Connect with us

Published

on

Thorium is making a strong comeback in the global energy conversation. For decades, it remained on the sidelines while uranium dominated nuclear power. Now, the shift toward net-zero emissions is changing that story. Countries need reliable, low-carbon energy that works around the clock. As a result, advanced nuclear technologies are gaining attention again—and thorium is leading that discussion.

At the same time, rapid innovation in reactor technologies is making thorium more practical. Designs such as molten salt reactors and small modular reactors are unlocking its potential. This combination of policy support, technological progress, and climate urgency is pushing thorium from theory toward reality.

Thorium vs Uranium: A New Nuclear Equation

Thorium is a naturally occurring radioactive metal found in the Earth’s crust, but it works differently from uranium. It is not directly fissile, which means it cannot sustain a nuclear reaction on its own. Instead, thorium-232 absorbs neutrons inside a reactor and transforms into uranium-233. This new material then drives the nuclear reaction.

This process may sound complex, but it delivers clear benefits. Thorium reactors or thorium-based fuel systems are more stable under high temperatures. They also reduce the risk of catastrophic failure, such as meltdowns. In addition, they generate far less long-lived radioactive waste compared to conventional uranium reactors

Thus, the comparison between thorium and uranium is the key to this transformation. We summarize the differences in the table below:

thorium vs uranium
Data Source: nuclear-power.com

Another factor is safety. Many thorium reactors use passive safety systems that rely on natural processes, which lowers the risk of accidents. Uranium reactors, especially older ones, depend more on active cooling and human control.

Geopolitics also plays a role. Uranium supply is concentrated in a few regions, creating risks. Thorium is more widely available, which improves energy security and reduces dependence on specific countries.

However, uranium still has a clear advantage today. Its infrastructure is already in place, and it has long powered nuclear energy. Often called “yellow gold,” it is well understood and widely used with a mature supply chain. Thorium still needs new reactor designs, fuel systems, and regulatory support, so it is more likely to complement uranium in the near term.

Advanced Reactor Technologies Unlocking Thorium

For many years, thorium remained underutilized because conventional reactors were not designed for it. Today, that is changing. New reactor technologies are making thorium more viable.

  • Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs): Use liquid fuel for better heat transfer and low pressure, improving safety, efficiency, and thorium utilization.
  • Advanced Heavy Water Reactors (AHWRs): Support mixed fuel use, enabling gradual thorium adoption; central to India’s nuclear strategy.
  • Small Modular Reactors (SMRs): Compact and flexible systems that are easier to deploy; increasingly designed to support thorium fuel cycles.
  • Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs): A type of MSR offering high efficiency and built-in safety, making them a leading thorium energy solution.

Global Thorium Reserves Highlight Long-Term Potential

Thorium’s abundance is one of its strongest advantages. According to geological assessments, these reserves could theoretically generate electricity for several centuries if fully utilized in advanced reactor systems. That makes thorium not just an alternative fuel, but a long-term energy solution.

Even when compared to rare earth elements, which total around 120 million tons globally, thorium remains highly competitive in terms of its energy potential, despite differences in extraction economics.

USGS data shows that the geographic spread of thorium further strengthens its appeal.

  • Major reserves are located in India, Brazil, Australia, and the United States. India leads with approximately 850,000 tons, followed by Brazil with 630,000 tons. Australia and the United States each hold around 600,000 tons.
  • In addition, countries within the Commonwealth of Independent States collectively hold about 1.5 million metric tons of thorium. This includes nations such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan. This wide distribution supports global energy security by reducing reliance on a limited number of suppliers.

thorium

Regional Highlights

Asia-Pacific leads with over 55% of global share in 2025, supported by strong government backing, active research programs, and growing use of rare earth materials.

Countries like India and China are driving this growth. Rising energy demand and long-term policies are accelerating investment in thorium technologies. They are not just researching but actively preparing for deployment.

Meanwhile, North America is the fastest-growing region. Increased funding and private sector involvement are boosting innovation, especially in next-generation reactors that can use thorium fuel.

