Assuming there is no pressing reason and the wells are dormant, why would it be a good idea to destroy options? I did not fact check these claims though. Maybe there are other reasons to close them. But if it is solely do remove them from equation altogether, it is stupid.
Presumably, if technology advances to the point where it is safe to burn fossil fuels again, it will also advance to the point where cement won't stop people from accessing the gas wells.
Gas HAS to be used as a backup for renewables today (or at least in places without good pumped hydro?). Enough batteries to supply an entire grid for a day or two is just out of reach today.
At least in Australia, I'm not sure how the dynamics go with such a geographically diverse grid like Europe.
Yes, certainly, I agree. But, at the same time, we should be electrifying and rapidly deploying storage (both energy and heat) as quickly as possible. "Burn the ships" and commit.
> Solar PV supplied more than 10% of global electricity in the first half of 2026, but generation remains heavily concentrated around midday. Ember says rapidly expanding, cheaper battery storage could shift 34% of new daily solar generation to non-solar hours in 2026, bringing round-the-clock solar closer.
Assuming there is no pressing reason and the wells are dormant, why would it be a good idea to destroy options? I did not fact check these claims though. Maybe there are other reasons to close them. But if it is solely do remove them from equation altogether, it is stupid.