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
maam@feddit.uk
alex@jlai.lu
circledot@feddit.org
Argyle13@lemmy.world
meldrik@lemmy.wtf
Sunshine@piefed.ca
Kjell@lemmy.world
602
Europe has survived 3 energy shocks in 4 years. The only way out is to stop buying power from its enemies (fortune.com)
submitted 3 days ago by rikviergever@lemmy.world to c/buyeuropean@feddit.uk
235 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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€“] 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.

[โ€“] knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 3 days ago

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.