Thread

1. 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.

         1. 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.

            1. 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.

               1. 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.

                  1. 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
                  2. 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

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.