I disagree with this. 233U is part of the Th cycle. You definitely get transuranic elements out, though admittedly less. There is an advantage though, you can produce power and pull out enriched uranium while doing that; an enticement plant that generates power. (Note: we already use reactors that have low plutonium yields)
The real reason that we don't have thorium reactors is that it's difficult. All the kinks aren't worked out. Compound that with that it's hard to implement new reactor designs and the process becomes really slow to work out those kinks.
The answer, unsurprisingly is extremely complicated but certainly isn't just because it doesn't produce Pu, or rather creates low yields. This myth needs to die.
I think it's fair to say our expertise in Uranium cycle fuel came out of the fact it generates substantially more plutonium for nuclear weapons. This was a huge reason it was selected over Thorium initially. Now, it may just be momentum. I argue it's because back in the day, it didn't product Pu.
Also keep in mind that the Uranium cycle is SIGNIFICANTLY easier. I'd argue that that played a major role. But I'm also not denying that weapons didn't play a role.
The real reason that we don't have thorium reactors is that it's difficult. All the kinks aren't worked out. Compound that with that it's hard to implement new reactor designs and the process becomes really slow to work out those kinks.
The answer, unsurprisingly is extremely complicated but certainly isn't just because it doesn't produce Pu, or rather creates low yields. This myth needs to die.