Natural gas is a sensible bridging technology. But there is no lobby comparable to the oil lobby for anything anywhere. > These discussions always seem to go t

Natural gas is a sensible bridging technology. But there is no lobby comparable to the oil lobby for anything anywhere. > These discussions always seem to go this way. When presented with major challenges to large scale deployments of solar and wind, an unproven, unavailable or unworkable workaround is propsed. No, synthetic gas is not a solution, just like pumped/gravity or Li-ion storage isn't either. Explain how synthetic gas storage wouldn't work? It has a shit efficiency, but if we are willing to stomach a 50% increase in electricity prices and made the land available, we can build fully renewable systems today. In fact we do, on islands, where electricity prices are much higher to start with. Again, it's not a technical problem. It's only a technical problem if you add the political constraint that you have to save the planet without hurting any established economic interests. This is different for other industrial processes which are harder to decarbonize, but right now we are not incentivizing the necessary R&D into these processes. On the substance the rest of your points don't really hold. There are efficient wind turbines without rare earths for example. And if we start building carbon neutral technologies prices will come down. Most dramatically so they did for solar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law So the completely ridiculous incentives to build solar home systems in Germany in the 90s created a market that was neither efficient, nor lead to very many CO2 savings. But it ended up bringing the break even point, where solar is cheaper than coal, forward by many years. And organizations like the IEA continue to get all of this really consistently fundamentally wrong: https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1064529619951513600 https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1064529619951513600