this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
601 points (98.1% liked)

Buy European

10084 readers
1223 users here now

Overview:

The community to discuss buying European goods and services.


Matrix Chat of this community


Rules:

  • Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. No direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments.

  • Do not use this community to promote Nationalism/Euronationalism. This community is for discussing European products/services and news related to that. For other topics the following might be of interest:

  • Include a disclaimer at the bottom of the post if you're affiliated with the recommendation.

  • No russian suggestions.

Feddit.uk's instance rules apply:

  • No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
  • No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
  • No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
  • Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
  • Do not spam or abuse network features.
  • Alt accounts are permitted, but all accounts must list each other in their bios.
  • No generative AI content.

Useful Websites

Benefits of Buying Local:

local investment, job creation, innovation, increased competition, more redundancy.

European Instances

Lemmy:

Friendica:

Matrix:


Related Communities:

Buy Local:

Continents:

European:

Buying and Selling:

Boycott:

Countries:

Companies:

Stop Publisher Kill Switch in Games Practice:


Banner credits: BYTEAlliance


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Europe has survived 3 energy shocks in 4 years. The only way out is to stop buying power from its enemies | Fortune

https://fortune.com/2026/03/25/europe-3-energy-shocks-in-4-years-what-to-do-next/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Nuclear isn't a option in the short term at all, simply because you can't build it fast enough.

It's also too damn expensive. And please tell where in germany we get the uran and the building materials for nuclear.

[โ€“] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ein von der Firma NuScale Power zusammen mit dem Energieversorger Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) geplantes Projekt in Idaho (siehe auch das Idaho National Laboratory) sollte Stand Anfang 2023 USD 102/MWh erreichen, wenn man die Subventionen herausrechnete.[17] Das Projekt wurde im November eingestellt, weil die ursprรผnglich fรผr die Errichtung geplanten Kosten von 5,3 Milliarden Dollar auf bereits 9,3 Milliarden Dollar gestiegen waren.[18] Zum Vergleich der Stromkosten: Nach Schรคtzungen aus dem April 2023 erreichen Solarfreiflรคchenanlagen Stromgestehungskosten von USD 24 bis USD 96/MWh

zu teuer.

[โ€“] Kkk2237pl@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago

True but dont forget. If you will buy it from France, you will leave money locally :) and economy will get this money back

[โ€“] iglou@programming.dev -5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

It is much faster to build nuclear power plants that can cover a country's needs than to fully transition said country to renewable.

It's expensive upfront. But it is cheap to operate afterwards, and cost efficient to renew. Look at France.

Germany made a major, major mistake when then phased out of nuclear energy.

We have uranium in Europe. We just don't exploit it. But even if we did not, there is plenty of countries in the world exporting uranium, on all continents. It's much less of a strategic issue than relying on rare materials for renewable, or for gas/oil.

[โ€“] datendefekt@feddit.org 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I present Exhibit A, the new Reactor Flamaville in France. Construction took 17 years and 12 billion Euros.

Exhibit B, solar panels I can mount on my roof for a few thousand that run for 20 years without maintenance.

I rest my case.

EDIT: I did some estimating and figured that instead of building a NPR, France could have supplied around 500.000 households with solar and storage instead. That would be the populations of Lyon, Toulouse and Nice combined. And they would have around 65% of their power for free.

[โ€“] iglou@programming.dev -3 points 3 days ago

I am not sure if you mean it that way, but I will take this comment as a good joke!

[โ€“] knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What are you talking about? Building new plants takes decades. Renewables are much faster to build and are even cheaper than keep running existing nuclear plants

[โ€“] iglou@programming.dev 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

No, what are you talking about? A nuclear power plant takes less than a decade to build.

Renewable energy at the scale of a country is impossible to achieve in such a short time in Europe. We dont have huge geothermal taps, which countries having achieved 100% renewable energy have, and we consume a lot more energy.

Cheaper is great, but it's not continuous, it's not scaleable in a short period of time, and requires a fuckton more maintainance capability than a dozen nuclear power plants.

I will reiterate: A full renewable energy grid in Europe is impossible with our current tech, especially in a reasonable timeframe. That's why instead of solar power plants, countries prefer to subsidies local, individual solar panel installations, for instance.

[โ€“] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A nuclear power plant takes less than a decade to build.

This is demonstrably a lie. The most recent nuclear power plant built in the US took 15 years to complete.

