this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2026
192 points (99.0% liked)

Europe

10548 readers
915 users here now

News and information from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
federalreverse@feddit.org
poVoq@slrpnk.net
anzo@programming.dev
EuroMod@feddit.org
192
In 2025, solar and wind produced more electricity than fossil fuels in the European Union (ourworldindata.org)
submitted 14 hours ago by CAVOK@lemmy.world to c/europe@feddit.org
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Charts that show total energy produced are pretty pointless in an age of summer-day overproduction.

I would love to see this data in the form of "percentage of needs met".

Similarly, electricity is only a small part of all energy use, so while its nice to see the line go up, we should remember it's not the right statistic AND the line for all fossil fuels should be about three times higher.

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Congrats! India also hit their target of half of their electricity coming from renewables middle of last year - five years ahead of their 2030 target according to the Paris agreement. Love to hear news like this!

[–] leave_it_blank@lemmy.world 40 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

It's unstoppable. But it could go faster...

I mean, why is China investing so heavily into renewables? Not because they want to do good for the planet and from the goodness of their hearts. It's the cheapest energy source there is, and it could not give less fucks about some global crisis.

So please, EU, put the pedal to the metal.

[–] paranoia@feddit.dk 15 points 13 hours ago

It's also incredibly difficult for the supply of sunlight to be disrupted compared to oil or gas.

[–] nykula@piefed.social 10 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Chinese investment in renewables so far means they grow renewables while also growing coal. Between 80 and 100 gigawatts of coal production were added in 2025. Unfortunately, coal and gas production is steadily increasing worldwide. Contrast G7 trying to improve own living standard by reducing fossil usage locally, with G20 trying to fast-forward economic growth by any means available. Wind and solar grow fast, but they add to total production, rather than phase out fossils, almost everywhere outside EU. Source is the same, just a different page: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by-source

Global North can't pretend to be green itself while still externalizing harmful production and growing trade with countries ruled by people who don't care about resource depletion and the planet remaining livable. I think there's no alternative to focusing on producing locally (adhering to own democratic regulations, labor union negotiations etc) while implementing degrowth policies, both helping other countries do likewise and putting pressure on them to do so through trade measures.

[–] Elchi@feddit.org 1 points 10 hours ago

Its preparation for Taiwan. The Sun is not affected by a US naval blockade.

[–] JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org 27 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

Just think about how hard the current energy crisis would hit us if we still would produce hundred percent of our electricity with fossil fuels.

[–] Melchior@feddit.org 7 points 12 hours ago

Just think about Iran being able to deal with protests, without the oil money funding the government. It is also not just Iran.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Alternative energy will never make enough energy, we have to hyperfocus on nuclear energy! See!

[–] tocano@piefed.social 9 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

One problem that I see with nuclear is that energy production has to be accessible enough such that anyone can create their own independent network. I don't believe nuclear has achieved this yet.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

One thing nuclear energy has over wind and solar is that it's very reliable. Cloudy day? No wind? No electricity, or much less anyway.

Water turbines in a dam seems to be quite reliable, even though it varies with the seasons of course, but more reliable than wind at least.

[–] Ooops@feddit.org 8 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

What people overlook that reliability doesn't matter that much. What actually matters is availability exactly matching the demand. And guess what... constant nuclear production is as far off as fluctuating renewable power.

Everyone can seemingly grasp the concept of solar production peaking at noon while the demand peak is about 5 hours later and that it needs storage to shift the production to the demand peak. But they don't understand that constant production of nuclear needs a similiar amount of storage to shift all that power produced at night and not needed to the day when there is demand.

And the exact same thing is true for seasonal changes. It would be insanely expensive to produce the amount of nuclear power you need in those few cold winter nights and then have moverproduction most ofthe time. So you need seasonal storage for a lot of it, so you can instead build capacities for your average demand over a year and shift the produced energy around.

The storage you need for renewables is again comparable. In fact the pure capacity you need is actually lower, but then you need the ability to unload much more in a short time frame should weather patterns be really bad for renewable power. Which evens out in regards to costs. Renewable storage need less capacity but has higher demands on the storage and grid.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

Thanks for the insight

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Nuclear is an expensive alternative to big batteries. I’m not sure about the long term economics but a megawatt of nuclear is more expensive up front

[–] Ooops@feddit.org 3 points 12 hours ago

There are two countries heavily pushing for a properly sized hydrogen market for industry use as well as long-term storage: Germany and France.

So basically everytime you hear arguments of storage in a nuclear vs renewable discussion, you can be sure it's bullshit. The people actually doing the planning know well that nuclear as well as renewable models need similiar huge amounts of seasonal storage.

(The French model of today explicitly only works economically via exports and only as long as all their neighbours use fossil fuels. That's not a viable model when nuclear and/or renewables are in use everywhere.)

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Right, so nuclear should probably be sort of a filler during a period of low output from renewables, I guess?

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 12 hours ago

It serves as a base, yes. It doesn’t respond to changes in demand quickly. I suspect that tech has gotten to the point where batteries are a better investment.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Congratulations!

It's also too late, but hey, at this point; nice try

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

It's not too late. We should do everything we can to lessen the impact

[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io -4 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

No thanks to Germany.

[–] Ooops@feddit.org 8 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Right... the country that basically brought solar to the point of cheap mass production years ago while also having double the average EU renewable share in their energy mix is the bad one...

... in some alternate reality produced by propaganda-induced brain-damage.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 points 47 minutes ago

your point is valid, but why be so abrasive about it?

[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 3 points 11 hours ago

No need to insult me with cheap shots.

I'm referring to the changes made by the energy ministry.

But sure, let's call me brain damaged.

You too have a good day pal.

[–] JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org 9 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Why? They have well above the average of renewables?

[–] leave_it_blank@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

That's right, but our energy ministry (Mrs. Reiche) is currently working on correcting that.

[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 5 points 11 hours ago

I should clarify my comment, that's where I was aiming. Thanks.

[–] Greg@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 13 hours ago

In other news - economy is destroyed and Europe produces less than ever.