gas power plant != natural gas power plant. Green hydrogen gas generated from excess renewables and biogas exist, and can often be used in existing power plants. Though they are expensive right now, we've no idea how the technology may evolve in the next few years.
In Ireland they are actually building natural gas power plants with the assumption they will be stop operation as little as 5 years and only used for emergency purposes from then on. This is because they are using OCGT gas turbines which were invented for use in 3rd world countries and are much cheaper than conventional CCGT gas turbines.
Also don't forget that nuclear power plants have to go offline for maintenance like everything else, and I'm not sure it will ever be financially viable to have redundant nuclear power plants. France recently had to take 50% of their power plants offline for a few months to fix cracks and Japan had to take all of them offline for a few years after Fukushima. Thats why it's necessary to have emergency backup power plants and right now these are typically gas.
>Natural gas is neither renewable nor emission-free when burning
Yes you are correct, in fact I actually addressed that in the later part of my comment
>From 2030 onwards the focus will be on decarbonising the remaining ~20% of electricity generation that is gas. How that will be done will depend mostly on how the technology matures in the meantime, but it will likely be replacing natural gas with hydrogen and biogas. Another option could be carbon capture. Or batteries if there is some technological breakthrough and the price of stored energy drops way below it's current 200euro/MWh price.
When picking fruit from a tree, It's usually best to start at the lower branches.
I think the idea that renewables have to be paired with large amounts of energy storage is not correct. In Ireland dispatchable power is used when wind is low. Natural gas, hydroelectric, HVDC, pumped storage. Lithium ion batteries are generally only used briefly while the gas power plant gets up to temperature because of their high cost. There are also HVDC interconnectors that allow excess wind to be exported to the UK and electricity to be imported from there when it is cheaper. They expect to be able to achieve 70-80% renewables using this system by 2030, and are currently at around 45%. From 2030 onwards the focus will be on decarbonising the remaining ~20% of electricity generation that is gas. How that will be done will depend mostly on how the technology matures in the meantime, but it will likely be replacing natural gas with hydrogen and biogas. Another option could be carbon capture. Or batteries if there is some technological breakthrough and the price of stored energy drops way below it's current 200euro/MWh price.
I also think that electricity grids are very complex and powering any large grid with 100% of any one source is impossible. As each energy source has different pros and cons, you'll generally always have a mix of different sources.
I remember not too long ago Ireland had blasphemy laws. Does anyone remember what happened to the guy who was criminally charged for mocking God on TV?
I somewhat agree, but at the same time, e-voting via internet and phone has been a thing in Estonia since the 90's. I think it's a terrible idea, but it's how it's done there. I don't think it would be that foolish for people to believe the same concept could be brought into the US, especially if it was under some strange situation like a pandemic. There are even a bunch of blockchain-based startups trying to push the idea, claiming it can be done securely with modern cryptography (which is not true IMO).
It seems many Americans do want to start companies in Europe though. US multinationals directly employ about 190,000 people in Ireland, a country with a total population of 5 million.
I lived in Amsterdam for 5 years. I'm not entirely sure what your talking about with the pedestrian path being beside the cycle lane. They are normally on two different levels, there is a curb. I also never found it that dangerous to be a pedestrian. I have seen many many tourists walk in the cycle lanes though, or step into them without looking, and almost get hit. Honestly to me it kinda sounds like you were walking in the bike lane. I think there is some learning curve in getting used to all of the bikes around, but it really isn't dangerous. Also I can confirm that in the 5 years I lived there I was never hit by a cyclist. however when a family member came to visit, they walked right out into a bike lane without looking and almost did get hit.
Lol, what facts and logic? Your original comment contains none of these, just your own personal assertions.
literally listen to yourself, this article was originally about children cycling to school, now you are connecting this to the WEF conspiracy.
And yes it is a conspiracy, it's the same as all others where people make these vague and imprecise statements, like you did in your original comment, then take some actual facts and try to weave it all together into something malicious. Actually, this is literally what you are doing right now by taking this story literally about children cycling and weaving it into the whole WEF conspiracy.
Lmao, so people wanting children to be able to cycle safely to school is communism?
>The risk of biking injuries is always present
Lol. Because nobody was ever injured in a car before. What do you think are the major source of cycling injuries? It's collisions with motor vehicles. You fall off your bike and you'll probably scrape a knee. You get hit by a truck and it's near certain death. Cycling is NOT a dangerous activity, it is a benign activity done in a dangerous environment. Obvious example of Netherlands, where biking is number 1 method of transport, and nobody wears a helmet, yet they have one of the lowest rates of injury, thanks to the fact they have great cycling infrastructure which separates vulnerable road users from vehicles.
>Cars are not the enemy
Maybe some people think they are, but of course that is not the case. But that does not mean that cars must be used for every trip that we do. We can recognize that certain means of transport are better suited to certain journeys. If you are traveling very long distances then it makes sense to fly or take a boat. Likewise if you are traveling short distances it makes sense to walk or cycle. What people want is the freedom to choose their own means of transport. They want to be able to choose if they want to walk, cycle, take public transport or drive and they want to use whatever method is most convenient for them for whatever journey they are doing. They do not want the government to invest all transport funds solely into roads for cars and design cities around cars making their use essentially mandatory. I'm sure the car lobby is happy that many countries decided to do this in the 70's and that the decision to do that had nothing to do with influence from them, but now people are starting to see that the government has essentially made cars mandatory and their freedom has been taken from them. Of course cars are not the enemy and they are never going to go away, there will always be journeys where cars makes the most sense from a cost, convenience and time perspective, and there will always be people who just like driving.
>Porsche's synthetic fuel will reduce CO2 from cars dramatically
People often focus on the cO2 emissions from cars when driving, but that is actually not the worst part. In fact, it is actually much better to keep driving your old petrol car for as long as possible instead of switching to a brand new electric/low emissions car, because there are significant cO2 emissions released from building a new car. Then there is the cO2 emissions from building roads. Building just 2 meters of road has the same emissions as building a brand new car.
>Claus Schwab
Not surprised to hear you mention this name, or Santa Claus as I like to call him. The new favorite go-to for conspiracy nuts nowadays.
In Ireland they are actually building natural gas power plants with the assumption they will be stop operation as little as 5 years and only used for emergency purposes from then on. This is because they are using OCGT gas turbines which were invented for use in 3rd world countries and are much cheaper than conventional CCGT gas turbines.
Also don't forget that nuclear power plants have to go offline for maintenance like everything else, and I'm not sure it will ever be financially viable to have redundant nuclear power plants. France recently had to take 50% of their power plants offline for a few months to fix cracks and Japan had to take all of them offline for a few years after Fukushima. Thats why it's necessary to have emergency backup power plants and right now these are typically gas.