| ▲ | mlinhares a day ago |
| Hope that gets Europe to invest in renewables and leave oil behind. |
|
| ▲ | leonidasrup a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Europe would be better served by doing, what France did in 1974. "As a direct result of the 1973 oil crisis, on 6 March 1974 Prime Minister Pierre Messmer announced what became known as the 'Messmer Plan', a hugely ambitious nuclear power program aimed at generating most of France's electricity from nuclear power. At the time of the oil crisis most of France's electricity came from foreign oil. " "Work on the first three plants, at Tricastin, Gravelines, and Dampierre, started the same year and France installed 56 reactors over the next 15 years." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme... |
| |
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Sounds like a good plan unless we've invented 2 much cheaper and faster to deploy methods to generate electricity. | | |
| ▲ | leonidasrup a day ago | parent | next [-] | | You probably mean 3 much cheaper and faster to deploy methods to generate electricity. In Germany, Poland, Balkans it's solar, wind, coal. | | |
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas a day ago | parent [-] | | Coal is generally more expensive than nuclear if you factor in health and carbon, which you should. | | |
| ▲ | leonidasrup a day ago | parent | next [-] | | How do you measure health effects of different sources of electric energy?
If you compare deaths per TWh, then nuclear power is much, much safer then coal energy. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p... Nuclear power has problem with public perception. One source of this media. Media loves to write and talk about nuclear incidents and really blow this out of proportion to real health hazards. For decades, newsrooms have operated under the premise that 'if it bleeds it leads'. If something happen infrequently and could have big impact on many people it makes more interesting news story. Flight industry has similar public perception problem. Transport statistic shows that travel by airplane is safer the car, yet much more people fear flying then driving. A deadly airplane crash is reported in all newspapers, the daily deaths from the car crashes are not even mentioned. Popular tv-series "The Simpsons" (three eyed fish, green radioactive goo), movies Spiderman (if I get bitten by a radioactive spider), Hulk (gamma rays make you super strong), China Syndrome, the german movie "Die Volke", etc., doesn't help much with education about nuclear power. Deaths from burning coal don't get much attention in the media, because the happen continuously each year, over decades. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2... | |
| ▲ | brigandish a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you want to factor in health then private health insurance would be the way to do it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | noosphr a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Those two sources can't be turned on demand. You need another four to make them semi viable. By which point they are neither cheaper nor faster. |
| |
| ▲ | mono442 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The way the EU forces the electricity market to operate makes them completely unprofitable. Renewables are always given priority in the market, which results in other power plants operating at a capacity factor of 30-40%. Since nuclear power plants are mostly capital expenditure-intensive, this makes the electricity they produce absurdly expensive. | | |
| ▲ | leonidasrup a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Because the way how the EU electricity market operates first to supply electric power are the power plants with the lowest operating costs. This are usually renewables and nuclear power plants. Both are capital expensive and cheap in operating costs. Usually the capacity factor of European nuclear reactors is higher than 60%. olkiluoto-3 nuclear reactor, had capacity factor 70% in the year 2024:
https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-reactor-database/details/o... Mochovce-3 had capacity factor 74% in the year 2024:
https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-reactor-database/details/M... In the U.S. they really try to get maximum from nuclear reactors.
