this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
177 points (95.9% liked)

Europe

10614 readers
710 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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jafffacakelemmy@mander.xyz 2 points 19 hours ago

Nuclear power is all well and good, but imagine the possible results of a couple of 30k shahed drones hitting the plant, or even an iskander at mach 5. Absolutely not worth the risk.

[–] SrMono@feddit.org 119 points 2 days ago (17 children)

Except that it wasn’t according to people actually invested in researching energy matters.

The strategic mistake was and still is, when her party throttles solar and wind in favor for fossils (on a national level) or when they hinder transitioning to EVs.

They’re sabotaging decentralization and renewables wherever possible and make up stories about sunsetted (nuclear) or future (fusion) technologies.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 48 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And sleeping on battery technology.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 0 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

It helped the German car makers and fucked up the efforts of the others, tryin to switch to electric in Europe, so it worked as intended.

Same with their intense propaganda against nuclear power. It hurt cheap power all over Europe (mainly France) while they relied upon cheap Russian gas.

Germany didn't make any mistakes.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Nuclear has been tripping over it's own dick for 40 years. Solar is now the more viable option.

[–] Ice@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

I disagree. Next to hydropower (which is limited by geography) it has been the champion of non-fossil electricity generation so far. Still, the fossil fuel lobby is a powerful foe.

Simply put, we should invest in all non-fossil options, and where solar is geographically viable, it is great. In other places however, where peak electricity demand coincides with the coldest, darkest parts of the year dispatchable production is strictly necessary, which is where nuclear shines.

[–] BennyTheExplorer@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

There is also wind, which works really well in a lot of those darker / colder countries

[–] Ice@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

For sure, wind is an especially good complement for hydropower, since the latter can store the surplus when it's windy and release it when it's not. Still, wind generation can, like other variable renewables, slip to nigh 0 production from time to time, at which point there must be enough dispatchable capacity to cover the supply/demand gap. Otherwise you get rolling blackouts in the middle of a -20Β°C winter. Not great.

Here's a showcase of one such day in my country this winter. Average temps below -20Β°C (which means demand is very rigid due to heating needs) and the wind died down completely in the morning across all of Scandinavia & northern Germany, which meant there wasn't room to import either. Winter prices on electricity ranged between 10-60€/MWh back when our nuclear plants were in full operation. Half have been shut down in the past decade due to political pressure from the green party.

Expand Graph

[–] GarbadgeGoober@feddit.org 5 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Well but what to do with the waste?

I think in general it is a good source for energy, but unless we find a solution other than storing it somewhere in the earth, we should not use it.

[–] Undvik@fedia.io 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You build breeder reactors or use any of the non-uranium designs that were ignored by countries because they didn't have weapons grade byproducts.

There are ways to deal with the waste, the problem is always politics/greed as it cuts into the profits. Same is true for other energy sources btw, with coal we happily shoot the waste into the atmosphere and pretend nothing's wrong with that.

[–] GarbadgeGoober@feddit.org 5 points 2 days ago

Yeah 100% agree with you.

Unfortunately it is always the issue with greed and maximise the profits.

But that's why I don't really believe in the usefulness of Nuclear as a energy source. The idea behind it is brilliant, but the way we use it is not. I am no expert in this field, just my personal opinion.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Drusas@fedia.io 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Hydropower has terrible environmental consequences. Emissions aren't all that matters in terms of the environment.

[–] Ice@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Perfect is the worst enemy of progress. Right now the highest priority must be to get rid of the fossil fuel plants, and logistically speaking hydropower is simply the best. Mostly because of the built in function of energy storage and ability to load follow, something that the other variable renewable options entirely lack.

Another benefit of hydropower is its longevity, simplicity, and relatively low maintenance needs. There are installations still in operation which (including the generating machinery) are older than a century.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rakzcs@piefed.social 24 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Just google where nuclear fuel comes from and then think again, spoilers it's russia.

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Just google where nuclear fuel comes from and then think again, spoilers it’s russia.

Below are the 15 countries that exported the highest dollar value worth of natural uranium during 2024.

Kazakhstan: US$4.5 billion (48.8% of natural uranium exports)

Canada: $3.3 billion (35.6%)

United States: $963.2 million (10.4%)

Niger: $239.5 million (2.6%)

Ukraine: $78.3 million (0.8%)

South Africa: $58.6 million (0.63%)

France: $58.3 million (0.63%)

Russian Federation: $44.8 million (0.5%)

Germany: $4.4 million (0.05%)

Netherlands: $2.4 million (0.03%)

United Kingdom: $188,000 (0.002%)

Indonesia: $164,000 (0.002%)

Switzerland: $56,000 (0.0006%)

Israel: $44,000 (0.0005%)

Belgium: $5,000 (0.0001%)

Canada is a solid partner. Australia also produces a lot, but doesn't export much (right now). The EU is Kazakhstan's largest trading partner, and we have great trade relations with them.

Sourcing uranium is not now, nor will it ever be, a problem.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] portach@fedia.io 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Nuclear... what? Families? DNA? Chemistry? "Nuclear" isn't a noun, nor "digital" or "cyber".

We have decent universal education and literacy, let's not imitate the functionally illiterate.

The link mentions nuclear energy.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago

Thank you for not letting it slide.

Can we also work on mass nouns pluralized with an S (eg e-mail), missing delimiters after sub-clauses and lists (the "American Ghost comma"), and also "please bellow find following"?

[–] tocano@piefed.social 20 points 2 days ago

Our main objective should be to lower barriers for people to generate their own power. When local communities manage their own grids they have faster response times to blackouts or climate events.

Probably plagiarized at least half of the statement. This lady is a caustic influence in the unity of the EU and frequently abuses her power to overreach beyond the mandate of her office. Worse still, her only claim to fame was being Merkel's bestie in the sausage fest that was the CDU in Merkel's days and the french found her so useless that she was accepted as a compromise solution. If we don't reform our political establishment we're doomed to be ruled by idiots who failed upwards.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (8 children)

No shit you monster.

  1. shutting down safe (in Germany) nuclear power plants before the end of their lifetime was a mistake
  2. not planning new nuclear plants was in the in-between lands, to be decided by experts (I am not one) whether they would be needed for a transition to green energy
  3. turning back on the "turning back" on nuclear fission(!) energy now would be an even bigger mistake

I despise this corrupt monster so much.

[–] MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)
  1. Yes
  2. New plants are way to expensive. It's non longer economical to build those.
  3. What?
[–] trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

New plants are way to expensive. It’s non longer economical to build those.

It was never economical. Nuclear power was heavily subsidised for other reasons than electricity generation. Any country that runs a sizable nuclear industry for power generation does have the capability to develop a nuclear weapons programme in relatively short order. (Usually a matter of months)

It's basically nuclear deterrent light.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

What?

Was that so hard? Backing out of the exit = planning new fission plants now - that would be bad. As you seem to agree in 2.

I said that because she's a corrupt monster who is likely to come up with a "hey, let's build more nuclear power plants" next.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If Germany hadn't shut down their nuclear power plants their energy mix would now be mostly coal, some nuclear and very little renewables. There was some political will to replace nuclear power with renewables, there still is not that much political will to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. Gas-Kathi wants more gas after all and is trying to sabotage renewables again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ice@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago

As with everything, politicians are at least 15 years too late in their thinking.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί