From what I have read the technology needed to exploit Thorium as a fuel in this fashion is far from mature. And there are otehr complications:
We actually built a LFTR in the 1960's and ran it for five years. It was a research reactor rather than a power reactor, but the data is still there and still useful. So yes, the technology is there. What's lacking is the political will. In a LFTR, Pa231 is simply left the blanket salt until it absorbs a neutron. That transmutes it into Pa232, which beta decays over a 1-day halflife into U232. And U232 is vital for anti-proliferation reasons: its presence in the core salt prevents the fissile U233 from being useful for bomb-making. So this isn't a bug, it's a feature. In fact, the primary reason the US dropped LFTR technology in the early '70s was just this: the presence of U232 in the thorium fuel cycle means it's not useful for making bombs, while the competing breeder technology (the "fast breeder") makes plutonium, which is great for bombs. Eventually, the U232 in the core salt will absorb a neutron and become U233, the fissile isotope; but by that time, it will be replaced by another U232 from the blanket.
I posted a link. Read it. We can't do that 'from now on' because the world infrastructure is based on oil.
Not to mention, she uses a quote that refers to the entire energy grid to argue a quote that refers to a home or a school. Malkin is an incredibly deceptive writer, but since her job is too simply spoonfeed her audience what they want to hear, it goes largely unnoticed.