https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-reactor-database/details/W... | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | ViewTrick1002 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | That’s just a consequence of how they bid. The marginal cost for a renewable plant is zero. It’s non-zero for nuclear power. But nuclear power don’t want to shut down since that both increases wear and tear and makes them unable to capture revenue when the prices become higher again. So they bid negative expecting to eat the losses and let more flexible plant shut down first. | | |
| ▲ | leonidasrup 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | Operating costs of wind power are for sure not zero. Especially repairs of offshore wind turbines are very expensive. https://docs.wind-watch.org/offshore-availability-costs.pdf Hydropower and solar have much lower operating costs. All thermal power plants experience wear and tear and have to be regularly repaired and maintained. Nuclear power plants can load-follow (within technical limits), but as the operating costs (maintance, repair, staffing, fuel) are much lower then capital costs it makes economic sense to run them at full power. https://shs.cairn.info/revue-revue-deconomie-politique-2025-... | | |
| ▲ | ViewTrick1002 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | You have to distinguish between fixed O&M and the extra cost that comes from an extra hour of running. I’ve been googling and using LLMs and there’s no literature on the subject, but the companies owning them effectively treats it as zero. In government models they seem to have landed at €1 per MWh. The best estimates both Claude and ChatGPT came up with was both ”low single digit € per MWh”. This report was linked, and ARUP the author did not get any replies when they asked the offshore wind companies this question. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6966a5c7e8c04... |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | testing22321 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In 20 years we’ll have one plant for $20 billion that generates electricity that is vastly more expensive than solar. No, that is a terrible idea. | | |
| ▲ | tpm a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The current estimate for Hinkley Point C is at £48 billion. | |
| ▲ | gib444 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yup you just described the UK. Likely more than $20bn though ! Nice transfer of wealth... |
| |
| ▲ | tialaramex a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Europe would be better served by doing, what France did in 1974. This is 2026. Doing things in 1974 isn't an option because time's arrow points the wrong way. If you want Europe to do things now that it should have done in 1974 you'd need to explain how it'll stall on all the consequences for years. France, which you held up as a model says it can build a nuclear generator in about 5-6 years, but none of these optimistic projections came true this century, more typically the plant takes 10-15 years and it can be more. So, suppose they start today likely they'll say the generator goes online in 2032. How does that help with the crisis Trump caused this month ? Worse, come 2032 the date is likely to be 2040 instead. Now, renewables go a lot faster. For solar it's genuinely possible to get paperwork done in January and be selling electricity made with those panels by summer. It's not easy, plenty of projects will be delayed out a 1-2 years, particularly if local government don't want the project, but with a following wind it can really be the same year. Wind is slower, but still you will almost certainly build it and switch it on in five years, the optimistic guess France never hits for its nuclear plants. | | |
| ▲ | veqq a day ago | parent [-] | | You can put up a plant in 5 years without erroneous regulation. | | |
| ▲ | tpm a day ago | parent [-] | | Do you have some examples of that in the last decades? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | rwyinuse a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I agree. Ironically ones complaining the loudest about fuel prices are be far-right populists, who tend to be against renewables. |
|
| ▲ | drnick1 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Electric cars aren't cheap, and electricity prices are very high in Europe. |
| |
| ▲ | zejn a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Not true. No new car is cheap, and electricity is now cheaper than gas or diesel. | | |
| ▲ | stavros a day ago | parent | next [-] | | My parents just bought a new BYD Dolphin, and it cost 3 EUR to go 150 km, whereas my diesel car costs 15 EUR for the same route. I don't know how people can say electric cars aren't cheaper. It's a 5x difference! | | |
| ▲ | jopsen a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The initial car is more expensive. You'll typically make it up, but it depends on how much you drive. And you have to pay interest on larger car loan. But in practice, yes, when charging at home EVs are dirty cheap to charge. The total cost of ownership (toc) for an EV is much lower. But you are paying it all upfront. | | |
| ▲ | stavros a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't know about that, this car cost 23k EUR which is cheaper than a VW Polo, which is roughly in the same category. | | |
| ▲ | jopsen a day ago | parent [-] | | That is cheap.. But there is are lots of people buying a used car for 10k Regardless, I do a agree, EV is absolutely the way to go. |
