eclectron wrote:Thank you for the detailed feedback.
On paper, the world energy could indeed be nuclear electricity for + 1000 years.
This implies to transit on all that is transports, rather towards the hydrogen a priori. Sacred renewal or adaptation of the machine park.
I fear alas that all these technos are not operational in time, that is to act significantly in favor of the climate and avoid crises on oil.
The "we could" do not reassure me about the fact of avoiding major crises, question of deadlines and the extent of retraining.
I am not sure that it is desirable to produce all the electricity in the world with nuclear power, even from molten salt plants. An electrical mix must include several sources of energy, and renewable energies have development potential, significant in some countries, which it would be awkward to refuse.
To give just a few examples: photovoltaics can be very profitable throughout the intertropical zone (and beyond) and wind power is particularly suitable for certain regularly windy areas (trade winds for example); hydroelectricity still has enormous untapped potential in Africa, Asia, America (including that of the north); moreover, an intelligent nuclear cogeneration system would provide, almost free of charge, considerable thermal energy (heating and / or production of fresh water, or industrial heat); geothermal energy also has significant potential in certain regions ...
Hydrogen comes up against the problem of its production today, which is very energy-intensive in the end, and the almost total absence of a manufacturing-distribution sector. It seems to me that electricity, of which we have the manufacturing techniques and the distribution networks, would be a safer and immediately available means of exiting carbonaceous energies, including for transport.
In fact, we have all the technical means, and even financial, to get out of the hydrocarbon + coal era ... The blockages are human.