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/
The rightwingers will never allow that.
Nah, we’ll just buy gas from US and postpone electrification of transport couple decades. What could go wrong?
Thank you! We just do not do enough fracking here yet.
I would electrify my transport in a heartbeat, if only it wasn’t so fucking expensive. Like ~30k€ for cheapest Kia BEV? Not even speaking about more “premium” brands. How tf should I get that with mediocre eastern european salary?
I love my BYD dolphin
It was the cheapest car I could find, and it cost about €17,000
Don’t buy new. The second hand market for EVs is great. 3-4 year old cars with over 200 miles range for £12-15k, and lots of them.
Maybe in UK?
There is a second hand market where I live (Czech rep), but it’s still not cheap. We’re traditionally a country where others’ used car end up. Same with EVs, but re-sellers ask a premium for this “brand new technology” and yada yada yada… The cheapest of Swasticar model 3 (first production year 2019, with over 200k km, smaller battery) I could find is over £15k. Kia EV6 similarly aged and (ab)used? Hand over well over £20k…
That sucks, but could you buy in a neighbouring country. If you save enough it could be financially worth it.
Obviously UK would be of no use. Stearing wheel in the wrong place.
Yup, but in Poland there are still small fraction of evs…
Renault is government company, why they dont want to sell evs cars cheaper? Is it really necessary to make bigger profit than from ice?
You meant Renault? They made the Zoe back in 2014, then made the Megane only electric, made the Spring through their Dacia subsidiary, now the 5, and they are launching the new Twingo generation as only electric. This makes them cover all EV segments, from the sub 20.000 euro electric car to the 60.000 one through alpine. They use more and more European made batteries and motors. Out of all the European car makers Renault and Mercedes are the ones that are the most pro electric now.
Yup, but why electric model is more expensive than ice one? Because of government subsidies?
The new twingo is the exact same price in constant euros as the first gen twingo that came out in 1993.
Besides that, prices of EVs are not more expensive over 5 or 10 years despite the shown price because you run them at a much much cheaper price : electricity is often cheaper than gas, the only real cost you would have to pay is tires and shock absorbers, breaks pads and disks get used a lot less because of regen, no belts or chains, no spark plugs, no oil change, no exhaust, no turbo, no belts driven AC, no starter motor, no alternators etc… All those things that cost a lot in mechanic repairs for most cars.
Citroen ec3 was 2x more expensive than ice version…
European evs are ridiculously expensive in comparison to for example Tesla
Tesla’s start at over 30.000 euros! That’s not a cheap car by no means!
Plus: there is a huge problem at the top of Tesla. It’s not the subject here but I cannot close my eyes on Greenland’s fate just for a car. I have the same reservation over Tibet or the Uyghurs for other brands.
Have you considered the Dacia Spring? It should be fine for short-medium range trips and it costs “only” 20k
I own a Dacia, I want a cheap car with no luxury. But but the Spring is just a bad car. Poor charging, poor range, can’t accelerate at highway speed. Those are not luxuries. It was the first electric car at this price range, but now there are better competitors.
Thanks for the insight
Yeah, it’s gimped too much. Especially the first generation with weaker motor feels barely like shopping bag on wheels… It could work for work/school commute for me, but apart from that? Visiting parents in different region? No. Weekend family trip? No. And honestly I don’t want to spend that much on something I can’t use for more purposes than just daily commute.
To me a car like that kinda defeats the point of owning a car.
If it’s only needed for driving around town and getting groceries, I can do that with (e-?)bike+transit+carsharing.
A significant fraction of my yearly km are driven on trip of over 500km/day, and to do that with the family it really helps to have a car. It’ll still be a while before electric cars are completely viable for my use case.
Replacing the short range use of cars with electrical ones is the wrong approach. It should mostly be reduced by offering alternatives. If people use the car only half as much, that’s a nearly 50% reduction on emission and fuel consumption, right there.
