Posted on 03/27/2021 2:52:31 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Europe has set a clear goal for full decarbonization by 2050, with renewables-based electricity set to become the dominant energy carrier, and that means fossil gas will have “only a marginal role” in the long run, EU climate chief Frans Timmermans said on Thursday (25 March).
By 2050, Europe’s energy system will be changed fundamentally, with ten times more solar and onshore wind power than today, said Timmermans, the European Commission’s executive vice-president in charge of the Green Deal.
And “at the end of that road, there will be no more space for coal, very little room for oil, and only a marginal role for fossil gas,” he said in a keynote speech at the annual conference of Eurogas, an industry trade association.
“So instead of waiting for the inevitable and face ever higher costs of transition, it’s better to adapt, prepare and adopt new sustainable business models,” he said, warning: “the longer you wait, the more expensive it becomes.” […]
“I want to be crystal clear: fossil fuels have no viable future,” he told participants at the Eurogas event. “And that also goes for fossil gas, in the longer run.”
“The future,” he continued, “is in carbon-free electricity and a decarbonized gas sector, which embraces hydrogen as an energy carrier and green hydrogen as the final destination.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at euractiv.com ...
Won’t be feasible until controlled fusion is practical. Which is only five years away since 1950.
Fossil fuels are empowering. If you want to go somewhere, you go out and buy gas. Renewables are controllable. If you are using too much electricity, the government can limit your use. That’s what we have seen over the last few years with brownouts and rolling blackouts.
They should be building new nuke plants right now to power all those shiny new electric cars they are trying to force people into using. Solar and wind power won’t cut it.
Are they? I doubt it.
The want to eliminate a relatively cheap energy source, for which the infrastructure is already in place, to be replaced by ones for which the infrastructure is currently woefully inadequate.
The real goal is to limit the mobility of the proles.
The liberal solution is "progressive" pricing for energy, just as they do with taxes.
You can have electricity, but if you want more than the minimum amount that THEY decide you should have, you will have to pay more for it. In some situations, much more.
You would need to make it income based so you don’t turn the poor against you
Yes, but better yet, pay poor people to use electricity.
Send it all over here. We will find some way to dispose of it.
Where do these people think the fuel to generate the energy needed for electric cars is going to come from, The Energy Fairy?
Absurd.
Biomarkers are not necessarily indicators of past presence of life. How many life forms produce substances such as rubidium chloride? Never mind that your samples will never be free of contamination of biological substances anyway.
You are funny, a man with an education and a prejudiced attitude.
I don’t have that education, but I can answer your question, cross contamination. Now crawl into an oil well, take samples of the soil encapsulating an oil reservoir and prove me wrong.
Explain why oil wells that were once empty are filling up again?
Explain the arguments against abiotic oil production by planetary action. Explain how there are pools of hydrocarbon on surfaces or beneath them on several planets?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.