Together, this regional momentum is driving global competition and pushing the race for leadership in thorium energy.

Thorium Market Size and Demand Drivers

Market research reports indicate that the global thorium reactor market is projected to grow from $4.56 billion in 2025 to $8.97 billion by 2032, with CGAR 10.1%. This growth reflects increasing demand for clean, reliable, and low-carbon energy.

THORIUM MARKET

At the same time, other broader market estimates suggest the thorium sector could reach $13 billion by 2033, growing at a more moderate 4% rate. These figures include not just fuel, but also materials, reactor development, and associated technologies.

thorium market insights

Several factors drive this growth. Governments are increasing investments in clean energy technologies. Research institutions are advancing reactor designs. At the same time, the need for energy security and reduced carbon emissions is becoming more urgent.

These converging trends are positioning thorium as a strategic energy resource. While large-scale commercialization is still ahead, the direction of growth is clear.

Competitive Landscape: A Market Defined by Innovation

The thorium market is still in its early stages, and this is reflected in its competitive landscape. Unlike mature energy sectors, it is not dominated by large-scale commercial players. Instead, it is shaped by collaboration, research, and pilot projects.

Copenhagen Atomics’ Strategic Partnership with Rare Earths Norway

As the industry evolves, partnerships are becoming increasingly important. One notable example is Copenhagen Atomics, which has signed a Letter of Intent with Rare Earths Norway. This agreement aims to secure access to thorium from the Fensfeltet deposit in Norway.

This partnership highlights a key shift in how thorium is viewed. It is now being recognized as a valuable energy resource. By integrating thorium into supply chains, companies are laying the groundwork for future commercialization.

Copenhagen Atomics is also developing modular molten salt reactors designed for mass production. This approach requires not only technological innovation but also a reliable supply of materials. Partnerships like this are critical for building that ecosystem.

Thorium molten salt reactor, with the focus on low electricity price and fast installation

thorium molten salt reactor
Source: Copenhagen Atomics

India’s Thorium Strategy Sets a Global Benchmark

India stands out as one of the most advanced players in the thorium space. Its nuclear program is built around a three-stage strategy designed to fully utilize its domestic thorium reserves.

  • The country’s Department of Atomic Energy and Atomic Energy Commission are leading this effort. Research institutions are developing advanced reactor designs, including the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor and molten salt systems.
  • One of the key milestones is the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor at Kalpakkam, which is expected to play a crucial role in producing uranium-233 from thorium. This will enable a closed fuel cycle, improving efficiency and sustainability.
  • Private sector involvement is also growing. Clean Core Thorium Energy is supplying advanced fuel for testing in existing reactors. At the same time, companies like NTPC and Larsen & Toubro are supporting large-scale deployment and infrastructure development.

India’s long-term vision is ambitious. With its vast thorium reserves, the country aims to secure an energy supply for up to 200 years. This strategy not only strengthens energy security but also positions India as a global leader in thorium technology.

Thor Energy: Leading in Fuel Development

Companies like Thor Energy are leading the way in fuel development. Their work on thorium-plutonium mixed oxide fuel and ongoing irradiation testing provides valuable real-world data. Similarly,

Other players are taking different approaches:

  • Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation is integrating thorium fuel cycles into its Micro Modular Reactor design. This approach focuses on creating a fully integrated energy system.
  • NRG in the Netherlands is conducting critical experiments that provide data on reactor performance and fuel behavior.
  • National laboratories also play a key role. Organizations such as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited provide the expertise and facilities needed to support research and development. Their contributions are essential for advancing the technology.

Overall, the market is best described as a technology race. Companies are not competing on volume yet. Instead, they are competing to prove that their solutions work at scale.

A Strong Fit for the Net-Zero Transition

The global push for carbon neutrality is a major driver behind thorium’s rise. More than 130 countries have set or are considering net-zero targets. Achieving these goals requires a mix of energy solutions.

As we may already know, renewables like solar and wind are essential, but they are not always reliable. Their output depends on weather conditions, which creates gaps in the electricity supply. These gaps must be filled by stable, low-carbon sources.