| |
| ▲ | joquarky a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Electric cars are mechanically simpler. |
| |
| ▲ | zejn a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, if you're buying a new car, electric makes sense if at all possible. But a lot of people are not buying new cars, because new cars are not cheap. There's a saying that a new car loses half of its value the moment it's driven away from the dealership. But I agree, operational costs of an EV can be much lower, if you can charge at home rates. | |
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m sure your specific circumstances apply to everyone else equally | | |
| ▲ | stavros a day ago | parent [-] | | Oh you're right, these cars and this fuel pump are made exclusively for me. |
|
| |
| ▲ | hyperman1 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | We're looking for a new car. I'd love to go electrical, but there are a few problems: 1) I have no garage and no parking space next to my home. I can't charge it. 2) We have no trustworthy garage for repairs. It turns out the garage regulations require a separate space for electrical forcsafety, and nobody has room to expand. Apart from that, electricity in Belgium is expensive. I did the math on swapping our gas heater for a heat pump, but I'd pay more for energy even of the amount of watts is so much lower. |
| |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | BYD EVs are affordable. Electricity will get cheaper with more renewables, oil will not. | | |
| ▲ | haunter a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Define affordable. A €40k Seal is anything but affordable. Eastern Europe (and I don't put Slovenia in this case here, they are much closer to Western Europe in every sense) will not mass change to EVs suddenly when everyone is shopping for 10 years old diesels from Western Europe for maximum €10k | | |
| ▲ | 7952 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | New cars have questionable affordability for most people. Particularly when you factor in dubious design choices and expensive marketing. Cars and driving are expensive. If that was a barrier there wouldn't be many people on the road. Also, the Electric polo is supposed to be released at around 25k Euros. Given the lower running costs that seems like a good deal relative to legacy designs. For all those people will to spend 40k on a car you could put the money into solar panels instead. | |
| ▲ | Lio a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you think the Seal isn't affordable then don't buy one. You can buy a brand new Dacia Spring for only £12,240. Personally I don't think it's a great car but it's certainly doesn't cost 40K. If it were my money I'd spend a bit more on either a used Jag ePace or a Renault 5 but some people prefer new cars I guess. | | |
| ▲ | genxy a day ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for the nerd snipe! I just found the Citroen e-C3, for a couple thousand more than the Spring. Both look fine. They should just be station wagons, but this is our timeline. |
| |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Define affordable. Cheaper than the total cost of ownership of a combustion vehicle at $150-$200/barrel for prolonged periods of time. Are We Approaching an Unprecedented Energy Crisis? - https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/dispatch-energy/iran-war-... - March 26th, 2026 France confirms oil crisis, says 30-40 percent of Gulf energy infrastructure destroyed - https://www.france24.com/en/france-confirms-oil-crisis-says-... - March 25th, 2026 Even the best-case scenario for energy markets is disastrous - https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/03/22/e... | https://archive.today/5OhRI - March 22nd, 2026 |
| |
| ▲ | gib444 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Electricity will get cheaper with more renewables Citation? | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | callamdelaney a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah as if Europe doesn't have Oil it isn't exploiting because of renewable legislation.. |
| |
| ▲ | argsnd a day ago | parent [-] | | Europe simply does not have enough known oil reserves to put a dent in current prices even if it exploited them all. There may still be good arguments to do so anyway, such as it being less carbon intensive than importing oil, but there is absolutely no magic lever we can pull that would fix this problem that we're just not pulling due to renewables legislation. | | |
| ▲ | calvinmorrison a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure just send the continental german army straight for the oil fields, worked out great last time. | |
| ▲ | callamdelaney a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Britain could start extracting oil from its European fields instead of just buying the same oil and gas from Denmark. Sanctions could be lifted on Russian oil. Duties could be dropped. There are levers. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kypro a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Hasn't Germany and the UK been investing in renewables for years now? They must be feeling pretty happy about that decision right now unlike oil obsessed countries like the US. |
| |
