Europe
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- 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.
- 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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
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
view the rest of the comments
It never ceases to amaze me environmental parties in Germany pushed for killing their nuclear plants, forcing Germany to keep the fucking coal plants online. Meanwhile France is next door expanding their nuclear power, has a grid with little carbon emissions, and is even able to offer it at cheaper prices than Germany.
Edit: Links!
https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/electricity
https://www.iea.org/countries/france/electricity
No, they did not. They wanted to phase out coal and nuclear via renewables (including a lot of money for power-to-gas development, just like they spend a lot to develop renewables in the first place) and instead conservatives ran with the nuclear phase out and renewable upbuild. But they let the people pay for the renewable with extra taxes while at the same time subsidising coal and sabotaging all grid expansions to keep renewables in check (also no storage or power-to-gas plans of course, in fact they prevented storage through insane double taxation where a battery operator would be fully takes as a consumer while loading and then again as a producer when unloading). And when renewables took off anyway they still intensified the sabotage and managed to kill the German solar industry and most of the wind industry (~200000 jobs gone to protect about 5000 coal miners... no just joking - they were protecting their rich buddies investments in coal of course and gave a fuck about workers).
The exakt same people that killed nuclear and sabotaged renewables to keep coal relevant are now telling you how renewables are such a failure (and far too expensive) and we should really build some new nuclear. All so they can keep burning more fossil fuels.
And people are still failing for this idiotic fairy tale.
(PS: unrelated fun fact... the framing is also bullshit. The conservative morons back in office did not have enough time yet to crush renewables again. The slight drop in renewables is from 2025 being the worst year in regard to weather in decades. Wíth the same weather of 2024 they would sit far above 70 renewables now.
But of course the propaganda will continue... and when they just lie long enough people may in a few years just accept (and expect) renewable fails again when the retard policies start to strike again...)
France struggles with nuclear power in the summer, Germany with gas in the winter, and wind and solar energy are unreliable and not available 100% of the time. There’s no perfect solution—every energy source has major drawbacks. Name an energy source, and I’ll tell you why it sucks.
No, it's the other way around.
France does not struggle in summer. They don't need much energy production then. They however struggle in winter, and need imports for the few coldest weeks... mostly from Germany that is.
Nuclear power is incredible bad as base load. The amount of capacities they need for energy-demanding winter times are total overkill most of the year. And as costs of nuclear are basically all construction (and later rebuilding) plants but operation is cheap as fuck, they don't save money when they throttle them down in summer. And so France is a big exporter... all over the year but not actually in winter.
It's funny that in both countries a complete lie is nowday common knowledge. Regarding France we hear fairy tales of how they struggle in summer (they don't) but are oh so self-sufficient (they aren't), while in Germany it's 24/7 right-wing propaganda of how they have stuipidly shut down they reactors to be dependent on French ones (they aren't... contrary to France Germany is in fact fully self-sufficient but with a lot of it based on coal which they turn down at times when France needs to get rid of overproduction cheaply).
Fusion energy. Edit: yeah it exists, alright. Just not quite ready yet,look at how close we are: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/01/260101160855.htm Also, the comment says "name an energy source", and not "one that can be implemented on a large scale" and "today".
Yea, we already have fusion power and are already using it: The sun.
We were talking about existing energy sources. Some magical fusion energy being invented or made practical in the next thirty years doesn't fit that bill. And let's be honest: Even if some magical breakthrough would make fusion practicable today, it still would be too late to help us in the global warming crisis.It takes time to build big fusion reactors. It takes even more time to build a lot of reactors. It took France nearly twenty years to build a new nuclear reactor and other countries aren't that faster. To build a huge fleet of fusion reactors (an unproven technology) will not help us reach our carbon goals in the next years. If we don't reach them in the next years, we're toast. We can, however, build proven renewable technology and then we don't need fusion.
yeah the tiny drawback here is that it doesnt exist yet.
This would be my response
I'll take cheaper, cleaner power any day. France has shown the way.
What now? Cheap and clean would mean renewables. Nuclear is (at least regarding climate) clean but the most expensive energy there is.
It's bullshit, though.
Well, the greens might have started it, but our dear conservative friends shat their pants in 2011. They wholeheartedly agreed with and delivered the nuclear phaseout.
Blaming "environmental parties" alone is unreasonable and not what the facts are, brother.
Yes, the greens obviously would have tried to push the phaseout earlier, had they continued to rule. But afaik everyone got scared after Fukushima. Including the conservatives.
And afaik it still makes sense. If it weren't for a bunch of clowns making a big fuss (several wars) for literally no reason, we wouldn't suddenly need emergency nuclear power. We could be transitioning to green energy in peace. But for some reason (it's egomaniacs, pedophiles and late stage capitalism in general) we can't have that.
It's always the same talking points by nuclear heads, but that still doesn't make them correct.
The coal plants are mostly lignite, which can be locally mined (at great environmental cost). From an energy security perspective this makes sense over being reliant on foreign natural-gas or uranium processing capabilities.
The german green party formed from the anti-nuclear movement in the 70s, hence their stupid priorities in the 80s. But what's done is done, no need to churn through the same discussion for the millionth time