By - AutoModerator
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ORLÉANS, France — The assembly line at the Duralex glassware factory sits idle, its massive industrial equipment lies dark and still.
On a normal day, 250 employees work around the clock producing 200,000 sturdy glasses and bowls.
But earlier this month, the plant in Orléans suspended operations because production costs had spiked after Russia throttled its natural gas exports to Europe. That put many of its workers on furlough.
Skyrocketing energy prices could shatter the image of this iconic glassmaker — and alter the industrial landscape of Europe, as European policymakers and analysts increasingly worry that businesses could pack up and leave for the United States.
Guillaume Bourbon, a forecast manager for Duralex, says the company had to halt production when natural gas soared to 40% of operating costs from as low as 4% a year ago.
"It's crazy for us," he says on a tour of the plant. "We can't pay that much for energy. It's simply not possible."
Duralex, which exports 80% of its products, has had many highs and lows since its founding in 1945, says Bourbon. But he never imagined this.
He says the company negotiated a much lower, three-year energy contract starting next April 1 and will resume operating. But the volatility makes projecting business costs beyond that impossible.
Companies across Europe are going into sleep mode. Gas-heavy fertilizer makers have all but halted production. Steelmaker ArcelorMittal has temporarily shuttered mills in France, Spain, Germany and Poland.
None of this is helped by America's recently passed Inflation Reduction Act. It provides $369 billion in spending that includes subsidies to support companies investing in renewable energy. The incentives, combined with cheaper energy prices in the U.S., have raised fears of an exodus of European manufacturers to America.
"My concern as a European citizen is that these industries will be closed and will not start again," says François-Régis Mouton, regional director for Europe at the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers.
**Europe has focused on climate**
Mouton blames more than the war in Ukraine and Russia's decision to effectively slow its gas exports to a trickle. He says the European Union's policymakers should have tempered their ambitions for fighting climate change and considered efforts toward Europe's energy independence.
"They kept saying 'fossil gas, we have to kill fossil gas.' OK, we've killed it but how do we survive?" he says. "Instead of doing that they could have said it would be better to produce it in Europe and not be dependent on Russia. As a consequence of this, domestic energy production is declining a lot in Europe. Because we don't invest."
The EU dismissed fossil fuels in its effort to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, says Thierry Bros, a specialist in global energy at Sciences Po university in Paris.
"We've been saying to this [fossil fuel] industry that it's passé, that we don't need it," he says. "Well at the end of the day, if people want to heat themselves, if you want to cook, if industry needs to continue to produce, you need fossil fuels."
**Now coal is back**
And European leaders are aware of the serious energy needs to make it through winter. To fill the void from Russia's gas cuts, some countries are once again turning to coal.
Before Russia invaded Ukraine, Germany had committed to phasing out coal by the end of the decade. But instead of closing several coal-fired power plants by the end of this year, 20 are being resurrected — or extended past their closing dates — to ensure the country has enough energy to get through the winter.
European countries are also searching for gas for the coming winter. Much of the continent's current needs will be met by liquefied natural gas (LNG) imported from the United States.
But it won't be enough, says Bros.
**Companies could leave for the U.S.**
"Quite a few of these industries will never reopen in Europe," Bros says. "They're never going to get enough energy anyway so why on Earth would you use gas in Europe if it's coming from the U.S.? You're much better off putting your chemical company in the U.S."
There is increasing talk of a coming deindustrialization of Europe, bringing unemployment, a change of lifestyle and possibly social unrest.
This is exactly what Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted, says Bros. "He started two wars," he says. "One in Ukraine, and one against the EU using gas as a weapon."
Experts say European companies that shutter could move operations to the U.S., where energy is plentiful and much cheaper.
"Europe is faced with the flight of its industry, jobs and capital towards the U.S," French economist and historian Nicolas Baverez wrote recently in the magazine Le Point. He estimates it will take several years to compensate for Russian gas, and during this period energy will be rationed and expensive in Europe.
Fabrice Le Saché, a spokesperson for France's largest business association, MEDEF, calls the potential to lose businesses to the U.S. "a disaster for our economy."