| ▲ | tialaramex a day ago | parent | next [-] | | A quarter of a century ago, the first quarter of 2001, Britain used 39 TWh of coal electrical generation, 36 TWh of gas and 21 TWh of nuclear. Today we're lot more energy efficient†, and the renewables made more than 25 TWh, but nuclear is now less than 10 TWh, we of course no longer burn coal, which leaves 30 TWh of gas still and we have a lot more imports (because we have a lot more interconnect, which is also a form of energy security) † For example back then we mostly used incandescent light bulbs! And a lot of people still used CRT televisions back then! | |
| ▲ | rwmj a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For electricity generation, the UK is currently generating 50% via renewables. It goes up and down each day of course, storage is not a solved problem yet. Nice visualisations of the current status:
https://grid.iamkate.com/ Electricity is only a part of the whole energy sector, but it's relevant to this thread about EVs. | |
| ▲ | zejn a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, but it is not enough. It helps a lot when sunny, and weekend mid-day gross market prices for electricity hover just above zero, but there's not enough batteries, flexibility, and other renewables to avoid price spikes in the morning and evening peak, when hydro and gas plants are still covering a lot. | |
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Partly, though both have had periods of right wing governments trying to make this problem worse to benefit their oil and gas industry backers. And now the same people are saying that the answer is more oil and gas. | |
| ▲ | gib444 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | If so they must have very low domestic electricity prices (according to many people who continue to claim renewables = lower prices!) Oh, wait, they don't. At all | | |
| ▲ | youngtaff a day ago | parent [-] | | That’s because the price is set by the highest marginal producer Most of the UKs recent renewables are on a fixed price supply basis and when the market prices goes over this the excess is eventually fed back into reducing consumer bills | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | MattGaiser a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Eh, the war in Ukraine has kind of proven that the Europeans are not all that capable of action. There has been an enormous incentive to have been getting rid of oil dependency for 4 years now. |
| |
| ▲ | lostlogin a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > the war in Ukraine has kind of proven that the Europeans are not all that capable of action. It’s revealed a fair bit about America too. And this oil crisis is a fairly incredible screw up too. What did the US think would happen? | | |
| ▲ | troad a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > It’s revealed a fair bit about America too. That America is incredibly generous with resources in a conflict has no possible bearing on the security of their continent? I don't see Europe sending billions of its taxpayer dollars to resolve conflicts in Africa and Asia. (It barely manages to do so for a conflict right next door!) There was a delegation of Asian (I think?) leaders in Europe a few years ago, and when Europe pressured them to take action re Ukraine-Russia, they politely pointed out that when a war breaks out in Europe they are told it's an existential global crisis, and when a conflict breaks out in Asia or Africa, Europe just sort of yawns and issues a sleepy statement calling for international law to be respected (which is European for 'thoughts and prayers'). Personally, I care about Ukraine and want them to prevail. But the myopia and arrogance of Europeans on this is astonishing. If this were a conflict in Asia or Africa, Europe would never have given even a fraction of the support that America has given Ukraine. Not a million years. And then, having failed to provide for their own security, having profiteered from Russian oil and gas for decades, and having secured vast amounts of support from the rest of the world when faced with the consequences of their own failures, European leaders have the audacity to suggest they're not getting enough? That the rest of the world is failing them? How much money, exactly, is the average rice farmer in Asia supposed to owe for Europe's security? And why do much wealthier Europeans never seem to owe him back anything in return? | | |
| ▲ | vmbm a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I am all for Europe establishing a bit more autonomy in regards to energy and defense, but let's not forgot there is a very real reason things are the way the are. Europe had a long history of warfare and the post-WWII was specifically designed to try and reign that in. And as the U.S. is finding out, you can have a largely pacifist population, but it only takes one motivated individual to seize the reigns of power and kick off ill advised military adventures. So I think there is a rather convincing argument to be made that sometimes it is better to just not have those capabilities in the first place. | |
| ▲ | thelastgallon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > That America is incredibly generous with resources in a conflict has no possible bearing on the security of their continent? America is generous with Americans money being funneled to the defense companies! This is all 100% middle class money, with the wealthy paying zero or negative taxes. | |
| ▲ | platevoltage a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Americans want to be the world's police until it's time to do something righteous. | | |
