The availability of affordable energy is an increasing concern among both the public at large and industries—especially the data center industry, which is often criticized for its ever-growing power consumption.

But the monetary cost of energy is not the only concern: the environmental effects of obtaining and using that energy are also of interest. Coal-based energy (and energy obtained from similar sources like oil and natural gas) creates air emissions. Uranium-based nuclear power leaves behind hazardous waste that must be stored, and the fission process must be carefully regulated to avoid catastrophic meltdown or release of radioactive materials into the environment. Solar and wind energy, currently, only meet the level of energy supplements, being unable at this point to meet the energy needs of the entire economy.

But what if a nuclear fuel was available that could produce energy through fission but not leave behind as much dangerous waste? And what if that fission reaction was more easily controlled, making meltdown a virtual impossibility? The answer may lie in thorium.

Currently, nuclear reactors rely on enriched uranium, which is relatively scarce. Furthermore, the use of uranium produces by-products that are hazardous in two ways: first, they are highly radioactive and pose environmental and health risks, and second, they can be used to produce weapons-grade material for nuclear bombs. Indeed, the potential for creating weapons from the leavings of fission at nuclear power plants was a large part of the reason why uranium became the fuel of choice. According to Wired (“Uranium Is So Last Century — Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke”), “the U.S. government in the ’60s chose to build uranium-fueled reactors—in part because they produce plutonium that can be refined into weapons-grade material.”

Thorium, on the other hand, has a number of properties that make it a potentially excellent alternative to uranium. Its only downside from the perspective of the arms race of the mid to late 20th century is that it is not as amenable to producing material that can be used to create nuclear weapons. As the focus has shifted from building a nuclear arsenal to reducing arsenals and limiting or preventing nuclear proliferation, however, thorium may gain ground as a viable alternative. According to Absolute Astronomy, when compared with uranium, thorium offers “greater abundance on Earth, superior physical and nuclear properties of fuel, enhanced proliferation resistance, and reduced nuclear waste production.”

In addition to its numerous potential benefits over uranium, thorium is plentiful. The U.K.’s Telegraph (“Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium”) notes that “Thorium is so common that miners treat it as a nuisance,” and “all is potentially usable as fuel, compared to just 0.7% for uranium.” The Telegraph also cites Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, who believes that a single ton of thorium could potentially produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium. So, given all the potential advantages of thorium, why isn’t it being researched and implemented in a flash?

Much of the reason why thorium can’t get much traction is inertia. The entire nuclear power industry is built around the use of uranium. Needless to say, building a nuclear power plant is not cheap, and the companies that have done so have a vested interest in making sure that their investments bring in returns. If thorium were found to indeed be the nearly ideal fuel source that its potential benefits make it appear to be, the uranium-based nuclear power industry could be all but wiped out in a day, leaving nuclear power companies holding a rather heavy bag. The problem in this regard is that the infrastructure for maintaining a fission reaction with thorium is different than that for uranium. Thus, new facilities would be required.

As with uranium-based nuclear power, thorium-based power also faces a public-perception problem. The word “nuclear” often brings to mind nuclear explosions and nuclear waste before it brings to mind clean, abundant energy. Indeed, some in the environmental movement (and elsewhere) would likely reject thorium on that basis alone. But as other energy sources become more expensive and as the difficulty of obtaining consistent amounts of energy from the sun and wind becomes more apparent, perceptions may give way to a realization that the current level of energy consumption (and the corresponding concern over the environment) requires a new approach that thorium might provide.

To be sure, thorium must be shown to live up to what its proponents view as its incredible potential. Any “silver bullet” that is touted as the solution to most or all current problems must always be viewed with some skepticism, pending proof of such claims. Nevertheless, given the growing energy problem, further investigation into thorium is warranted and could pay tremendous dividends in the long term.