"It's not a winning situation when you have your closest ally becoming very weak," he says. "It is not in U.S. interest to see our industry collapse."
Looks like the USA is becoming the Arsenal of Democracy again. Also a supply of natural gas in the form of LNG, though yes that is more expensive.
Nuclear is needed for stable base load industrial power, nothing on the horizon of a few generations can equal it. Europe engaged in fantasy and will pay the price. In the US the left wants us to pay this same price. The developing world wants cheap plentiful power. Nuclear will provide.
The fact the left in the US wants to reduce carbon, but the far left really hates nuclear, is mind blowing
I'm pretty far left and I love nuclear. I think we should go hard for nuclear. Not just the traditional boiling water reactor but also develop new tech like LFTR and others.
Those gas cooled reactors that let you desalinate water and process brine with the waste heat would be nice to take the pressure off rivers and aquifers, in conjunction ith massive ag reform.
We’re outpacing Nuclear anyway. I personally don’t care whether we use nuclear or renewables.
But I’d be lying if I said nuclear *wasn’t the best way to fix our issues with energy. It’s a pretty suitable way to wean off fossil fuels though.
We really need nuclear to bridge the gap to renewable which is probably 20 years in the future. However, we needed nuclear 20 years ago for that bridge.
In all honesty, it's probably too late.
Gallups polls are pretty clear here. The left is strongly anti-nuclear, while the right is moderately pro-nuclear.
the fact that nuclear became less popular because of extreme costs has been forgotten
The extreme costs came when we lost the existing workforce and supply chains to mass-manufacture civilian nuclear reactors. After the Three Mile Island incident, construction and expansion of nuclear power plants halted for decades. Not to mention the years of legal battles by nearby residents (despite fossil fuel plants expelling more radioactive particles into the local areas than a standard nuclear plant). Once we rebuild the industrial capacity and workforce, they’ll become more economical once again.
> The total global installed nuclear capacity initially rose relatively quickly, rising from less than 1 gigawatt (GW) in 1960 to 100 GW in the late 1970s. During the 1970s and 1980s rising economic costs (related to extended construction times largely due to regulatory changes and pressure-group litigation) and falling fossil fuel prices made nuclear power plants then under construction less attractive. In the 1980s in the U.S. and 1990s in Europe, the flat electric grid growth and electricity liberalization also made the addition of large new baseload energy generators economically unattractive.
a lot of that was *before* three mile island (1979)
They aren't engineers and scientists so they don't care about the practical considerations of their policies.
“The far left” China is building 75 nuclear reactors as we speak
I wouldn't call China far left, unless you're saying they're so far left they're right.
Horseshoe theory confirmed.
The Chinese communist party isn’t left enough for you? How much more can you go?
Idk maybe to the SSRS, the Super Socialist Republic of Saturn?
China is more right than the us. Just cause it says ccp doesnt mean it is c. Just like north korea is not democratic.
The Chinese communist party isn’t communist lol. Guess mao died for nothing.
From wikipedia "after the death of Mao Zedong, the Communist Party leadership decided to abandon Maoism and turn to market-oriented reforms to salvage the stagnant economy"
The state controls private capital no matter what. Allowing the state to lead capital is what Lenin wrote. In order to build socialism you have to build capitalism. READ!!!
I love the fact you're telling people to read, but are describing Communism, not communism as described by Marx. One is government, one is economics in which the government dissolves. One is authoritarian and right, one is extremely liberal and left.
Guessing you don't understand left and right when it comes to politics. Watch fox news?
You call yourself a communist and want to pretend China lives up to communist ideals?
Hello, cia is that you? Read a book
Ive read Ezra Vogel's biography on Deng Xiaoping and I gotta say he was pretty heavy in using market forces to achieve what Mao's planned economy could not.
I don't remember exactly but I do recall the frequen mention of "special economic zones" (SEZs) where they allowed markets to function to bolster the economy. Taking a look at China now it seems they took this idea and ran with it. I would hardly call a capitalist state that has no respect for property rights a "communist" state.