| ▲ | troad a day ago | parent [-] | | Do they, though? They seem to very consistently vote against foreign entanglements, before their own leaders betray them, pressed into action by foreign allies advocating their own narrow regional interests (Europe on Russia, Israel on Iran, etc). Not clear to me why some working mum in Idaho is obliged to pay for Hungary's security when even the Hungarians refuse to do so, but hey, enjoy this meme while it lasts. The US won't remain the world's policeman for too much longer, and we're all in for a much darker world without them. | | |
| ▲ | the_gipsy a day ago | parent [-] | | The USA has put itself im this position by their own motivations, and has consistently profited from it. | | |
| ▲ | troad a day ago | parent [-] | | Uh huh, sure, America profits handsomely from paying trillions of dollars to defend its deadbeat dependencies because... uh... something something capitalism? The unnecessary expense of trillions of dollars being, of course, just so famously and fabulously profitable. I assume this is the same strand of 4D-chess-level thinking that posits that landlords like keeping rental properties vacant because they somehow make more money that way. | | |
| ▲ | the_gipsy 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What is 4D-chess thinking, is believing that the USA is giving handouts to the world and that you would be somehow even richer if it wouldn't. It's an age old epic: tell the privileged that "actually, you're being exploited of your hard work and innate intelligence". It let's you sleep at night. | | |
| ▲ | troad 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The US considers it in their strategic interest to maintain peace around the world. We are vicarious beneficiaries of that logic. The same way that a farmer considers it in his pecuniary interest to grow and sell vegetables, and we are vicarious beneficiaries in that we have access to affordable food we can eat. People like you see conspiracies where there is actually nothing but fortuitous alignments of interest. Like all conspiracy theories, it's merely ignorance of the basic incentives that make the world work, leading to hare-brained theories that sound dramatic but make no sense, couched in an air of being super special in your ability to see how the world 'really' works, unlike all those normie sheep. Yadda yadda. Juvenile and boring. But hey, the US is almost certainly going to retreat from the world after the unpopular missteps of the current administration, so we'll get to see with our own eyes whether that produces a more or less peaceful world. Won't that be a fun and costly experiment. |
| |
| ▲ | the_gipsy 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | BTW the USA just got caught stealing money from NATO destined to Ukraine to refill their own stock for the Iran war. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | oblio a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You do realize that Russia is and will continue being an enemy of the US, right? Even now it's providing Iran with intel to kill US soldiers. Russia is primarily a threat to Europe, but not only. And what do you imagine will happen if Russia gets the gang back together? Ukraine, Belarus, Baltics, most of Eastern Europe. Do you think Soviet Union 2.0, now with more fascism, will be friendlier to the US? I know Americans love to pretend they live on another planet, but now we have global trade, ICBMs and many more interesting ways to hurt humans on the other side of the world. We're no longer living in the 1800s. | | |
| ▲ | troad a day ago | parent [-] | | All of this is framed in the way Europeans like to talk about power, which is as though it's a question of attitudes and feelings. It's much cheaper to pretend that beautiful laws against war can stop bullies, than it is to actually fund any kind of defense. Europe is in love with trying to substitute metaphysical sorcery for actual power, which Europe lacks and seems structurally incapable of building. Do I expect Russia to be 'friendly' to the US? No, not particularly. Can Russia successfully project military force into the US? Of course not, this is a country with an economy comparable to Benelux and an army incapable of even reaching the Dniester. It has extremely limited means for global competition. The Chinese don't live in fear of whether Benelux is 'friendly' to them or not, and if the Beneluxers went insane and started trying to invade their neighbours, I'm sure China would treat it much the same way as Europe treats every war in Africa or Asia. Much 'concern', many pleas to follow international law. The US is protected from Russia by geography and prowess. It just doesn't matter how Russia feels about the US, any more than it matters how Benelux feels about China. The US has been extraordinarily generous to Europe in shouldering a conflict that doesn't affect them at all. Do I want Russia to take over Eastern Europe? I think I was pretty clear on this point before, I support Ukraine. Its cause is just. But the only people who can ensure Europe's security are Europeans, and all these constant fits about how America 'hates' Europe because it won't raise the allowance this week are ludicrous. The question isn't why the US won't raise the allowance, the question is why America is paying Europe an allowance at all. Europe is not the world's disability pensioner, Europe just doesn't want to pay for its own defense and would much prefer it became the world's problem. That's why someone living in Dallas is supposed to live in fear of invasion by a declining kleptocracy from the other side of the Earth - it helps Europeans save on defense spending. If Europe wants to defend its interests from regional bullies like Russia, it needs to build some power of its own. Europe's allies are in complete support of Europe getting its act together. | | |
