You've demonstrated once again your lack of regard for the truth...
A related proposal is to use thorium as a nuclear fuel, which is less likely to lead to nuclear
weapons proliferation than the use of uranium, produces less long-lived radioactive waste, and
greatly extends uranium resources (Macfarlane and Miller, 2007).
However, thorium reactors require the same significant time lag between planning and operation as conventional uranium reactors and most likely longer because few developers and scientists have experience with constructing or running thorium reactors, As such, this technology will result in greater emissions from the background electric grid compared with WWS technologies, which have a shorter time lag.
In addition, lifecycle emissions of carbon from a thorium reactor are on the same order as those from a uranium reactor.
Further, thorium still produces radioactive waste containing 231Pa, which has a half-life of 32,760 years.
It also produces 233U, which can be used in fission weapons, such as in one nuclear bomb core during the Operation Teapot nuclear tests in 1955.
Weaponization, though, is made more difficult by the presence of 232U.
The section that preceded your quote:
For several reasons we do not consider nuclear energy (conventional fission, breeder reactors, or fusion) as a long-term global energy source.
First, the growth of nuclear energy has historically increased the ability of nations to obtain or enrich uranium for nuclear weapons (Ullom <1994>), and a large-scale worldwide increase in nuclear energy facilities would exacerbate this problem, putting the world at greater risk of a nuclear war or terrorism catastrophe (Kessides, 2010; Feiveson, 2009; Miller and Sagan, 2009; Macfarlane and Miller, 2007; Harding, 2007)...
...Second, nuclear energy results in 9-25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, in part due to emissions from uranium refining and transport and reactor construction (e.g., Lenzen, 2008; Sovacool, 2008), in part due to the longer time required to site, permit, and construct a nuclear plant compared with a wind farm (resulting electricity sector during this period; Jacobson, 2009)...
...Third, conventional nuclear fission relies on finite stores of uranium that a large-scale nuclear program with a “once through” fuel cycle would exhaust in roughly a century (e.g., Macfarlane and Miller, 2007; Adamantiades and Kessides, 2009). In addition, accidents at nuclear power plants have been either catastrophic (Chernobyl) or damaging (Three-Mile Island), and although the nuclear industry has improved the safety and performance of reactors, and has proposed new (but generally untested) “inherently” safe reactor designs (Piera, 2010; Penner et al., 2010; Adamantiades and Kessides, 2009; Mourogov et al., 2002; Mourogov, 2000), there is no guarantee that the reactors will be designed, built and operated correctly. For example, Pacific Gas and Electric Company had to redo some modifications it made to its Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant after the original work was done backwards (Energy Net, 2010), and French nuclear regulators recently told the firm Areva to correct a safety design flaw in its latest-generation reactor (Nuclear Power Daily, 2009). Further, catastrophic scenarios involving terrorist attacks are still conceivable (Feiveson, 2009). Even if the risks of catastrophe are very small, they are not zero (Feiveson, 2009), whereas with wind and solar power, the risk of catastrophe is zero.
Finally, conventional nuclear power produces radioactive waste, which must be stored for thousands of years, raising technical and long-term cost questions (Barré, 1999; von Hippel, 2008; Adamantiades and Kessides, 2009).