Wouldn’t you do it the other way around, where the car you own is for commuting and kids taxi, and you use a car rental or sharing service for the long trips?
We have bought the smallest car that would satisfy all our needs (a small station wagon), and we use it as necessary.
My commute is outrageous BTW, 50+50km, at highway speed and with airco, that might already be a stretch for the Dacia Spring. I do it mostly by train though.
I would have thought that:
“Reducing car use is better than just replacing them. Cars cover a lot of difficult corner cases, but let’s offer good alternatives for the day to day life”
should be a pretty uncontroversial take, and yet I’m here discussing with people that want to use cars everyday, and cover the exceptions with the alternatives.
For over 500km/day, I use the train. Not many people put on 115 500 km/year on their car. You are an exception.
Easy there, we do ~15000 km/year, but ~4000 of those are on long trips. That’s “a significant fraction”. I didn’t say I spend all day every day in the car.
There are many logistical reasons why we still need one car, but we are actually also able to walk, bike, and use transit.
And I expect I spend more time on a train that you do. But it’s not always the most practical option.
Crossing the alps on a train means too many changes, with trains from different companies, and my bored kids (depends on the origin and destination, but it’s true in my case). Even using the plane, with all the associated changes and buffer times, usually takes 6 or 7 hours.
Holidays in the mountains also gets a hell of a lot harder without a car. That’s true in general, but it’s doubly so in the places where I like to go (less crowded secondary destinations). Public transport requires density, and the last thing I want in the mountains is high density.
Edit:
As I wrote in another message, I would have thought that:
“Reducing car use is better than just replacing them. Cars cover a lot of difficult corner cases, but let’s offer good alternatives for the day to day life”
should be a pretty uncontroversial take, and yet I’m here discussing with people that want to use cars everyday, and cover the exceptions with the alternatives.
I agree with you, and I get around town mostly on bike. Many people don’t, and I think it would be better if they drove EVs. Anyway, if I’d need to buy a car, I would still consider the Spring, since its range would be fine for heavy loads that I wouldn’t carry on a (cargo) bike or 100-200 km trips
I’m sorry, but what does that have to do with anything?
I’ve been going around in cars powered by natural gas most of my life, but I’m the very very small minority. The overwhelming majority of cars don’t run on that, heating and the electric grid do. If you run out of gas the cars won’t stop, the trains will.
The enemies of europe (and any other country) are billionares and politicians.
100%, especially from Poland perspective
if your words and your actions, which never seem to gel
will get you into heaven, i’d sooner be in hellOwed to a Hypocrite, a song about the dangers of preachers and politicians
Stop buying gas from the enemy after 4 years of war? Preposterous!
The EU has reduced Russian gas imports from 45% of the total gas imports of the union before the invasion of Ukraine to 13% at the end of 2025 and will be at 0% by 2027.
Coal and oil are already at 0%.
It’s not like you can just switch off 150bn cubic meters of gas overnight
The problem is that they replaced most of it with the 3 times more expensive USA’s LNG.
That was the point of the whole war and why Biden sabotaged Stoltz and Macron.
deleted by creator
This is an outrage!
But it’ll be an outage.
Trump was driving trade diversification around the world with the idiotic tariffs, and now, with the illegal war against Iran, he’s creating a resurgence of interest in renewables and EVs. Exact opposite of what he says he wants but maybe not so bad in the long run.
That’s a really positive outlook and I love it.
Except that a bunch of people on the other side of the planet are dying because of this.
Maybe he was always a democrat plant 😂
/s
He definitely has the intelligence of a plant.
So there’s no need for subsidies money because the epic capitalism Invisible hand private market “just needs permission to go green”? This might be one of the dumbest “conclusions” to an article I’ve read in a while. I hope this entire thing was written by AI.
Its published in Fortune, I’m curious what you expected when you clicked on the link.
A bit more of a guide on energy independence than just a mostly vague history lessen with an incoherent conclusion
To be fair, the permitting and environmental impact process is crazy and is really holding back deployment. If the government gets out of the way of renewable projects the growth would increase massively.
Some of the process might be necessary. However, it should be the government’s burden to bear, not the applicants’. The process should be as straightforward and simple as possible on the applicant end.
Exactly, that’s how it should be but it isn’t. Wind power has to do an environmental assessment on birds when it’s only 1/6000 deaths. Offshore wind needs to show effect of the noise on marine wildlife when fossil fuels and farminc poison the water.
Here’s a UK example, maybe unfair to use UK as an example but this is how it is for one of the largest wind producers in Europe.
Mandatory almost always
- Planning Statement
- Site Layout Plans and Drawings
- Environmental Statement (EIA) [almost always required at this scale]
- Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) [politically critical]
- Ornithology Report [required if any bird sensitivity; very often triggered]
- Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
- Noise Impact Assessment (ETSU-R-97)
- Transport Assessment
- Grid Connection Offer / Electrical Layout
Conditionally required
- Design and Access Statement [required in England for most major developments]
- Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) [if near/impacting SAC/SPA/Ramsar sites]
- Shadow Flicker Assessment [if residential receptors within ~10 rotor diameters]
- Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) [often required pre-construction condition; sometimes submitted upfront]
- Peat Management Plan [if peat soils present; critical in Scotland/uplands]
- Heritage Impact Assessment [if within setting of listed buildings / conservation areas]
- Archaeological Survey Report [if potential below-ground remains]
- Flood Risk Assessment [if in flood zones or drainage impact possible]
- Hydrology and Hydrogeology Report [if affecting watercourses, groundwater, or peat]
- Aviation Impact Assessment [if within radar/airspace consultation zones]
- Socioeconomic Impact Assessment [if material local economic effects claimed]
- Community Consultation Report [mandatory for DNS/major schemes in some jurisdictions; strongly expected]
- Decommissioning Plan [often secured via planning condition but sometimes included upfront]
But it can also be blocked by these:
- Local Planning Authority (LPA) [primary decision-maker; can refuse planning permission]
- Secretary of State / Planning Inspectorate [can overturn or refuse on appeal or call-in]
- Statutory Nature Bodies (e.g. Natural England, NatureScot, NRW) [can object on ecology/HRA grounds]
- Local Community / Parish Councils [political pressure; can trigger refusal]
- Environmental NGOs (e.g. RSPB, Wildlife Trusts) [strong objections, especially on birds/bats]
- Ministry of Defence (MOD) [radar / aviation objections]
- Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) / NATS [airspace / radar interference]
- National Grid ESO / Distribution Network Operator (DNO) [can delay or deny viable grid connection]
- Historic England / Cadw / Historic Environment Scotland [heritage objections]
- Environment Agency / SEPA / NRW [flood risk, hydrology, pollution concerns]
- Highways Authority [can block due to abnormal load transport constraints]
- Landowners / Rights Holders [access, cable routes, lease issues]
- Aviation Stakeholders (airports, heliports) [radar / flight path conflicts]
- Public Inquiry (Inspector) [can recommend refusal after appeal]
- Legal Challenges (Judicial Review) [can quash approval post-consent]
Needless to say, spending millions on reports and assessments when it can be blocked anyway by some rando NIMBYs sucks. Then there’s also the fact that the UK grid needs tooooons of investment just to accommodate these new developments.
So all of these reports are not really an issue when you’re making a massive power plant where the price of the plant dominates the cost. The process makes a bit of sense for large scale installations but the amount of work you need to put in for a modest 20MW wind farm in absolutely bonkers.
So yeah, if the government would get out of the way the whole process is a piece of cake and we can have full grid saturation incredibly fast.
Exactly, don’t buy from the usa, our once allie has shown open hostility.
Its pretty funny how little that narrows down your nationality
And who would those be? Renewable energy independence is the only way.