| ▲ | oblio 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The Chinese don't live in fear of whether Benelux is 'friendly' to them or not, and if the Beneluxers went insane and started trying to invade their neighbours, I'm sure China would treat it much the same way as Europe treats every war in Africa or Asia. Much 'concern', many pleas to follow international law. This is absurdly reductionist. Population matters (140 million vs 30 million). Location matters. Size matters. Industrial-military base matters. Legacy matters (there is a reason teams with a winning pedigree tend to win in tight spots). Nukes matter. The US can't handle Iran. It couldn't handle Iraq. Afghanistan. Vietnam. All of a sudden Russia is a total pushover handled through "prowess". This kind of hubris is exactly why the American empire will end sometime this century. And before you say it doesn't matter, look up what happens to global reserve currencies when they're no longer global reserve currencies. Go look up what happens with debt repayments in that case. The American lifestyle will suffer some harsh adjustments at all levels, probably in a few decades, at most. And FYI, Europe has already tripled its defense spending. I hope none of it gets spent on US tech of any kind. | | |
| ▲ | dh2022 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | “American empire will end sometime this century “ - at the rate things are going American empire has a good chance to end this decade :). | | |
| ▲ | troad 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, sure. Don't complain when the independence of countries like Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia is unceremoniously snuffed out the next day. But I'm sure Europe will rise to the occasion. I'm sure the same European countries that gave us the phrase "Pourquoi mourir pour Dantzig?" will be ready to send their sons to die for Narva. I'm sure all this defense talk has produced European militaries capable of fighting a prolonged conflict. I'm sure all these societies that are not even willing to tolerate the increased cost of not buying Russian gas and oil, let alone financial support for Ukraine - I'm sure they'll be cheering the enormous expense of a direct shooting war with Russia. The deep irony of all of this is that we're all actually agreed. The American empire will end, with NATO as its clear military dimension also ending, and you'll be on your own, as you've always wanted. Have fun. | | |
| ▲ | dh2022 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I do think that the Baltics are Russia’s next target IF they ever conquer Ukraine. So far this is not happening. And just because NATO will not be there does not mean Russia will be able to conquer the Baltics. Baltics by themselves may be able to check Russia’s armed forces. Also Germany has a vested interest in keeping the Russians out of the Baltics as well -nobody wants Russia to be their neighbor. What you wrote would make sense if Russian army would not be so woefully incompetent. Every day more Russians die in the Ukraine is a good day for European security. | | |
| ▲ | troad 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't disagree. The question is whether Europe is going to be capable of maintaining that level of defensive action on its own. I hope the answer is yes. Sadly, I'm left extremely sceptical from observing European politics. | | |
| ▲ | dh2022 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | BTW - after 4 years of war Russia got around 30,000 sq km [0] - this is less than the smallest Baltic state Estonia. So I think the Baltics will be fine by themselves - because of the crass Russian military incompetence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian-occupied_territories_o... | | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | troad 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | With extensive US logistical support, yes. We're talking about a scenario where that factor is absent. That's not to diminish the bravery of the Ukrainian people. They're heroes. But bravery doesn't suffice without materiel. I'm not convinced the rest of Europe has good supplies of either. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pocksuppet 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Could even be this year. | |
| ▲ | oblio 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I wanted to be nice :-p |
| |