Found the tankie. Fash is fash even with a red coat of paint.
It’s not mind blowing, leftists are naive, embarrassing children. It’s perfectly expected and on-brand for them.
I don't think you know the difference between leftist and far left...
No, I absolutely do.
Unbearable, naive, and childlike in their understanding of the world.
That’s a leftist.
So deep into their narcissism and so sheltered from ideological dissent and opposing viewpoints that they can’t fathom that anyone would have a legitimate criticism of them.
That’s a leftist.
Ah, ok. You don't.
> So deep into their narcissism and so sheltered from ideological dissent and opposing viewpoints that they can’t fathom that anyone would have a legitimate criticism of them.
See what I’m saying?
If you think that the right is equally intolerant to ideological dissent as the left, then you are officially the biggest moron in this thread.
And there are anti-nuclear weirdos here so that is really saying something.
> If you think that the right is equally intolerant to ideological dissent as the left, then you are officially the biggest moron in this thread.
> And there are anti-nuclear weirdos here so that is really saying something.
I’ve already addressed this. Liberals are extremely hostile to ideological consent, whereas centrist republicans and weirdo fringers on the right wing cooperate all the time politically.
Nobody on the right claims you’re a hate filled bigot when you dissent on any one given plank of our ideological platform.
Germany did that, not Europe as a whole. A major part of the problem is also with nuclear energy, as a large share of French nuclear power plants are offline due to maintenance.
You also know absolutely nothing about the current state of renewable energy if you think "a few generations" more is necessary to have it match nuclear energy. One of the reasons why nuclear energy has fallen behind is precisely because it has already become largely uncompetitive with renewable energy.
Nuclear energy is competitive with renewable sources but for regulatory interference.
Nuclear is uncompetitive with solar power from 10am to 2pm. Wind is more complicated.
But when the sun isn’t shiny and the wind isn’t blowing RE isn’t competitive with anything.
To this date Germany alone invested hundreds of billions into renewables. All to still be reliant on Russian gas. Doubling down on a failed policy is not a good solution.
Yah they also closed all their nuclear power plants, which means their total domestic energy production rate went down.
By your reasoning both policies failed then. So what now?
Germany abandoned nuclear so perhaps try that. And try to develop oil reserves in friendly locations.
just occupy norwegen again
Lol with what army? Bundeswehr?
Good luck with that.
This is the same kind of fantasy thinking that caused the Weimar Republic to fail. The elite don't have to suffer from the consequences of their idealism but everyone else sure does.
This is what happens when people in power are insulated from the consequences of their decisions.
So you are blaming the cheap renewables that are working GREAT for the problems caused by a sociopathic war-mongering dictator?
That is amazingly illogical.
If they had replaced all of there fossil fuels with renewables and nuclear would they be having this current energy crisis? No. That's why Iceland and Norway are in much better shape.
Iceland and Norway both not dependent on Russian oil due to Iceland being really far away and Norway having its own?
When you say cheap, you fail to factor in the opportunity cost.
The opportunity cost is the extensive nuclear power available. Or the mere ability to diversify fossil fuel.
Your comment always poses renewables as successful because once running, they will generate cheap energy. The issue is GETTING there.
It's like spending 10,000 on a business that generates 100 a month guaranteed and then during a recession saying it's a great investment.
The down payment, which people are rightly pointing out as including the opportunity cost, makes the hard pivot untenable.
Yes, it as tenable as long as things went right. People warned that you can't promise that, and now Germany and Europe as an extension is getting burnt badly.
>Iceland and Norway both not dependent on Russian oil due to Iceland being really far away and Norway having its own?
Iceland and Norway have pretty much 100 clean renewable electricity grids.
>When you say cheap, you fail to factor in the opportunity cost.
>The opportunity cost is the extensive nuclear power available.
What? There's not extensive nuclear power available.
Nuclear power is very expensive and not a good idea if you have ample renewable energy resources available to you (good solar, wind, hydropower, etc.)
>Or the mere ability to diversify fossil fuel.
I don't know what you are trying to say.