Thorium-based nuclear power offers exactly that. It provides consistent baseload electricity without producing greenhouse gas emissions during operation. At the same time, it addresses key concerns associated with traditional nuclear energy, such as safety and waste.

This alignment with climate goals is driving interest in thorium. Governments are exploring it as part of broader energy strategies. Investors are also paying attention, recognizing its long-term potential. Simply put, this phase can be seen as a technology race. The goal is to prove that thorium systems can operate safely, efficiently, and economically at scale. Success in this area will determine the pace of market growth.

The post From Uranium to Thorium: The New Equation Driving Global Nuclear Innovation appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

SBTi Net-Zero Standard V2: What the Revision Means for Every Business

Published

on

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) just rolled out a major revision to its Net-Zero Standard, Version 2.0. It changes how companies set climate targets, how much room they actually have to hit those targets, and how carbon credits fit into a credible net-zero strategy. Below, we break down what’s changing, when it takes effect, and why it matters even if your business isn’t formally an SBTi participant.

Key takeaways

  • SBTi is the default reference point for corporate climate action: 51% of Fortune Global 500 companies now hold net-zero targets, up from 8% in 2020, and over 11,000 organizations worldwide have SBTi-validated targets.
  • Net Zero Standard V2 redefines climate leadership as reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions, not reduction alone.
  • The new standard adds flexibility through five-year cycles, a “best efforts” standard, and an Asset Transition Method for companies whose path to net-zero doesn’t fit a straight-line trajectory.
  • Voluntary carbon credits are formally recognized for the first time, with reduction and removal credits accepted from 2027, and removals required from 2035.
  • Companies with 2030 targets keep using V1 for their current cycle and move to V2 in 2028; companies without targets can start using V2 on February 1, 2027.

Why every business needs to understand the SBTi Net-Zero Standard revision

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has become the default reference point for credible corporate climate action. Net-zero targets are now held by 51% of Fortune Global 500 (FG500) companies, up dramatically from just 8% in 2020, and more than 11,000 organizations worldwide have set SBTi-validated targets.

However, SBTi’s influence extends well beyond the companies formally participating in the program. Every business in the value chain of an SBTi participant will have to reduce its own carbon emissions, and businesses that aren’t SBTi participants themselves still look to the program for guidance on climate action.

In short, SBTi gives every business a credible blueprint for climate action, and companies that follow its principles can pursue climate action with confidence, whether or not they’re formally part of the program.

How will the Net Zero Standard revision affect business climate action?

SBTi participation is expected to grow. Despite strong target-setting participation among the F500, only 17% of companies use the SBTi Net Zero Standard V1 beyond target setting, largely because its rules have been seen as too rigid to apply in practice. Much of the Net Zero Standard revision has focused on creating more flexibility to enable higher participation. Medium and small businesses will also increasingly feel pressure for climate action, since SBTi mandates that its participants reduce carbon emissions across their value chains.

Net Zero Standard V2 also redefines climate leadership: leading climate action now means reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions. Reducing your own emissions while ignoring the emissions you continue to release along the way is no longer considered leadership. Supporting voluntary carbon projects with high-integrity carbon credits is now backed by the leading authority on corporate climate action.

What lessons shaped the Net Zero Standard V2 revision?

The revision reflects a few learnings about what actually drives climate progress, and how SBTi built those lessons into the new standard.

Net Zero Standard V1 Learnings Net Zero Standard V2 Implementation
Making real short-term progress is more important and more difficult than making big long-term promises Focus on short-term climate progress
Every company has a different path to net zero that doesn’t always fit generalized net-zero rules Create asset transition plans based on each company’s unique asset lifecycles and capital planning
We need to mitigate our ongoing emissions to keep global carbon emissions in check Reduce global carbon emissions by financing voluntary carbon projects with high-integrity carbon credits

What are the key changes between the old and new Net Zero Standard?

Both versions of the standard are grounded in net-zero by 2050. However, the old standard treated climate leadership as simply reducing emissions, expected a long-term commitment to net zero, based emission reduction targets on generalized net-zero goals, revoked status from companies that fell behind on targets, and ignored voluntary carbon projects entirely.

The new standard treats climate leadership as reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions. It shifts the focus to short-term progress through five-year cycles, and it bases emission reduction targets on both the net-zero goal and a company’s own asset decarbonization plan. A new Asset Transition Method lets companies set decarbonization targets through asset plans with committed, verifiable steps; an ambitious but achievable path based on a company’s starting point, financial resources, and technology, with multiple pathways to reflect the unique opportunities and constraints of different industries and companies.

Crucially, the new standard moves to a “best efforts” basis that creates real flexibility on progress against targets. Businesses that miss their targets can keep their status if they’ve used “every lever” within their control, and minimum progress rules will be set out in the SBTi Assurance Manual.

Finally, the new standard formally uses voluntary carbon projects to mitigate ongoing emissions. From 2027 through 2034, this mitigation is recognized, and both carbon reduction and removal credits are accepted. From 2035 forward, mitigation with carbon removal credits becomes required, with durability matching between the removal and the emission it offsets.

Old Net Zero Standard New Net Zero Standard
Grounded in net-zero by 2050 Grounded in net-zero by 2050
Climate leadership is reducing emissions Climate leadership is reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions
Make a long-term commitment to net-zero Focus on short-term progress in 5-year cycles
Emission reduction targets are based on net-zero goal
  • Emission reduction targets are based on net-zero goal and asset decarbonization plan
  • Adds SBTi’s Asset Transition Method
  • Decarbonization targets are set through asset plans with committed, verifiable steps
  • Ambitious but achievable path based on starting point, financial resources, technology
  • Multiple pathways for unique opportunities and constraints of industries and companies
Businesses who fall behind targets lose status
  • “Best efforts” basis creates flexibility on progress to targets
  • Businesses that miss targets can keep status if they used “every lever” in their control
  • Minimum progress rules will be provided in the SBTi Assurance Manual
Ignores voluntary carbon projects
  • Uses voluntary carbon projects to mitigate ongoing emissions
  • 2027–2034: Mitigation is recognized. Carbon reduction and removal credits are accepted.
  • 2035 forward: Mitigation with carbon removal credits is required, with durability matching.

When does the new Net Zero Standard take effect?

Companies with existing 2030 targets should continue using the old Net Zero Standard for their current cycle, and start using the new Net Zero Standard in 2028 to set targets for the next cycle (2030–2035).

Companies that don’t yet have targets can use the new Net Zero Standard starting February 1, 2027.

What are SBTi’s Category A and Category B companies?

The new Net Zero Standard splits companies into two categories, with different requirements attached to each.

Category A covers large companies from all countries and medium-sized companies from high-income countries. A company from any country qualifies if it meets at least one of: net turnover of €450 million or more, or 1,000 or more full-time employees. A company from a high-income country qualifies if its Scope 1 and 2 emissions are 10,000 tCO2e or more, or if it meets at least two of: balance sheet of €25 million or more, net turnover of €50 million or more, or 250 or more full-time employees.

Category B covers small companies from all countries and medium-sized companies from lower-income countries.

How do Scope 1 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?

Scope 1 targets aim to transition companies to net-zero direct emissions by 2050 or sooner, and companies can choose from three approaches.

  1. Absolute emissions reduction follows a straight-line emissions trajectory from the target base year to the net-zero year.
  2. Emissions intensity reduction lets companies follow sector-specific pathways designed to reflect the reduction opportunities available in sectors like steel, cement, or chemicals.
  3. Asset transition is designed for companies whose capital stock turnover doesn’t follow a linear or sector pathway. These companies design a transition plan to operate existing assets efficiently and replace them with low-carbon assets, using predetermined milestones.

How do Scope 2 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?

Scope 2 targets address emissions from purchased electricity through three pathways:

  1. Reducing electricity consumption,
  2. Reducing grid consumption by installing onsite or direct-line offsite clean energy generation, and
  3. Cleaning up the regional grid using market-based tools like PPAs, RECs, and GOs that drive clean energy development.

V2 introduces a dual Scope 2 framework requiring two separate targets, with an overall goal of 100% low-carbon electricity by 2040.

The location-based target addresses the carbon intensity of a company’s physical power use, and requires companies to show that their grid consumption is falling and/or that their physical grid use is getting cleaner; in other words, that their market-based solutions are actually making the grid cleaner.

The market-based (or zero-carbon electricity) target tracks a company’s use of low-carbon power generation contracts and Energy Attribute Certificates. It requires geographical matching of these certificates with electricity consumption based on deliverability regions (grid regions); annual matching is allowed, though hourly matching is encouraged. Category A companies with large electricity loads must report the percentage of their Scope 2 electricity consumption matched with low-carbon attributes on an hourly basis, and there’s an optional recognition framework for companies that meet hourly matching thresholds.

How do Scope 3 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?

Scope 3 targets share the same 2050-or-sooner net-zero goal, but companies set near-term targets only for material emissions sources in their value chain and areas where they have real influence. Long-term Scope 3 targets are generally not required.

Limited, justified exclusions are allowed for near-term targets, including categories that individually account for less than 5% of total Scope 3 emissions, and activities where a company lacks practical influence, like leased assets it doesn’t operationally control, or the processing of sold products. Optional exclusions are also available in specific categories.

Companies can choose from three approaches to near-term Scope 3 targets:

  1. An overarching emissions reduction target, which follows a linear contraction of emissions from the base year to residual emissions of 10% or less by 2050 or sooner;
  2. An overarching supplier/customer alignment target, benchmarked against a growing share of tier 1 suppliers and customers reaching net-zero by 2050 or sooner; or
  3. A category- or activity-specific target, tailored for companies with concentrated emissions in particular Scope 3 categories or high-emitting activities.

What is “ongoing emissions mitigation” under the new SBTi standard?

This is one of the most significant additions in Net Zero Standard V2. Accelerated climate contributions are needed to help the world achieve climate objectives, limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support the scale-up of climate solutions, and V2 formally recognizes that. Ongoing emissions mitigation runs as a parallel track to companies also reducing their own emissions.

The framework is initially voluntary, with recognition available at three contribution levels to encourage early action.

  1. Engaged companies address more than 1% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.
  2. Advanced companies address more than 10% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, including 100% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
  3. Leadership companies address 100% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions with a contribution budget of $80/tCO2e.

Carbon credits used for this purpose have to meet certain quality standards. They must be ex-post (issued after the mitigation has actually occurred), independently third-party-assured, emissions reductions or removals, measured in tCO2e, that occur within five years prior to the reporting year. They must be sourced from outside the company’s own value chain. Further minimum criteria will be set to align with high-integrity frameworks, with additional details on the recognition program expected in the second half of 2026.

Starting in 2035, carbon removals become mandatory for Category A companies. From that point, the carbon removal coverage requirement rises linearly from 1% of Scope 1–3 emissions to 100% by a company’s net-zero year. Within that, 10% of long-lived GHG emissions must specifically be covered by durable removals, also rising linearly to 100% by the net-zero year.

How must companies neutralize residual emissions?

At a company’s net-zero target year and thereafter, it must reduce its Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions to zero or to residual levels, and neutralize all residual emissions using eligible carbon removals. Those removals have to meet two conditions: they must occur within the same reporting period as the residual emissions they’re neutralizing, and long-lived GHGs must be neutralized with long-lived removals, matching the durability of the removal to the atmospheric lifetime of the emission being addressed.

What is the SBTi implementation hierarchy?

Net Zero Standard V2 also lays out how companies should prioritize their actions for credible target delivery, in three tiers.

