Thorium reactors still produce the same high level long life radioactive waste as Uranium/Plutonium reactors, just not as much of it. Also to make if suitable as a fuel it has to be irradiated in a conventional reactor. Hope this is of help.

They actually don't produce much in the way of long lived highly radioactive waste. The reason they were never used is that they can't really be used as part of a cycle to produce weapons grade material.

True, thorium reactors would still produce some fissile waste products but at a much lower level and removing them makes the reactors much more expensive.

Tell the truth. You don't know what uranium-233 is, do you?

Yes it's a less useful fissile isotope of uranium that is not currently used for weapons production.

There are statistics I have seen that vary from 30% to 50% It all depends on the criteria in the data gathering. For example the % contribution to the Uranium reactor waste when the Thorium was placed in the reactor to enrich it into a useable fuel. Its still not a case for Nuclear Power generation

I can't, for the life of me, understand why we pursue nuclear, with its huge infrastructure costs, high output price and environmental risks, when there are so many renewable options. e. g. How about putting up some R&D funds for tidal, for instance? Scotland's coasts, river Severn.....?