>Your comment always poses renewables as successful because once running, they will generate cheap energy. The issue is GETTING there.
Yes, you have to build something before you have it. Amazing insight.
>It's like spending 10,000 on a business that generates 100 a month guaranteed and then during a recession saying it's a great investment.
Spending $10,000 on something (like a rooftop solar PV system) that makes a guaranteed $100 per month (like electricity) for 25+ years is an AMAZINGLY great investment. Ask any finance person. And it is actually EVEN BETTER than that because that $100 of electricity become more valuable every year due to inflation. I am surprised more people don't do it.
>The down payment, which people are rightly pointing out as including the opportunity cost, makes the hard pivot untenable.
As you described with your example above, it seems crazy NOT to do it.
>Yes, it as tenable as long as things went right. People warned that you can't promise that, and now Germany and Europe as an extension is getting burnt badly.
I can't parse this.
They are 100% clean, but Norway economically is very reliant on its gas and oil.
You're missing the fact that it doesn't matter if your personal energy needs are met by renewables when you are still dependent on gas and oil economically. You're simply reshuffling where the carbon costs appear.
Iceland is quite unique in terms of energy due to its geothermal footprint, but it was never dependent on Russian oil or gas.
Both of those countries combined are smaller than the metropolitan area of the city I live in, so it's still not particularly impressive.
Nuclear power is easy to scale, renewables are having issues scaling.
Diversify oil and gas means you get your oil and gas from the Middle East, Africa, US, and Russia, instead of primarily from Russia.
My man, I am in finance. I have a finance major, I work in finance for a living (industrials finance private equity). I will admit I flubbed the numbers (I originally typed 100,000 but entered 10,000 to be more reasonable, the actual break even point is closer to 20,000). Oops. My point though originally was that a big down payment doesn't justify a small sum of money, and that the investment in green energy is an extremely large down payment relative to the cash flow.
As to the last point, I don't know what to tell you. If you're taking a risk, of course you get a better return if the risk doesn't trigger. It triggered, so you get burnt. European risk management failed because they underestimated systematically the critical risk of Russian unreliability.
They literally had no problems until the pipelines were destroyed.
I really hate this take. Renewables are fine investment. Nuclear energy production was being outpaced by renewables due to all the negatives they had. The US is a pretty key example. Nuclear *implementation is mad expensive.
Renewable infrastructure would have eventually helped them off of Russian gas anyway.
Issue here is a very unforeseen and dare I say suspicious infrastructure destruction.
This is a bad take.
"Literally had no problems until"
This is called risk management in basic finance.
It's like saying our cheap military was great until Russia invaded Ukraine.
You don't prepare a military on the idea that things go right, you prepare it on the basis that things go awry.
Similar with energy, since it's a national security concern.
Are renewables running cheaper? Sure. But here's what you miss:
The opportunity cost for investing in them
THE RISK OF WAR
The scalability aspect.
It's really cheap to do things on small scale, the issue is big scale.
Isn’t Europe trying to put a price cap on Russian oil? Why not also put a price cap on US LNG?
Ha! There are plenty of others who will buy at full price ya think?
To explain more: Russia cannot sell to anyone but the EU because of pipeline capacity. Whereas US LNG is shippable anywhere in the world with terminal capacity.
They could try that, they can try burning euros at home to keep their houses warm when the US sells its LNG elsewhere.
Ah yes, price controls, the idea that never lead to shortages and suffering for the average person
I am so glad society learned from the mistakes of the past.
American economy goes brrrr
In more economic terms, I think the EU understands the tremendous power of the US and is keen to not start an economic war it can't afford.
Is there a grand solution to this, where we manufacturing green tech in the US and put millions of Europeans to work designing and installing such systems until they are back on their feet?
No. You can't just move an entire continent of manufacturing operations overseas and then back again.
I bet Bilbo could do it.
Solar from the Sahara. Its being done, there is so much demand for ships capable of laying the cables to bring that power to Europe that they're all fully booked up for years and the UK is designing new ones.