- More nuclear power plants
- more renevables
- more public transport and evs
Do you kbow where Europe get it’s uranium to power these nuclear power plants from? No? Let me tell you: We import it from countries like Kazakhstan, Niger a bit from Canada. France, one of the biggest nuclear powered countries imports it’s uranium from Russia. This is exactly the same as with oil and gas. So tell me: How do nuclear power plants help us, if we have to import the fuel?
Do you know what are the resources we have in Europe: Wind, water and sun. To be fair, we have cole too, but this is one of the dirtiest ways to produce energie.
The only way out are renewable energies.
I know I know.
But fuel is small money factor in comparison to importing lng to gas power plants.
You dropped half of your w
It’s called “reduce, reuse, recycle”
nuclear power is very geopolitically sensitive and very expensive. It is a target to get Chernobyled if war or civil unrest happens.
I feel like it should have been clear to everyone since at least 9/11 and the aftermath but no one in leadership has made the obvious case that renewables are great for national security and not just the environment. Really shameful loss for humanity.
I was of the opinion that after 9/11, if the USA was actually interested in security, we would have invested in alternative energy.
Instead we invested in death and oil. Like always.
The technology is there. We need solar, wind, batteries, hydro-storage and nuclear, which is hold back by fear and costs driven by bureaucracy. What we lack is political capital and supranational coordination. We need to scale up production and learn from the Chinese. The demand for batteries is there.
In Denmark, we have been investing heavily in solar panels and windmills the last few years, which is awesome! Electric car purchases have also exploded.
Now we just need to do away with out pig production and we will have more fields to place solar panels on and there will still be plenty of space to turn former pig feed fields into wildlife reserves so our nature can recover from the damage these pig farmers have done to our country. It’ll take time, but I’m optimistic about our green policies in the future. We are heading in the right direction.
There’s no reason why panels can’t be in the same fields as the pigs… the lowest point of a panel can be higher than a pig…
The fields are not used to have pigs walking around. They are used to grow pigfood. Pigs in Denmark are being kept in massive indoor industrial compounds where they never see the sun. The sows are strapped to the ground with metal bars to be nonstop feeding machines for piglets.
We are around 6 million people in tiny little Denmark. We have over 40 million pigs who are produced for meat and all of them, ALL OF THEM are being exported to other countries, Italy and Poland, for slaughtering and the meat is sold to other countries. That transportation pollutes the environment and is entirely unnecessary. It is animal abuse and environmentally unsound to send them to other countries to get slaughtered. The farmers do this to save money because slaughter houses are cheaper in Poland.
The pig shit produced is so massive that farmers break the laws every spring and strat fertilizing the fields before the night frost has ended. This is illegal because the frost keeps the shit frozen on the ground, the ground cannot absorb the fertilizer and this means that when everything thaws, the excess nutrients and water will run off and straight into creeks and lakes and pollute the water there.
Pesticides used on the fields that are used to grow pigfood - not human food - pig food is also seepinging into the ground and is now polluting our ground water along with the excess pig shit which is fucking insane because we used to have naturally clean ground water and now we are facing a future were we might have to spend billions to keep the ground water clean if the farmers aren’t stopped.
Every year, thousands, if not millions of pigs die before ever seeing a butcher. They have no space, they get sick. The farmers fill their food with penicillin to the point that now several diseases have started to show resistense to penicillin which has the potential to develop into a health crisis for humans all over the fucking world, bro. If penicillin stops working, we are fucked.
Our coastlines are as good as dead at this point. There is no aquatic life left due to farmers polluting the land with their pig shit. Several species of animals are close to extinction because of the farmers. Especially several types of birds because there aren’t enough insects for them to eat and their habitat has been taken over by industrial farmers.
Over 60% of all Danish areal is being used for farming and most of that is to grow pig food.
