuel breeding. The thorium cycle offers significant environmental and security benefits, including a substantial reduction in long-lived transuranic actinides and enhanced proliferation resistance due to the presence of uranium-232, which emits high-energy gamma radiation. Furthermore, TMSR technology provides inherent safety through a negative temperature coefficient and the ability for online fuel processing to remove gaseous fission products.Unlike previous review studies, this research integrates neutron economy, U-233 purity, breeding ratio, salt chemistry, and reactor safety into a unified conceptual framework, providing a comprehensive analytical perspective for the evaluation of thorium molten salt reactors. The study concludes that while the thorium-uranium cycle is a highly effective alternative for improving neutron efficiency and long-term sustainability, successful commercial deployment depends on achieving U-233 purity levels of approximately 85%. Additionally, further research is required to address remaining challenges in structural materials, salt redox chemistry control, and fuel reprocessing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdullatif et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: