Yeah, it’s gonna be natural gas, I’m afraid. Wind and solar are coming along fast, faster than I feared, and the Midwest is even getting in on it. But it’s still going to be gas, which is at least slightly better than coal.

I’d suggest playing around with the En-ROADS Calculator, whose parameters are based on the most recent science on what, exactly, will and won’t make a difference in getting climate change under control. It’s probably best to use a PC browser for it, but I’ve not tried on mobile. It’s a browser thing that loads up nice and easy, no downloads.

The reason why is that you can play with the sliders and do things like tax the shit out of fossil fuels, ramp up renewables to your heart’s content, and then be disappointed that the most extreme choices on that make a minimal difference.

BUT the thing you do discover through this calculator is that a modest reduction in methane emissions (from farming) and modest increases in energy efficiency in buildings and transport go an awful lot farther than you think. The other ringer is a modest carbon tax. Throw those three together, alone, and the line goes down.

I believe these numbers are global, which is probably why building energy efficiency seems so OP. Sure, you’ve got double-pane windows but half of the world is still rocking a shack, lots of room for improvement, there. Also, there’s still a fuck ton of two-stroke transportation happening, more low-hanging fruit.

Methane emission is the demon that is killing us, with CO2 just its henchman, so step on that guy just a little and get a big dividend. If things take less energy to run then carbon-burning power sources emit less carbon across the board. Once you attack the real problems, even a bit, then modest attacks on the obvious problems, like coal and gas generation, start to really stack up. Like they say, one train takes 1000 cars off the road.

Methane is going to be a bitch enough. Basically it’s the cows, and you know how people act when you even breathe about meat consumption. But that’s where the payoff is. Even a modest reduction in all that.

I guess what I’m saying is try not to be too dismayed by gas plants and other carbon emitters, even new ones. It sucks, but it’s not quite the problem it feels like. There are a lot of angles to attack the issue from, so one more gas plant isn’t a death knell by itself.

Join your local chapter of the Citizen’s Climate Lobby if you really care, and see what you can find to do about it all. They have lots of ideas for you.

Right now our focus is actually permitting reform for power transmission, for the new big-ass high voltage towers that will get the power from where the wind is - in BFE - to where the power is needed, in cities. That’s the bottleneck, even though actual power generation facilities are going up at a rising rate. The wealthy nations can at least afford to go ham on renewables, but we’ve got to get the wires run across umpteen counties, and that’s the current holdup. Every bug in a congressperson’s ear helps.

But at least play around with the calculator, see what you find, and maybe pass the link around.

Personally I don’t see nin nuclear options as viable. Solar and wind have abysmal capacity factors, that require absurd overprovisioning or massive gains in storage. Neither of which is all that likely to happen soon. Gas is better than coal