| ▲ | troad 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >> All of a sudden Russia is a total pushover handled through "prowess". It is you who are being absurdly reductionist when you contort 'Russia is not capable of threatening the US' into 'the US can't successfully mount a land invasion of Russia', or whatever strawman you're trying to build here. The US has no need or interest in invading Russia. It has no need or interest in defending Ukraine, for that matter, but they've done so because they're doing a grand and noble thing. It is wild that Europeans expect and demand that the US funds the cost of the Ukraine war, which is happening in Europe, while Europe itself is not even willing to agree to stop buying Russian gas and oil. The original point stands - Russia is not capable of being a threat to the US, and in as far as Russia is capable of being a threat to Europe, this is primarily a European issue, not a global one. At the very least, Europe should shoulder the lion's share of defending its own continent, rather than demanding everyone else does it for them for free. >> This kind of hubris is exactly why the American empire will end sometime this century. >> The American lifestyle will suffer some harsh adjustments at all levels, probably in a few decades, at most. Cool. Since I've been pretty open about the fact I'm not American, I don't see what any of this has to do with me. And I certainly don't see what any of this has to do with international security. Seems like you're just venting some hatred for Americans. It's quite telling how every time someone takes the US side on anything online, Europeans bring out the greatest hits parade of anti-American tropes, fresh off 2004-era Reddit. Maybe the Americans could invest in their own social net if they weren't spending trillions of dollars to defend you. Cutting US military spending in half, much of which could come from vacating the US presence in Europe, would give the US hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on their own country. Their own society. Their own healthcare. And maybe when Europe realises it can't pay for its absurdly dysfunctional welfare systems and its own security, it will have the same hard choices to make that the rest of the world have been making since the dawn of time! Big changes are coming for European lifestyles, much bigger than anything coming for the US. What does the US security presence in Europe actually get the US? Mollycoddled adult children, complaining on the online platforms that the US built, using the global economy the US protects, from homes that the US defends, about how icky those Americans are. >> And FYI, Europe has already tripled its defense spending. I hope none of it gets spent on US tech of any kind. Yes yes, we've all heard much talking about the Zeitenwende. Talking is what Europe does best, after all. Maybe German soldiers can stop running around with broomsticks instead of guns now? [0] So Europe is fine and dandy now, right? No need to NATO to continue, judging from all the fighting words coming out of folks like Kaja Kallas? This is such an incoherent, Internet-pilled perspective. "The US empire is bad and should end, but also the Americans must stay and protect me on the other side of the world forever, but also I don't need them at all and I am actually perfectly capable of defending myself, thank you very much, but also them leaving is a huge betrayal and must be prevented at all costs -" Good God, which is it? Either the US overseas presence is good and should continue to protect Europe, or it's bad and the Americans can go home and you'll take care of yourself. Ironically, I think we're actually agreed on your future prediction. The US 'empire', to use your words, will end soon. Problem solved, Yankee go home, you kids have fun. I sincerely hope Europe doesn't get itself invaded, but that will really be a matter for Europe to figure out. [0] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/german-sold... |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | strken a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US is a net exporter of crude oil and is positioned to meet an oil crisis better than nearly anyone else. What do you think the US government expected from this? | | |
| ▲ | lostlogin a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > What do you think the US government expected from this? That they’d beat Iran and have some friendly dictator installed in short order. Are you arguing that this is going how the US planned? When was the last time the US had this much trouble getting its allies to follow it into war? | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Being positioned to eat shit better than anyone else is still eating shit. Our economy isn't independent of the rest of the world. Datacenter investment is currently a noticable fraction of US GDP. That's as globalized as it gets, we aren't even remotely self sufficient on that front. What happens to our economy if that segment crumbles overnight? |
|
| |
| ▲ | leonidasrup a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Germany has switched from one gas supplier to different gas suppliers. The past Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck famously once sad:
“Nuclear power doesn’t help us there at all,” “We have a heating problem or an industry problem, but not an electricity problem – at least not generally throughout the country.” https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/12/german-says-nuclear... | |
| ▲ | zejn a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The problem with getting rid of oil is that cars currently in use will be usable even when over 20 years old, replacing them with EVs is expensive, and the good enough and economically accessible EVs are only now starting to get to market. It's really hard to quickly replace millions of vehicles. | | |
| ▲ | lostlogin a day ago | parent [-] | | Raising the price of fuel will do wonders for solving that. | | |
| ▲ | throwawaytea a day ago | parent | next [-] | | In California my electricity to drive my Chevy Volt is more expensive than gasoline, if gasoline is less than $5 a gallon.