  1. Direct actions, at the activity level, are actions that reduce emissions at the source within a company’s own operations and value chain; things like efficiency improvements, fuel switching, and engaging suppliers and customers to reduce their emissions.
  2. Actions within shared systems, or activity pools that reduce the emissions of shared systems like electricity or gas grids. This includes market instruments that convey low-carbon attributes, such as PPAs, RECs, and GOs, all of which must meet minimum integrity criteria that SBTi will elaborate on in future guidance.
  3. Sector-level actions relate to the same type of activity occurring in a relevant geography or system, in a way that meaningfully reduces the emissions a company is responsible for.

How Terrapass helps businesses meet the new SBTi standard

As the rules around carbon credits become more rigorous, the quality of the credits behind them matters more than ever. Terrapass has expanded our global network of carbon projects: more project types, locations, prices, ICVCM CCPs, and UN SDGs, spanning super-pollutant destruction, nature-based solutions, and durable removals. We offer Green-e® Climate Certification and we only source from third-party-verified projects on ICVCM-Eligible registries.

We also help clients with impact beyond carbon: EACs, RECs, and GOs including Green-e® Certified credits that support leading renewable energy projects; water credits that support water restoration projects; and custom environmental product needs like RNG and SAF. Wherever your organization is on its sustainability journey, we help clients around the world address climate risk, advance their environmental and social goals, and get the most out of their sustainability budgets.

FAQ: SBTi Net-Zero Standard revision

What is the SBTi Net-Zero Standard?

It’s the framework the Science Based Targets initiative publishes for companies that want validated, credible net-zero targets tied to limiting global warming.

What is changing in the SBTi Net Zero Standard V2 revision?

The biggest changes are more flexibility (five-year cycles and a “best efforts” standard), a new Asset Transition Method for companies whose emissions don’t follow a straight-line path, and formal recognition of voluntary carbon credits for mitigating ongoing emissions.

When do companies need to switch to the new SBTi standard?

If your company already has 2030 targets, you keep using V1 for your current cycle and move to V2 in 2028. If you don’t have targets yet, you can start using V2 as of February 1, 2027.

Can companies use carbon credits to meet SBTi targets?

They can. Under V2, high-integrity carbon reduction and removal credits count toward mitigating ongoing emissions from 2027 through 2034. Starting in 2035, only removal credits count, and they need to be durability-matched to the emissions they offset.

What’s the difference between Category A and Category B companies under SBTi?

Category A is large companies everywhere plus medium-sized companies in high-income countries, based on thresholds like revenue, headcount, or emissions. Category B is small companies everywhere and medium-sized companies in lower-income countries.

What happens if a company misses its SBTi target?

Under the old standard, falling behind could cost a company its SBTi status. Under V2’s “best efforts” approach, a company can hold onto its status as long as it’s used every lever within its control, with minimum progress rules coming in the SBTi Assurance Manual.

Sources: This post is based on Terrapass’s internal analysis of the SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0. Facts and figures were checked against SBTi’s official V2.0 announcement, SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 — Chapter 6: Ongoing Emissions Responsibility, Trellis’s coverage of the standard, Trellis’s reporting on Ongoing Emissions Recognition costs, Sylvera’s analysis of what comes next, Anthesis Group’s Fortune 500 net-zero commitments research, and Climate Impact Partners’ seventh annual FG500 analysis, as reported by CarbonUnits.com.

The post SBTi Net-Zero Standard V2: What the Revision Means for Every Business appeared first on Terrapass.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

How to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD

Published

on

For most businesses, the emissions that matter most sit outside their own walls. Scope 3 emissions, everything generated across your value chain, from the suppliers who make your inputs to the customers who use your products, typically make up the majority of a company’s total carbon footprint. Under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), those value-chain emissions now have to be measured and disclosed with a rigour that spend-based estimates alone struggle to satisfy. This guide sets out how to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD: the calculation methods open to you, how to move from estimates to verified supplier data, and how to govern that data so it holds up to audit.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

How community stewardship makes carbon credits durable

Published

on

A carbon credit is a commitment that extends well into the future. The tonne of CO₂ compensated for today from a nature-based carbon project must remain out of the atmosphere for good, which means the forest behind the credit has to remain standing long after the transaction is complete. For any buyer, this raises a defining question: What ensures that the forest endures?

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com