Thread

ASML says it sold 'absolutely nothing' in Europe in 2026

402 points · 900 comments · MC995

t43562 · 1790347718 · focus · HN ↗
It seems to be "dump on Europe" day which I'm sure is popular but lets just stop for a second and ask what the sales of ASML machinery to the US would be without the CHIPS act .... a massive subsidy. Aren't subsidies supposed to be a bad European thing??? I'm confused. Are we free market proponents or planned economy proponents?
1. upupupandaway · 1790348103 · focus · HN ↗
  I don't think this is the main point (subsidies). ASML sold nothing in Europe because Europe is not a factor in semi manufacturing, primarily due to regulations and bureaucracy.
  1. elric · 1790487876 · focus · HN ↗
    > primarily due to regulations and bureaucracy
    Or, more likely, due to energy prices.
    logicchains · 1790489502 · focus · HN ↗
    The energy prices in Europe are also up due to regulations and bureaucracy, without which the continent would be full of nuclear plants.
    wewxjfq · 1790492907 · focus · HN ↗
    Europe is the only continent where some countries are close to fully nuclear and they aren't close to being the industrial powerhouses HN commenters would make you believe. Tell my why are the US (gas) and China (coal) are beating France (nuclear)?
    The whole world essentially stopped building nuclear power plants at the end of the 1970s and there's one obvious answer which you guys just can't accept, so you keep inventing one stab-in-the-back narrative after another for why nuclear energy failed.
    logicchains · 1790501980 · focus · HN ↗
    >The whole world essentially stopped building nuclear power plants at the end of the 1970s
    China has over 30 nuclear power plants currently in development, the only way nuclear "failed" is the industry's failure to convince dumb boomers not to regulate it out of existence in the west.
    dv_dt · 1790512355 · focus · HN ↗
    Nuclear failed and will fail because it economically doesn't pay off without large government subsidies for everything from the power purchase agreement, to security and long term waste management. Its also centralized, and more difficult to defend in a world that is threatening to descend into at least regional conflicts. If one were seeious about industrial progress, you would avoid nuclear, avoid fossil fuels, and install and develop renewables and battery techs
    dalyons · 1790516352 · focus · HN ↗
    And yet their % share of nuclear is declining and will continue to decline every year. Because nukes are too expensive, even for a single party state
    microtonal · 1790494167 · focus · HN ↗
    Energy prices are up in Europe because Europe was too dependent on Russia for gas (and now the US) and the Middle East for oil, not regulation. We are too dependent on fossil fuels because (mostly right wing) politicians tried to block/underinvest in wind/solar/geothermal for too long.
    TrickyRick · 1790498512 · focus · HN ↗
    Almost correct, except it's the green/left that forced a shutdown of nuclear and sold the gas as "green". At least in Germany/Scandinavia, might be different in the rest of Europe.
    IsTom · 1790501374 · focus · HN ↗
    > During the chancellorship of Gerhard Schröder, the social democratic-green government decreed Germany's final retreat from using nuclear power by 2022.[1]
    The Gerhard Schröder that
    > Since leaving public office, Schröder has worked for Russian state-owned energy companies, including Nord Stream AG, Rosneft, and Gazprom.[2]
    [1]<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
    [2]<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der
    uecker · 1790519298 · focus · HN ↗
    And yet, Germany does not import gas from Russia anymore. Did nuclear industry in other countries stop importing from Rosatom already?
    IsTom · 1790532141 · focus · HN ↗
    If the Nord Stream didn't get blown up it could have been different.
    uecker · 1790620041 · focus · HN ↗
    The nord stream pipeline was not carrying gas when blown up. But other pipelines were.
    Lumich · 1790631792 · focus · HN ↗
    > Since leaving public office, Schröder has worked for Russian state-owned energy companies
    People often cite this fact as if there were a problem to it. (Not sure it is your case though.) Is it that Germany is not allowed to have national interests? Who is the judge on this? Our "friend", the remaining exceptional occupation power?
    By the way, chancellor Merz, before taking office, had worked for (and owes his personal wealth to) Usanian financial company Blackrock, thus creating a (rarely cited) allegiance problem at the highest level of the state apparatus.
    microtonal · 1790511499 · focus · HN ↗
    Different in the rest of Europe. Many countries have kept mostly the same number of nuclear power plants.
    daedrdev · 1790517087 · focus · HN ↗
    For example, the Netherlands are currently pouring cement down their oil derricks to try and prevent a future government from re opening them, over absurdly minor earthquakes, despite the energy crisis.
    autuni · 1790580092 · focus · HN ↗
    which regulations and bureaucracy are you talking about specifically?
    there are several nuclear plants operation in Europe, some countries also just announced to restart some of their old power plants. There are no regulations that prevent any of the countries from doing it, each country makes that decision for themselves and has their own reasons to do it or not to do it
    hermanzegerman · 1790620273 · focus · HN ↗
    They're also up thanks to corrupt politicians like Katharina Reiche in Germany which sabotages Renewables and Battery Storage in favor of Gas Plants

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.