But that is not enough. There still isn’t enough food for the pigs. So what do the farmers do? They import soybeans from South America where local soy farmers have to cut down rain forest to grow more soy beans to meet the demand. The soy beans are transported by container ships which we all know are some of the biggest polluters in the world. All to feed fucking pigs that no Dane will ever get to have.
Danes, btw, get to have the bad, left over pork while the prime stuff is sold to other countries.
It is also contributing to the housing crisis in Denmark because the big industrial farms have helped kill the countryside life in Denmark. When everything smells like pigshit in the countryside it’s already not fun to live there, but there are also no jobs because pig farmers will not hire Danes to work on their farms because they would have to pay us more and actually care about our well being. They instead hire guest workers from poor countries to work with the pigs and get ammonia poisonings because the air in those stalls is filled with pig pee vapor. At least the workers can go outside at some point, but the pigs live in that air their whole lives.
Now that you know the basics of industrial pig farming in Denmark you may think: gosh, this must be a super lucrative industry since all this shit is being done to the animals and thr environment to keep up production. They must stand for at least 60% of the Danish BNP, right? That’s what my best friend thought when I told her about how pig farming works in Denmark.
Less than 1%. Less than fucking 1% does this POS industry contribute to the overall Danish BNP.
But how in the hell has it been able to get this far, you may think.
Because of a political party named Venstre who has historically been a farmer party and fought for farmers. The level of lobbying going there is disgusting. The farmers pay them so much fucking money to keep the public ignorant about what is going on and they have been successful in the past, but not anymore. There has been a recent movement to expose pig farmers and they have been successful. The Danish public is fucking outraged because they were lied to.
I have avoided eating pig meat as much as possible for at least ten years because I found pig farming unethical, but even I didn’t know the true magnitude of this insane industry until four or five years ago.
When I learned that they contribute less than 1 fucking percent to the BNP while taking up over 60% of our land to grow fucking pig food for 40+ million pigs whose entire lives are suffering while our wildlife and nature is dying out - I went from being against pork to wanting it absolutely outlawed here. Get that shit out of my country.
Take the pig fields back, turn them into nature and solar parks. Fuck pig farmers.
This is fucking insane and shows that lobbying and the practice of paying for political outcomes should be outlawed and, more importantly, the adherence to the laws needs to be controlled and failure to do so needs prison sentences or at least complete repossession of the offenders business.
Yep. The good news is that our Dutch neighbors whose country has a similar setup to us, have cut their pig production by a third recently and the plan is to further cut into it. That is what we need to do in Denmark too. Cut it down until it is phased out entirely and continue to promote sustainable farming.
In time I also hope we will be able to take a look at lobbying because the farm lobbying is the most extreme case we have here. We just had the election here in Denmark and Venstre has had their worst election result EVER. The party is over a 100 years old and used to be one of the biggest parties in Denmark. They ruled my country all the way up through the 2000s where means were given to farmers, tax money, given to them, special agreements that gave farmers carte Blanche to pretty much do whatever they wanted and even the smallest attempt at putting restrictions on them by left leaning governments had them throw temper tantrums. This is the general case for all European industrial farmers.
Back then it worked because farming is a cultural heritage type of thing and part of the Danish identity so these industrial farmers (and the politicians who support them) who actually helped kill the old farming culture have used the image of the wholesome farmer as a shield against all criticism towards farmers.
The anti-industrial farmer movement in Denmark is huge and multifaceted. A lot of this is also paving the way for Danes to sort of grieve over the identity we have lost which is reflected in fiction and art. There is a lot of authors writing about the shift from farming culture to the modern middle class and the effects it has had on the Danish self image. The fact that this is being reflected in art at the same time as the pig issue has exploded is almost poetic.
It was a matter of time before we would have to recon with all of this and the fact that we are finally here is pretty exciting, because it has really gotten out of hand. I legit remember my dad as early as the early 2000s and maybe even the 90s talk about how farming was going to destroy our country if it wasn’t regulated so I grew up with a pretty intense disgust for big farming while also growing up right next to one of legit, romantic old timey farms where the farmer knows and loves his animals and treats them well. A dying breed. So yeah, I have a complicated relationship with farming, but I hope for an support sustainable farming and want Venstre to actually support those instead of helping indsturial farmers climb to the top and hoard their wealth for themselves while legit farmers end up having to sell their land to the big farms so they can destroy my country for no reasons because it’s not even a profitable industry for anyone but the few hundred pig farm owners in my country. It’s fucking ridiculous.
I’m saying this only because Donny keeps calling them windmills and nobody wants to be like him - they’re wind turbines, not mills. There is no grain being crushed as there would be in a mill.
Donny and the Danes. Yeah, it’s quite amusing but they’re the natural evolution of a windmill. Vindmøller are fine for me
That may be the case in Danish
Dutch, but it’s incorrect to call them mills in English.Dutch = the Netherlands
Danish = Denmark.
If you’re going to be a Poindexter about windmills, then at least get the language right of the country you are criticizing.
I’m also terribly sorry that we don’t call them wind turbines and that it triggers you that we call them windmills because of trump. We called them windmills decades before Trump even knew what they were and we will continue to do so.
Removed by mod
Thank you. I just don’t appreciate to be told that the way we refer to windmills in my country is wrong because trump says it. I found that pretty insulting and gave the energy back.
We call them windmills where I live.
Do you know what the penetration percentage is of urban solar is in Denmark? Think of applications like rooftop solar, parking canopies/carports, façades, etc. Or even applications like brownfield?
Asking because there are many land uses in the world where solar could serve as a secondary function, all the while providing power exactly where it’s needed: in urban load centers.
Ground-mount solar on fields across the countryside would certainly help, but many solar installations rely on gravel to cover the ground underneath the panels, or low-growth native seed to reduce the amount of mowing needed over time.
Placing solar in urban contexts allows our countrysides to be rewilded and made polycultures supporting native wildlife. Ground-mount solar can introduce monocultures that don’t support native wildlife.
I don’t know a lot about the subject so I asked my boyfriend who knows way more about solar energy.
Paraphrasing him, the short reply to moving solar panels into cities is a no.
The longer answer is a multitude of reasons, but the main one is weight. Most house roofs, especially in older buildings will not be able to carry the weight of solar panels. The return from having solar panels on roofs in the city will also not be as good as if they are in the fields because the panels can’t move and maybe some roofs are placed in bad positions for optimal sun intake.
He also mentioned higher risks of fires due to the space between the roof and the solar panels, potentially feeding a fire with oxygen and making harder to put out the fire.
Due to the nature of a city layout, the solar panels would also be peppered out in a bigger area than if they were all collected on one plain field. This also means difficulties with maintainece which also costs more time and money than if you keep them in a field.
Keeping them in a concentrated area in a field is the most optimal solution for now. Maybe in the future, if solar panels have their weights significantly reduced, it will be a viable option to place them on roofs in cities. As for now, the best we can do with urban solar panels is to have them in mind when new buildings are raised and several contracting companies apparently work on this already, so things are happening. But many big Danish cities have old buildings, some are hundreds of years old. Its not uncommon to find houses here that are between 200 ans 400 years old.
I would like to add, that if we did like they have in the Netherlands and close down one third of our pig production, we would be able to secure more wild life areas that we have had in a hundred years and still have land for solar panels to spare.
To me it isn’t an either or with solar panels and nature. We could have both. Currently we barely have space for either because the pig farmer take up all the space to grow pig food.
I don’t think people understand how actually insane it is with the farming here. There is not one place here where you don’t see fields. They take up all the space. If we shut down their industry, there would be more space for nature while the space needed for solar energy wouldn’t even take up a 10th of land. I don’t have the actual numbers of space needed for solar panels, but it would be ridiculously low. I am way more interested in having the pig food fields confiscated by the state and made into protected nature. That is where the true gain for nature lies.
