BetterGeiger

I tried to give a more thorough answer to that question on Kickstarter page and my web site, but the short answer is that the main problem with existing Geiger counters is that they are very limited in sensitivity. That is simply the nature of Geiger tubes (the main component inside a Geiger counter). Geiger tubes are gas-filled so most radiation passes through without interacting. A solid sensitive element, like in my detector, stops much more radiation that hits it, making it more sensitive. If a detector is more sensitive, it can identify weaker and/or farther away sources of radiation, or to put it another way - smaller variations in radiation fields. A source has to be pretty strong for a Geiger counter to clearly identify that it is something significantly above the ordinary background level. A more sensitive detector can detect smaller variations and/or can detect the same variation faster.

That's the most important difference. Perhaps second is accuracy, all interactions in a Geiger tube result in the same signal. In a scintillator detector (like the Better Geiger) each interaction produces a different signal size, and that allows the energy of the particle to be taken into account. To make a long story short that imrproves accuracy when calculating not just "interactions per second" but "radiation dose" (i.e., health risk to humans). I consider this secondary to sensitivity because sometimes it's not essential to have a highly accurate reading, sometimes a coarse reading is enough, but having more accuracy is always a good thing.

Third is ruggedness. Geiger tubes can break because they have a fragile wire inside. Detectors with scintillators inside have the possibility to withstand much more mechanical shock if designed correctly.

Last is not really a fundamental "limitation" of Geiger counters, but I think my product was designed in a much more user-friendly way than existing options, but that's subjective and up for the users to decide if they agree with me or not.

Sadly, no, I think there will always be a stigma. Nuclear energy is a big complicated thing with some risks if not handled properly, and a part of the population will always be skeptical of that, even if there is a scientific consensus about the current generation of reactors being extremely safe and an essential tool in fighting climate change. On a more optimistic note, though, I do think there is room for it to gain in popularity, as the effects of climate change become more and more dramatic in our daily lives, so even if there is opposition maybe there enough support will grow over time to really increase construction of new nuclear power plants. Time will tell.

I can only answer that question with another question... why does it need to be successful?

Modern light water reactor technology is extremely advanced and safe, and we have an enormous amount of experience and history with it. We have lots of uranium. There is no urgency to switch to thorium. Not only that, even if thorium didn't exist we could use uranium almost indefinitely.

Switching over to thorium means using much newer, less established, less well-proven technology. It might make sense in the longer term due to some potential advantages, but in the short/medium term I think it makes more sense to dramatically scale up proven technology to fight climate change.

I'd call it a small problem. An enormous amount of energy is generated by nuclear power and relative to that a tiny amount of waste. It is nothing compared to things like ordinary waste, chemical waste, and all the stuff pumped into the air by things like burning coal and gas. The quantities of nuclear waste are so small that it's easy to put a lot of effort into monitoring and securely storing it. Not only that, it can be put back into the fuel cycle eventually to both extract more energy and reduce the amount of waste. Aside from that, there are very well developed deep storage options. I simply see it as a trivial problem in the grand scheme of things.

I think this is a very good point to consider. It deviates from the technical question, though, and drifts into psychology and how nuclear energy is marketing. I am not very optimistic that this superficial marketing advantage of avoiding the term "uranium" will somehow convince people. I think if the technical merits cannot be conveyed and accepted, whether uranium or thorium, then the basic story will not change regardless. Some people will still hear "nuclear" and think "nuclear bad!", whether or not that is an informed opinion.