This just highlights what an utter failure and self-inflicted wound the green policies of Euro countries have been. Europe has already lost the AI race to the U.S. and China.
This just highlights what an utter failure and self-inflicted wound the green policies of Euro countries have been. Europe has already lost the AI race to the U.S. and China.
Renewables is the only realistic path to energy independence. Today's global situation should show the absolute necessity of that, even if you dont give a sh*t about the environment.
Had we done more 10 years ago we would have been better of. The second best time to start is now.
Yes, we should definitely optimise for the most expensive form of electricity: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bjorn-lomborg-solar-wind-p...
When reading an article written by Bjorn Lomborg, you should also do the effort to read the cited sources. This is not an ad hominem attack, just an observation. Do it and you will see.
I mean nuclear provides that too.
(We used to build it at a fraction of the cost and less than half of the time that we do with our modern fuckups and fuel can come from just about anywhere if need be. It might be a lot more expensive than the stuff kazachstan and still be a fraction of the cost.)
I think ideally we would've done both to press the cost of nuclear down and given the fact that the renewables rollout turned out to be a lot lot more expensive than proponents claimed it would be whilst still tying us up into gass to cover winter.
Europe still has coal, lots of it, not using it is a political choice and a self-inflicted wound.
It does not. That is not economically mined. Last big hard coal producer in EU - Poland, has extraction cost x2 or x3 of the mountain top removal mining in US. This sector is shrinking rapidly. Poland coal production came back to ~1915 levels (taking into account current PL territory). This sector would be closed already if not for massive subsidies.
Last year, China's coal use decreased, while China installed 300x more renewables than nuclear. Coal and nuclear aren't cost competitive with renewables, either in a free market or a technocratic top-down economy. Coal and gas still maintain a valid niche of firming intermittency. But that niche is temporary and shrinking.
Of all the coal consumed per year, China uses half of it. They are not a green economy.
They are greening fast, and enabling greening of others through cost competitive supplies.
> either in a free market o
Then why all the anti-coal mining diktats coming down from Brussels?
Large Combustion Plant Directive: coal incompatible with both traditional air quality measurements and CO2 emissions.
Renewables deployment is happening fast. Grid upgrades are not. Batteries .. it depends.
Even nuclear darling France has set solar records: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/04/15/france-germany-set-da...
The free market installs a tiny amount of coal, and a lot of renewable energy. Whether you believe this means "coal is/isn't cost competitive with renewables in a free market" is a debate about word definitions that I'm not terribly interested in.
Brussels is trying to reduce "tiny" to zero, because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
China, like Brussels, is trying to reduce coal for similar reasons. They don't like the air pollution health hazard (fully believable), and they say they don't like global warming (somewhat believable).
China and Texas are both installing silly amounts of renewables. They install very little new fossil fuels or nuclear. They both maintain cheap electricity prices through abundance.
The problem in the EU is not renewables, it's the same problem that Democratic states in the US face. Regulations and permitting hurdles that block private renewable energy developers.
China is building a lot of coal power plants
Their coal generation decreased last year. They're building on the order of 70GW of new coal while they decomission or underutilized more than 70GW of pre-existing coal. Meanwhile they installed 450GW of new renewables energy.
They also consume half of all coal consumed globally per year. They are in no way a green economy.
Not relevant to the question of which energy source makes sense to build in the year 2026. But sure China has many coal plants left over from 2003 when renewables was more expensive, nobody would dispute that this is a fact, however irrelevant.
There appears to be zero advantage to having the datacenter actually in your country apart from minor local property tax, in exchange for which it will put up the electricity bills of every single citizen, who already hate how much they're paying.
The only way to lose even harder would be to build a shitload of datacenters for them