So for basically the last 100k miles I've owned it, electricity was more expensive.
The same goes for many plugin hybrids. Luxury EVs still win out because luxury sedans usually only get 25 mpg mixed max. | | |
| ▲ | lostlogin a day ago | parent | next [-] | | US fuel is so cheap compared to the rest of the world. If my maths is correct, we are paying US$6.10 a gallon here in NZ. | | |
| ▲ | nicoburns a day ago | parent | next [-] | | In the UK the average price is (by my math) ~US$7.50 | |
| ▲ | jopsen a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | In Denmark fuel is so expensive they sell it by litre :) |
| |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I knew the CA grid was in a bad place but wow. What are you paying per kWh? | | |
| ▲ | throwawaytea a day ago | parent [-] | | $0.44
A first gen Volt takes 10.3kwh. It also uses electricity to cool the batteries while charging. If you leave it plugged in one a hot day it will cool the battery just for health overall but I'll ignore that. Then, add in the losses on the charge conversions. It easily takes 11kwh to charge a Volt. It'll go about 35 miles in the summer on that charge, and more like 28 in the winter. It also gets 35 mpg on gasoline, while providing free heat in the winter from the gas engine heat, and for most of the last few years was doing this for $3.50-$4 a gallon. There are people on Southern California/San Diego that pay more. Over there people say the Prius Prime is WAY cheaper to operate on gas because it gets 50mpg gasoline. I've even heard people running their home off gasoline because it's cheaper but that would require an impressive gas generator to do long term. |
|
| |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | That won't "solve" anything. Car prices will rise, many people can't afford the switch regardless, too much new EV demand could destabilize the grid in population centers, and throwing away vehicles that are already on the road by replacing them with newly manufactured ones is terrible from an emissions perspective. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | varispeed a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How do you put renewables into the petrol tank? |
|
| ▲ | b65e8bee43c2ed0 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Europe has no (meaningful amounts of economically viable to extract) lithium either. |
| |
| ▲ | philipkglass a day ago | parent | next [-] | | "Lithium mining commences in Finland" https://www.electrive.com/2026/02/12/lithium-mining-commence... This week, the first spodumene vein was blasted from the rock at the open-pit mine in western Finland, marking the occasion with a ceremonial event attended by invited guests and media. | |
| ▲ | helsinkiandrew a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Europe has massive lithium reserves in Germany, Serbia, Portugal and ukraine but perhaps more importantly it also has friendly relations with other countries with reserves | | |
| ▲ | b65e8bee43c2ed0 a day ago | parent [-] | | if those reserves were economically viable to extract, they would be already being extracted. | | |
| ▲ | legulere a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Like this? https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/vulcan-energy-achieves-drilli... Economic viability depends on many things, lithium prices have been pretty volatile in the past, battery production in Europe as customers are just scaling up. | | | |
| ▲ | helsinkiandrew a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Everything depends on demand. Much of US shale oil hasn’t been economical to extract at times in the past decade. If oil drops below $60 most of the newer basins are not profit making. If oil demand (or OPEC) pushes oil below $35 the rest of US oil isn’t economical. | |
| ▲ | stavros a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Prices change. |
|
|
|