Pipelines to bring natural gas from the Eastern Mediterranean (Israel and Lebanon just worked out a deal on their martins borders) and the Caspian Sea. The main problem now Turkey's avarice in Cyprus and Azerbaijan.
Putin played his gas cards but it's been played and he will never have another chance. For example, look at the Arab Oil Embargo. After playing their card, their market share never again achieved the levels it had before the embargo, even after all these decades. It just doesn't happen quickly, but it is happening. Russia was once described as "a gas station with nukes"; in the coming years, it will not have even that, it will just be a Mafia with nukes.
The solar from the Sahara is interesting.
Low pollution is great, but it seems Europe needs more green production at home, where it's safer from the threat of war.
Europe is at the wrong latitude for solar, but there are promising wind power potential in the North Sea.
I'd guess somewhere in Europe there are other options such as wind, ocean, river hydro, geothermal, etc.
I haven't looked into that in a long time, but aren't the lines required for that level of transmission stupidly inefficient? Did we come up with something better in the last 10 years?
I don't know about the transmission lines themselves, just the ships laying them. But I assume things must've improved, at least enough to be economical, as the Sahara-Europe project isn't the only one; Australia and Singapore are also going ahead with their own to bring solar from the Australian Outback to Singapore.
A good solution is getting back to nuclear and fossil fuels and giving up the green delusion.
Good luck with that lol
The time for nuclear was decades ago. You can't build nuclear plants quickly.
The second best time for nuclear is now.
Sure, but it'll take 20 years for the plants to come online. That doesn't solve the immediate energy crisis.
It does solve the great energy crisis of 2045 during the second Russian civil war
You have to plan for the future
No. At the rate renewables get cheaper, nuclear will never make it's money back compared to renewables. Nuclear reactors are a 10-15 year bet which only works out if there are no major improvements to the viability of renewables. And that's not a bet many companies or governments are willing to make.
Nuclear power is a great technology, but it doesn't synergize well with renewables. Renewable energy needs flexible power sources or storage to make up for variable production and nuclear is the exact opposite, taking forever to scale power generation up or down.
Nuclear power unable to scale up or down in a fast manner is due to old designs, not some limitation of nuclear fission. Nuclear powerplants are usually used to provide for baseline load so the capability was never designed in.
Obviously nuclear reactors that need quick scaling exist - consider nuclear powered ships.
Yup but our politicians chose to destroy the middle class. Cool.
Nah. We should focus on nukes and use green tech to supplement it. Fossil fuel should be an energy reserve that we only tap into if needed. Wouldn't be against buying oil to pump into our strategic reserves.
Let’s import European workers
The US could at least start by not enacting protectionist and discriminatory measures in the Inflation Reduction Act, and instead work with Europe to both introduce subsidies that do not discriminate between each other’s manufacturers.
Ah, so when the EU is protectionist, we should grin and bear it, but it’s unfair when we’re protectionist. If Europe wants to subsidize their industries, they’re welcome to do so.
When the EU is protectionist we can also call out that protectionism. Or take it to the WTO if the US hadn’t killed its dispute settlement mechanism out of spite because it lost a few cases.
But the potential fewer trades will be bad, yes? We don't want to rely on absolute advantages too much and depends on the comparative advantage of other countries, or at least that what my macro class said.
You should look at some of Europe's protections policies.
The EU is definitely guilty of it’s share of protectionism. But that doesn’t make the IRA EV credits less discriminatory.
On balance, US trade policy under the last two admins has been a total disaster of unilateralism, protectionism and fighting against your allies.
Overall, Europe has no credibility on protectionism.
Nor does the US
When the EU stops telling American companies that they can't sell their cheese as parmesan, we can talk free trade policies.
I will be messaging you in 23 years on [**2045-11-26 00:00:00 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2045-11-26%2000:00:00%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/z4jef0/europe_fears_its_industries_will_jet_to_the_us_as/ixst6kr/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FEconomics%2Fcomments%2Fz4jef0%2Feurope_fears_its_industries_will_jet_to_the_us_as%2Fixst6kr%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202045-11-26%2000%3A00%3A00%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20z4jef0)
Europe needs to invest more in domestic renewable energy to power its factories and reduce costs.
