Thanks for the follow-up. Will you directly answer these two nuclear power policy questions?
Do you oppose the U.S. government continuing to provide free insurance to the nuclear power industry?
Taking into consideration that all U.S. nuclear power plants are also long-term storage nuclear waste dumps, do you oppose constructing nuclear reactors in communities that object to hosting a nuclear waste dump?
LFTR nuclear power, the power plant technology you favor, doesn't actually exist yet. To take LFTR from prototype to commercial reactor will cost billions of dollars in R&D, see Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/thorium-molten-salt-reactors-sorensen-lftr-2017-2.
In the wake of the nuclear power financial disasters of the Westinghouse bankruptcy and the Fukusima meltdown, private investors have no appetite for nuclear power. Development of LFTR technology is subsidized by the U.S. government under a plan that will build power plants in a communist country (China) where anti-nuclear protesters can't stop construction. See Fortune http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-china-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor/.
Is this the way forward you support?
By the way, the site you referred us to, http://energyfromthorium.com, belongs to Kirk Sorensen, the president of Flibe Energy in Alabama. LFTR development depends upon this one U.S. company (of unknown assets according to Crunchbase) and the U.S. DOE. When, if ever, this technology will be ready is unknowable. May not be prudent to pin national policy on the hope it succeeds.