Also: According to my boyfriend, the current energy production in Denmark which is covered by solar panels and especially windmills is around 60%. We aren’t far from having reached our goal for sustainable green energy so the solar panel fields are literally nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Rebutting your LLM’s points:
-
“Older” houses in much of Europe are often made of stone, newer are frequently cinderblock, and the roof beams in both are massive. They’re holding up tile and slate roofs - the weight of solar panels is a rounding error, and not the concern it is with shoddy US stick-frame construction. So if that’s the “main reason” we’re doing pretty well already.
-
Sub-optimal angle just means the panel doesn’t produce AS MUCH power as it theoretically could. Not that it produces none, and many sub-optimal placements are still financially viable. Beyond that, any south-facing roof available is going to do very well.
-
Fire risks are again much lower on the very common hard-surface roofs. And that same space that allows the oxygen in also separates the fire from the roof, so the only things burning are the panels themselves and the fire soesn’t spread as it might with a ground-based installation which, by the way, also has air under the panels and are often over grass.
-
Higher installation and maintenance costs are partially offset by the fact that the cost of land purchase and taxes are €0. That was already covered by the building’s main use. Then you can add the social and financial benefit of keeping those fields in food production. Moving away from animal agriculture would not only mean more food available locally, but also for export as crop yields in other places fall due to climate change.
Finally, the whole framing presents a false dichotomy. This doesn’t have to be an either-or proposition - both-and is an option. We can have solar panels on buildings AND in fields. We can convert growing fields from feed production to food production AND put solar panels on the former pig farms that can’t support crops. Particularly in warmer climates (maybe less applicable in Denmark) we can even raise the solar panels a bit higher AND still grow crops underneath (Agrivoltaics)!
You don’t know what you’re talking about and the fact that you discredit my boyfriend’s words by calling it an LLM is pathetic.
Bye 👋
Sorry about the LLM thing - I literally thought “boyfriend” here was used with a wink and a nod to mean an LLM in the same way that people on some forums say “my dog” to mean themselves.
As far as not knowing what I’m talking about though, I’ve spent times on both sides of the Atlantic and used both rooftop and ground based solar where appropriate (though not grid tied) to good effect.
-
laughs in Icelandic
Do Icelandic people power their cars with electricity from geothermal? I’m not in Europe but where I live 94% of our electricity is hydroelectric, yet the vast majority of cars are still using gas/petrol. So even if we are independent on electricity, and it’s somewhat clean, we still import oil to power cars and trucks.
It was mostly a joke. Most of our vehicles are still fossil fuel powered. EVs are pretty popular but I think they’re still less than half of sales.
explain that to the graybeard in politics
EU literally destroyed its own nuclear energy. You had energy, eurotards killed it youself.
Lithuania had nuclear power plant, eu entry condition was to dismantle it.
Go ahead. Buy 750 billion worth of propane from trump instead
Latvia never had a nuclear power plant. Lithuania did, in Ignalina, that started operations back in 1983. It was also the same design as the one in Chernobyl, with the same design flaw, and that was only addressed after the disaster in '86. The building didn’t have a proper containment structure, so yes, the recommendation was to shut it down.
The problem is that the plans for replacement never came to fruition, and decommissioning costs went through the roof. All due to incompetence of the government.
Everything was fixable. They just didn’t want competition in, and now energy is just super expensive. Same design still operational in Russia and causes no issues
Yes, Russia is famous for its safety standards and care for her peoples welfare.
It is though. They have universal healthcare and working social system. Electrical and utilities are lowest prices on the planet
Is universal healthcare why hiv is spreading rampantly and the life expectancy is at the bottom half of the world, one of the lowest for a developed country?
There is universal healthcare and a working social sytem in theory, not in practice. That doesn’t even account for the loss of life from the way where over a million are, avoidable, dead. They aren’t values, they just churn them like meat to grind.
People are seeking to flee Russia, not move there.