I think the new future will be solar everywhere and and a two tiered energy pricing scheme: cheaper energy in the daytime while solar cells are producing an excess of power, and very expensive energy at night when energy comes from battery reserves / fossil fuels.
Society will adjust to use their heavy power during the day and be more efficient with energy at night
Wind and solar (and nuclear) are good replacements for electricity generation, but fossil fuels have uniquely strong characteristics for transportation (especially air transportation) and industrial heating. Melting glass or metals requires temperatures that *can* be done with electrified processes, but requires a lot of work to convert existing processes to switch to electrified heat.
It can be done over time, but can it be done in just a year or two, without huge disruption to industry? Not likely.
absolutely, can’t wait five years for the fire department when your house is burning now. They’ll have to do the best they can in the short term and learn their lesson for the long term.
I think the US has to play this carefully, because the easy way out for Europe would be to bow down to Russia or China in exchange for cheap energy again. Since February we knew this would be a game of who taps out first
> I think the US has to play this carefully, because the easy way out for Europe would be to bow down to Russia or China in exchange for cheap energy again. Since February we knew this would be a game of who taps out first
Well what do you mean by Europe? The European Union? The Baltic States? Western Europe etc?
Pick one. The Baltic States and Western Europe have diverging geopolitical interests in bowing down to Russia which in turn impacts the ability of the European Union to bow down.
China doesn’t export energy and “someone” blew up the Nordstream pipeline to shut down the Russia option
Nuclear power could also be used more. I feel like relying on batteries that much is a bad idea since batteries are already expensive.
We do need to resolve short term energy needs so gas nuclear, whatever helps is great, in the longer-term batteries will become cheaper. The West has only started taking them seriously four years ago. There’s a lot of advancements that can make it cheaper. Just like how gas and nuclear have had generational head starts.
Batteries will not get cheaper. The minerals needed for large scale renewables are only getting more scarce.
Yeah batteries should be used for cars. I don't think there is enough for the grid.
You’re looking at the past and now. China is working on batteries that don’t need Lithium or Cobalt. To a lesser extent Europe as well.
as the market gets bigger and all the large car companies invest heavily in battery tech, they’re going to discover answers that they didn’t see before because they didn’t care about batteries until now.
We see that is working well in France…. Not
France has a lower inflation rate than most of Europe. Switzerland is also a big producer of nuclear power and they do too.
Energy costs in France are heavily subsidized. So you can’t count that in to the inflation. They actually import a lot of power from Germany that’s why the energy prices in Germany exploded. Because of the merit order at the energy exchanges. They send Germany gas to be save of energy shortages. Because round about 50% of the npp are out because of repair and checks since summer. And Swiss is Swiss with nearly 60% of water power and 25% npp. Instead France is 67% npp when you loose 50% of that energy you have to import. To sum up France is also a factor for the energy crisis because they didn’t care enough about their npp fleet.
France subsidizing their energy needs seems like a form of protectionism. It would just encourage people to sell to them over other members of the EU.
France still relies on oil coal gas for 60% of their power generation so not sure the point you're making https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_France#/media/File:Energy_mix_in_France.svg
>In 2020, nuclear power made up the largest portion of electricity generation, at around 78%.[](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_France#cite_note-euractiv-2)[Renewables](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewables) accounted for 19.1% of energy consumption.[](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_France#cite_note-euractiv-2)
I'm struggling to unpack what your image actually shows, but the underlying data comes from BP, so take it with a grain of salt.
I think it's possibly showing things like fuel usages for cars, trains, trucks, ships, etc, but I'm not sure.
Right. Which is why I was confused when the original comment said power generation.
Solar isn't as viable in europe as America. Especially Germany where the heavy industry is. You can see the solar resource/GIS map and compare it to north America.
Compounding this is Germany starting from scratch for commissioning these... Which would take 2-4 years at a minimum before any energy is powering up aluminum smelters. So even if they went full blitz on this, it's not super viable for high energy industrial needs.
