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

Buy European

10084 readers
1256 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 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