[โ€“] encelado748@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

And the power plants in china took 6, with some that took 4 year. You can make nuclear faster if you want to. This is not a technology problem (or at least, not only), but a bureaucratic one. Chinese are building plants based on the AP1000, the same the US are building. It is a US design.

[โ€“] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So even with an authoritarian government that can roll over any political opposition or protest, it still takes four-six years at best to build a damn reactor! And in actual democracies, it will take even longer. In functional democracies, people have the power to make sure the reactors are built safe. And they've put in regulations to make sure they're built safe. The best the people of China can do is to simply hope for the best.

Chernobyl was also built cheap and fast. Look how that turned out. "Fast" is the last way I want a nuclear power plant to be built!

[โ€“] encelado748@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Just because is China that does not make it unsafe.

CAP1000 is incredibly safe 3+ generation design that uses multiple redundant passive safety system. A reactor like that can cool itself without electricity nor human intervention.

The comparison with Chernobyl is laughable. That design had a lot of flaws that do not exists in modern reactors. Just so you know there are still 7 reactor like Chernobyl running in Russia. I would worry more about those instead of one of the safest industrial facility ever designed by humankind.

[โ€“] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yes, you're quoting the marketing well. I'm sure the platonic ideal of the CAP1000 is perfectly safe. But you're making the fatal assumption that the plant will be built as designed and properly maintained to maintain that level of safety. It still relies on a massive network of piping that can become clogged or damaged if not properly built and maintained. Your naivety is laughable. Regulatory capture is already a problem in capitalist countries. Now your regulator and construction/operator company are the same people!

And again, you've completely ignored the 'problem' of democracy. The CCP can simply decree something and it will happen. There's no opportunity for local feedback. The opinions of the locals are irrelevant. There's no environmental review. You simply build it.

But ultimately, you completely missed the point of my comment. Democracies demand a certain level of process and accountability. (Yes, the US's present leadership is making a mockery of that, but Trump is an authoritarian.) In functioning democracies, you have to work to build popular legitimacy and build support for any major project. Dictatorships can just decree something to happen. Democracy itself makes nuclear power plants expensive to build. You need to work really hard to convince people that what you're building is safe, as you're building a damn nuclear reactor. I know technofascists find the idea of having to convince the common rabble to go along with their grand visions abhorrent, but I'm in favor of lynching technofascists, so fuck it.

[โ€“] encelado748@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago

The CCP can explode a nuclear bomb in Beijing also, but why should they?

A well maintained power plant is a resource and the maintenance cost less the building a new power plant. And if the power plant lack maintenance it will stop working and that's it.

If you perfectly and simultaneously clog all eight primary injection pipes (a statistically impossibility, must be elaborate and deliberate sabotage) the reactor will meltdown, and the corium will sit at the bottom of the containment dome where natural air circulation will reduce the temperature with all the radiation trapped inside.

I trust an AP1000 in China more then an older reactor in France. Your critique is based on fantasy. No dictatorship can decree that physics stop working.

[โ€“] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[โ€“] encelado748@feddit.org 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes, China is not a magical place. If UAE was able to build a nuclear program from nothing at 8 years for each reactors, then we also can do that. (this time a Korean Design). We just need to understand why they can and we cannot. This is a regulatory problem, not a technology problem

[โ€“] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

It's easy to say that, but 15 years ago I thought the US do it too, and I was proven very wrong. I think Europe is a lot more like the US than it is the UAE, in terms of (for example) the ability of anti-nuclear activists to cause delays.

[โ€“] encelado748@feddit.org 0 points 3 days ago

So given it is possible to create a nuclear power plant in 6 years (China did it, France did it), we just need to understand what needs to be done to make it possible again. And the answer is economy of scale (build more then one at a time) and streamlined bureaucracy (unify component requirement and simplify certification procedures).

The problem is nobody want to invest in the effort to make these changes against misinformed public opposition and fossil fuel lobbies.

[โ€“] runsmooth@kopitalk.net 2 points 3 days ago

I agree with @knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de, everything about nuclear technology involves cost and time overruns. A nuclear power plant would ultimately take a decade or more to complete. Even the newer developments of SMRs or Thorium require real world experience and expertise that limit the number of countries who can explore this technology.

While countries are quick to make claims that they unlocked commercial thorium reactors, I'd say the only superpower realistically on track is China.