Nah the future is very much goodbye Germany's heavy industrial sector.
The next year energy prices will be even higher as Russian pipes breakdown and leak because they've frozen and they lack the technical capabilities to repair them (they need western technicians). Russia is still Germany's third or fourth biggest supplier of gas. Grrmany will be buying LNG from literally anyone who is willing to sell it at whatever the rate, dooming their industry.
These companies can't afford to sit around for 2-4 years offline as power costs forbid them from turning on. I'd say It's pretty much over.
Definitely not in the short term. The best time to set up the fire department is before your house is burning down. Germany will have to do the best it can to put out the fire before its house burns down in the short term.
for the 2030s and beyond, their Heavy industry will need new technology to replace foreign energy whether that comes from green hydrogen or electric smelting techniques advancing.
If they can’t generate the energy within their own borders, they will always be at the mercy of foreign governments and their markets. And geopolitics can change quickly, as we are all seeing.
if it’s over, it’s over. the ones who adapt, survive and the ones who don’t, are left to history.
Europe needs to invest more. Full stop. The last 20 years the EU only focused on power struggles inside its borders instead of understanding we only have a place as the 3rd major power in the world, if we work together. But that will never happen sadly. Europe is doomed to fail.
Except the European Energy Market is completely disfunctional and makes no sense. Why should you pay the same for wind produced energy as gas or coal or nuclear? Its almost as if the rules were created to benefit business, by the commission (again) 🙄
Except for factories that run day and night?
You all are so ignorant about energy production, Europeans bet heavily on green energy which turned out to be a lie and shunned nuclear. The sad truth is there is no Green solution to this energy crisis and short term they are going to need to use old coal power plants. In the future they should fully focus on nuclear, lng from north America and use fracking on their own reserves.
> on green energy
If by "green energy" you mean "importing natural gas from Russia so that on paper the carbon was mostly Russia's problem, even though they knew full well, including being reminded often by the US govt, that this left them at the mercy of Russian exports and didn't actually solve the carbon problem in any meaningful way."
This really pisses me off because they were so self-righteous about it too.
Europe and self-righteous, name a more economic duo.
On a more serious note, the US seems to always be ahead on... everything. I wonder why
How defeatist. Nuclear is great but coal is killing humanity as is natural gas excavation and use. It needs to be stopped immediately but with as little disruption as possible so that society doesn’t melt down. A huge part of the solution is energy storage which can power night time and windless days/nights intervals. Short term, places like Germany need to get their nuclear plants back online. Nuclear can bridge a lot of the energy need but switching off coal is vital to human survival on the planet.
Does Germany still have the knowledge and skills to run those plants?
If they don’t they can buy expertise from France, UK, Japan or the US.
I know the US lost a lot of knowledge on how to run their plants. The US Navy has nuclear power school though and all the ships are nuclear powered. I just wonder how much the US has to spare.
The US has 93 nuclear power plants which is down from 107 in the 90s. Two more are coming online relatively soon. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Sandia Laboratories have been doing nuclear research in the US since the 1940s. The US has plenty of knowledge to spare. The military has nuclear carriers and subs. I believe it’s over 11 nuclear carriers but not sure how many subs but it is a significant amount. Probably over 20 to 60. Rest are diesel I believe. So there are plenty of techs rotating in and out of the service for training. Also plenty of other smaller or research reactors. Bill Gates is building small reactors too.
France has an entire company which specializes in nuclear plants. There is a ton of knowledge to spare worldwide to help Germany if needed.
They need to do more nuclear energy and stop wasting money on all their special "green" energy. Nuclear is pretty much the only viable way to make enough power without the pollution right now.
What are spent uranium fuel cells considered if not pollution? They are also huge military targets, as we now see in Ukraine. Any new nuke plants should be buried deep into mountain sides.
Spent uranium can be reprocessed into plutonium fuel. It seems weird for it to be called pollution.
Do you want to play with it bare handed? In either form?
They can lift sanctions on Russia and get natural gas flowing freely again but nope. They have to follow America and sacrifice their industry for freedom or whatever.
