Decarbonize the energy supply: Difference between revisions

From the change wiki
No edit summary
(→‎The nuclear approach: MULTIPLE CHANGES: 1. Highlighted thorium in bright cyan (more distinguishable from red, even if you have red-green colorblindness). Btw i removed the use of {{rcell}} and {{gcell}}, those templates might need to be refactored if we're gonna stick with the red-cyan theme. 2. Removed some of the links to overly-specific pages we might never create)
Line 24: Line 24:


==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. Here's a comparison:
Of all the different types of nuclear power, {{b|#6FF|'''thorium power'''}} seems to be the best bet:


{|class='wikitable'
{|class='wikitable'
Line 35: Line 35:
|-
|-
|[[Conventional nuclear power]] {{light|(status quo)}}
|[[Conventional nuclear power]] {{light|(status quo)}}
|{{rcell}} Problem
|style="background:#F66"|Problem
|Low risk
|Low risk
|{{rcell}} Problem
|style="background:#F66"|Problem
|-
|-
|[[Conventional small nuclear reactors]]
|Conventional small nuclear reactors
|{{rcell}} Problem
|style="background:#F66"|Problem
|{{rcell}} High risk
|style="background:#F66"|High risk
|{{rcell}} Problem
|style="background:#F66"|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.}}
|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
|Abundant
|{{rcell}} High risk
|style="background:#F66"|High risk
|Almost none
|Almost none
|-
|-
|[[Thorium-232 breeder reactors]]
|style="background:#6FF"|'''Thorium-232 breeder reactors'''
|Abundant
|style="background:#6FF"|'''Abundant'''
|Low risk
|style="background:#6FF"|'''Low risk'''
|Almost none
|style="background:#6FF"|'''Almost none'''
|-
|-
|[[Fusion]] <span style="background:#F66">(not viable yet)</span>
|[[Fusion]] {{b|#F66|(not viable yet)}}
|Abundant
|Abundant
|Low risk
|Low risk
|Almost none
|Almost none
<!-- OUTTAKE (uncomment this if we bring back the page links and actually make the pages this time:
|-
|-
|colspan=4|{{minor|^ For more details, follow these links in the leftmost column.}}
|colspan=4|{{minor|^ For more details, follow these links in the leftmost column.}}
-->
|}
|}


Line 65: Line 67:
* [[Why isn't thorium power a thing yet?]]
* [[Why isn't thorium power a thing yet?]]
* [[Would small (shipping-container-sized) thorium reactors be viable?]]
* [[Would small (shipping-container-sized) thorium reactors be viable?]]


=='''Vehicles''' {{light|- possible options}}==
=='''Vehicles''' {{light|- possible options}}==

Revision as of 07:29, 6 May 2026

Status quo: The vast majority of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels. Don't be fooled misled by countries claiming "most of our electricity is renewable". Electricity is only one piece of the energy pie. Most cars & trucks are not electric. Most industries are not fully electric. When you look at the big picture, it's clear that we still have a long way to go.

How to produce enough energy (for the world) without burning fossil fuels?

This page is about the ongoing challenges involved.

The renewables approach (+ energy storage)


More discussions:


The nuclear approach

Of all the different types of nuclear power, thorium power seems to be the best bet:

Type of nuclear power Problems if scaled up
Fuel scarcity Weapons proliferation Nuclear waste
Conventional nuclear power (status quo) Problem Low risk Problem
Conventional small nuclear reactors Problem High risk Problem
Uranium-238 breeder reactors Abundant High risk Almost none
Thorium-232 breeder reactors Abundant Low risk Almost none
Fusion (not viable yet) Abundant Low risk Almost none

Actions / discussions / next steps:

Vehicles - possible options

Battery-based electric vehicles (EVs)

  • Most EVs today use lithium-ion batteries (NMC type). Scaling these up is unsustainable due to the amount of cobalt in them.
    • Best alternatives (so far) hold somewhat less of a charge (i.e. the vehicle gets less range).
      • LFP batteries are cobalt-free but still lithium-based. Lithium scarcity would be somewhat a problem but not as bad as cobalt.
      • 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 batteries are quite new to the market (in 2024), and the hope is that they'll become a lot cheaper than existing batteries. That way, EVs could be cheap and durable, with the only tradeoff being the lack of range.[QUANTIFICATION needed] Probably still good enough for city/suburban living.
      • For city buses: LFP and sodium-ion are both perfectly fine. The lower energy-per-weight is not a problem, because buses need extra weight at the bottom anyway for stability.


Actions/discussions:


Hydrogen-powered vehicles

  • Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles would be unsustainable to scale up, because of the amount of platinum & palladium in the fuel cells.
  • Hydrogen combustion vehicles don't have this problem, but their fuel-efficiency is lower.[QUANTIFICATION needed]

Ammonia-powered vehicles

This section has not been filled in yet.

More discussions

See also

  • Phase out disposable plastic