China hopes to complete the world's first commercial thorium reactor by 2030 and has planned to further build more thorium power plants across the low populated deserts and plains of western China, as well as up to 30 nations involved in China's Belt and Road Initiative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

[โ€“] pdqcp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Is nuclear really cheaper than renewables + batteries nowadays? I wonder if there are recent studies looking into it

Quick search points to this:

Levelized Cost of Electricity: which is a measure of the total cost of building and operating a power plant over its lifetime and expressed in dollars per megawatt-hour. [...] LCOE serves as a comprehensive metric that consolidates all direct cost components of a specific power generation technology. This includes capital expenditures, financing, fuel costs, operations and maintenance, and any expenses related to carbon pricing. However, LCOE does not account for network integration or other indirect costs

LCOE for advanced nuclear power was estimated at $110/MWh in 2023 and forecasted to remain the same up to 2050, while solar PV estimated to be $55/MWh in 2023 and expected to decline to $25/MWh in 2050. Onshore wind was $40/MWh in 2023 and expected to decline to $35/MWh in 2050 making renewables significantly cheaper in many cases

[...] Global weighted average levelized cost of electricity for newly commissioned utility-scale solar photovoltaic, onshore wind, offshore wind, and hydropower projects experienced a downward trend. The most notable drop occurred in utility-scale solar PV, which saw a 12% decrease from 2022 [in LCOE costs][...]

In contrast, nuclear power continues to face cost overruns and long construction timelines [...]

Source: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Power-Play-The-Economics-Of-Nuclear-Vs-Renewables

[Caveat: Below numbers are most likely not using LCOE]:

[...] In 2025, developers added 87 gigawatts of combined solar and storage, delivering power at an average of $57/MWh

By contrast, benchmark cost of a typical fixed axis solar farm increased 6% compared to 2025, hitting $39/MWh, while onshore wind reached $40/MWh and offshore wind climbed to $100/MWh globally [...]

Source: https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-energy/battery-storage-costs-hit-record-lows-as-costs-of-other-clean-power-technologies-increased-bloombergnef/

If we aren't there yet, I still think we might see renewables + batteries as cheaper options in the short term.

I'd really like to see an LCOE analysis including batteries. If we naively assume LCOE costs for PV+batteries is the same as PV, we might already be there

[โ€“] iglou@programming.dev 0 points 3 days ago (4 children)

My focus isn't on which type of energy is cheapest. An energy grid that is not predictable is worthless. Wiknd power, solar power, are great complements, but a grid using only those is not viable. Hydroelectric is great, but limited. Geothermal is not really viable in mainland Europe.

I'm worried about a realistic transition from fossile fuels to non fossile fuels. Nuclear is realistic, renewable as a main source in Europe is utopic and unrealistic.

[โ€“] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Nuclear power plants have to turn off if the weather gets too hot. They have to dump their waste heat in rivers or other bodies of water. To keep them from cooking the local wildlife, countries have to limit the amount of heat they're allowed to dump into the river. When the temperature of the river increases due to warm weather, the amount the reactor can dispose of in the river decreases. Rivers are not the infinite cold reservoirs your thermodynamics class taught you.

[โ€“] FarceOfWill@infosec.pub 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

This is just..wrong. an unpredictable grid is perfectly fine for almost everything we currenty use it for, it just requires a very small amount of moving usage around and feedback on pricing/demand.

[โ€“] iglou@programming.dev -1 points 3 days ago

I'm not sure we define unpredictable in the same way. I mean not being able to rely on a continuous source of power (batteries mitigate but don't solve this issue) is problematic.

You must hate nuclear then, it has awful synergy with renewables since you can't turn it off and on again quickly. Just overproducing with renewables and using batteries + gas plants for the few days the wind doesn't blow enough is much more realistic.

[โ€“] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Predictability of renewables can be minimized via national grid interconnection. Even if it's cloudy and the wind is stagnant in one location, odds are that's not the case 500-1,000 miles / km away. The larger the grid, the more predictable renewables becomes.

Also, most Lithium-based BESS storage can discharge power to accommodate unpredictable renewables for up to as long as 4 hours, which can be enough to bridge the gap. If storage can't do it, the grid will.

And let's not forget other types of renewables + storage that don't care about clouds or the wind: run-of-the-river hydro (not reservoir hydro), pumped storage hydro, tidal, solar thermal, even wave although I highly doubt wave power will take off, etc.

The more diverse our power generation, both in type and location, the more predictable our grid will be. Diversity is key.

Edit: let's not forget about the other end of the power equation from generation: utilization. Energy efficiency and conservation through Distributed Energy Resource Management Systems (DERMS) are another tool to help the grid manage unpredictable renewables.

[โ€“] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Tell that to Georgia Power. And while you're at it, pay my electric bill for me if it's so damn cheap!