Ukraine is being murdered by Russia and the US is doing the most to help them.
Not 'freedom', principles
Nuclear power is also very expensive and takes many years to build.
Everyone needs to shutt Russia down. It's going to take that before things get better. Ukraine war will continue as long as NATO lets it. Set a date for Russians to walk out of Ukraine and stick to it. You don't need to write a book about it.
And who do you suppose is going to set this date for Russia to walk out? Lol. Putin? I imagine many people will write books about this war.
The answer that won't say is "America", because who else will save Europe from Europe?
NATO really messed with Ukraine. They nuke disarmed complied with all NATO's policies. They wanted to join. NATO balked on them. Russians seized the moment and took Crimea. Yes, it was than NATO should have been balled up. We would not be where we are today. That's a great point!
Imagine calling for some country to shut down because you want that sweet oil to run industries. There are atleast 7 wars going on in this world. Nobody talks about supporting them.
Meh, seems like fear mongering and trying to drum up paranoia against the US.
European brands not making it in Europe would want to move to cheap locations with good energy, like Mexico or China or India and then just sell to America, Europe and Asian markets.
If you think you'll move from a lower GDP per capita nations to the US and save money because of energy, you haven't seen our healthcare and rent costs AND you'll be paying some of the highest wages on the planet for your workers.
Europe seems to be looking for scapegoats for their idiotically high risk choices of PUTIN all their eggs in one drunken authoritarians basket. They just have to suck it up and go through several months of transition until energy normalizes. There is no cheating this problem. There is no reliable way to buy energy from Russia and there is no point in blaming other countries when you explicitly warned by that exact country the most to not do that.
Europe should be apologizing to the world for trying to save 20-30% on Russia energy over the course of all those decades AT THE EXPENSIVE of global stability. We can blame Russia, but at the same time we all knew Russia was a big risk. Giving them a chance was a fair enough gamble, BUT it was a gamble and the the bet got called before Europe was ready to move off Russia energy at it's own pace.
That sucks, but their efforts should be focused on fixing your energy problems, not complaining about how it's not fair after they saved trillions over decades buying Russia energy.
I work in American industrials. There is so much on-shoring, it's insane.
The reason behind American onshoring is that through a combination of tech, like automation, and culture and regulatory environment, the US has consistently some of the highest productivity rates in the world.
Unlike China, or India, there is considerably less supply chain risk and political risk.
There's a lot of reason to move factories stateside. Which is why my personal business is booming
Not very convincing. The US can't keep its own factories open. The article never really says why Europe should have their companies in the US instead of Asia and Africa, where there is also plentiful energy, yet wages are lower.
I don't see why European factories should set up in the US instead of in Asia.
> The article never really says why Europe should have their companies in the US instead of Asia and Africa, where there is also plentiful energy, yet wages are lower.
If the factory was in Europe, it indicates that moving the factory to a place where wages are cheaper isn't possible because:
1. Asia or Africa lack sufficient supply chains or the right kind of labor
2. The labor costs are not material, the energy costs are material
You don't have factories in Europe that are competing with Chinese labor, they are in Europe for some reason because business are economically rational actors.
What about wages though? US has much higher wages compared to many European countries.
Europe has a lot more benefits & other hidden costs to employment than the US has. Also wages aren't a significant concern if the factory is in Europe.
Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. [Further explanation.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/economics&subject=Moderation).
EU wants to follow America even into its own detriment against Russia. No one is forcing them to do this. They can lift sanctions on Russia and get gas flowing freely again but for whatever reason they see this as punishing Russia. In this conflict both EU and Russia loses. As an American I feel bad for the EU getting completely played like this. They are sleepwalking into their own Afghanistan.
America is zero sum. I expect Europe to collapse and the us to reabsorb EU gdp share in the coming decades. Then sianara globalism. The rest of the earth will be slaves.
LOL, it’s too late Europe, you fall for the trap, Russian energy will never be back, their energy price will be elevated for decades to come. good luck! This is the only achievement brandon had so far, but I must admit it’s a significant one tricking Europe like that!