2,956
edits
Archive:000/Decarbonize the energy supply: Difference between revisions
Archive:000/Decarbonize the energy supply (view source)
Revision as of 04:14, 8 September 2024
, 8 September 2024no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
===The {{(}}renewables + energy storage{{)}} approach=== | ===The {{(}}renewables + energy storage{{)}} approach=== | ||
* [[Solar]] & [[wind power]] would have to be the main sources, because [[?|other renewables are limited to very specific geographic regions]]. | * [[Solar]] & [[wind power]] would have to be the main sources, because [[?|other renewables are limited to very specific geographic regions]]. | ||
* Batteries [[?|might be enough]] to smooth out the day/night cycle of solar. But the ''seasonal'' fluctuations of wind & solar [[?|probably need ''far more'' energy storage capacity]]. See discussion on [[?|whether any other energy storage types could be enough]]. | * Batteries [[?|might be enough]] to smooth out the '''day/night''' cycle of solar. But the '''seasonal''' fluctuations of wind & solar [[?|probably need ''far more'' energy storage capacity]]. See discussion on [[?|whether any other energy storage types could be enough]]. | ||
* Most solar panels today would probably be unsustainable or even impossible to scale up, due to having [[?|too many scarce minerals in them]]. See discussion on [[?|alternatives]]. | * Most solar panels today would probably be '''unsustainable''' or even impossible to scale up, due to having [[?|too many scarce minerals in them]]. See discussion on [[?|alternatives]]. | ||
More discussions | More discussions | ||
{{talk|TODO: People also have other concerns about renewables and energy storage. I need to direct readers to pages that address those concerns.}} | {{talk|TODO: People also have other concerns about renewables and energy storage. I need to direct readers to pages that address those concerns.}} | ||
* [[?|Is there enough land to scale up wind power]] (without causing significant [[habitat loss|ecological damage]])? | * [[?|Is there enough land to scale up wind power]] (without causing significant [[habitat loss|ecological damage]])? | ||
===The nuclear approach=== | ===The nuclear approach=== | ||
Considering the different types of nuclear power, it seems that [[?|'''thorium''' power]] is the one with the least problems: | |||
<!--tab name="See table" collapsed--> | |||
{|class='wikitable' | |||
!rowspan='2' |Type of nuclear power | |||
!colspan='3' |Problems if scaled up | |||
|- | |||
!Fuel scarcity | |||
!Weapons proliferation | |||
!Nuclear waste | |||
|- | |||
|[[Conventional nuclear power]] {{light|(status quo)}} | |||
|{{rcell}} Problem | |||
|Low risk | |||
|{{rcell}} Problem | |||
|- | |||
|[[Conventional small nuclear reactors]] | |||
|{{rcell}} Problem | |||
|{{rcell}} High risk | |||
|{{rcell}} Problem | |||
|- | |||
|[[Uranium-238 breeder reactors]] {{p|Additional benefit: Uranium-238 reactors would make use of existing nuclear waste, which has been left over from decades of conventional nuclear power.}} | |||
|Abundant | |||
|{{rcell}} High risk | |||
|Almost none | |||
|- | |||
|[[Thorium-232 breeder reactors]] | |||
|Abundant | |||
|Low risk | |||
|Almost none | |||
|- | |||
|[[Fusion]] (not viable yet) | |||
|Abundant | |||
|Low risk | |||
|Almost none | |||
|- | |||
|colspan=4|{{minor|^ For more details, follow these links in the leftmost column.}} | |||
|} | |||
<!--/tab--> | |||
Actions / discussions / next steps: | Actions / discussions / next steps: | ||
| Line 19: | Line 56: | ||
{{minor|''(electric and/or hydrogen and/or ammonia)''}} | {{minor|''(electric and/or hydrogen and/or ammonia)''}} | ||
{{ | ====Battery electric vehicles==== | ||
* [[?|NMC-type lithium-ion batteries]] are used in most EVs today, but [[?|scaling them up is unsustainable]] due to the amount of '''cobalt''' in them. | |||
* [[?|LFP-type lithium batteries]] are cobalt-free, but hold somewhat less of a charge (i.e. the vehicle gets less range). Lithium scarcity is less of a problem than cobalt scarcity, but it is [[?|still somewhat an issue]]. | |||
* [[?|Sodium-ion batteries]] are made from abundant materials - they don't have any mineral-scarcity problem ([[?|probably]]). But they hold even less of a charge than LFP. [[?|Sodium-ion EVs]] are still usable, but their range isn't great.{{qn}} [[Cheap short-range EVs/Market research|Might still be good enough]] for a lot of people, [[Sodium-ion batteries/Cost|if the EV is cheap enough]]. | |||
* For buses, LFP and sodium-ion are perfectly fine. The lower energy-density is not a problem, because buses need extra weight at the bottom anyway for stability. <!-- explain better? --> | |||
Actions/discussions: | |||
* [[?|Next steps for sodium-ion batteries]] | |||
* [[?|How well are EV batteries recycled?]] | |||
====Hydrogen-powered vehicles==== | |||
* Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles would be unsustainable to scale up, because of the [[amount of platinum & palladium in the fuel cells]]. {{talk|This page needs to mention: Hydrogen ''production'' also requires these same metals but it [[wind/Hydrogen|can be done with much less of them]] and thus could probably be done sustainably.}} | |||
* Hydrogen combustion vehicles don't have this problem, but their fuel economy (efficiency) is lower.{{qn}} {{talk|How bad would this be an issue if renewables or nuclear were to be the main energy sources?}} {{talk|Discussion needed: How much hydrogen would have to be stored at any given time, in such a scenario (let's say if it's all produced through nuclear power)? Probably a lot less than the "renewables + energy storage" approach. I need to write a page explaining why.}} | |||
==More / See also== | |||
{{empty}} | |||