> I used to think solar and wind power were the best ways to reduce CO2 emissions. > But the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions during the past 15 years (over 6

> I used to think solar and wind power were the best ways to reduce CO2 emissions. > But the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions during the past 15 years (over 60%) > has come from switching from coal to natural gas. But once you transition to natural gas, you can't go any lower with fossil fuels, while to stop warming we need to get to zero human-caused CO2 emissions, so clearly natural gas is not a viable solution. > I used to think that the world was transitioning to solar, wind, and > batteries. This, too, was false. Trillions of dollars were spent on wind and > solar projects over the last 20 years, yet the world’s dependence on fossil > fuels declined only 3 percentage points, from 87% to 84%. Sorry, that does not make it false. During those 20 years, energy production rose, mostly in emerging markets, while the transition to cleaner sources happened mostly in developed markets. Yeah I see a big push for nuclear in the last few weeks/months... only the proponents always fail to mention the huge delays and cost overruns associated with those projects. Like the nuclear power plants currently being finished in European Union (Finlad, France, Slovakia) cost between 3-5 times of the original budget while taking about 15-17 years to build. And China is building nuclear power stations too and also seems to always be too optimistic about the costs and the time, while also building loads of renewables. Actually the nuclear push seems to be too intensive this time to be random, so maybe it is coordinated - or is it just me?