Coin Press - Europe’s power shock

NYSE - LSE
CMSC -0.09% 22.33 $
JRI -0.23% 12.8 $
BCE 0.08% 24.59 $
BTI 1.49% 62.32 $
GSK 0.34% 53.04 $
RBGPF 0% 60.72 $
NGG 0.39% 81.84 $
BCC 0.67% 71.14 $
CMSD -0.18% 22.26 $
AZN -1.97% 178.75 $
RIO 1.62% 105.35 $
RELX 1.87% 33.74 $
VOD 1.74% 15.53 $
BP 0.23% 42.78 $
RYCEF 2.63% 17.5 $

Europe’s power shock




On 28 April 2025, an unprecedented power failure plunged most of Spain and Portugal into darkness. Within seconds the Iberian Peninsula lost around 15 gigawatts of generation—roughly 60 % of demand. Flights were grounded, public transport stopped, hospitals cancelled routine operations and emergency services were stretched. Spain’s interior ministry declared a national emergency, deploying 30 000 police officers, while grid operators scrambled to restore power. The outage, thought to have originated in a failed interconnector with France, highlighted the fragility of Europe’s interconnected grids. An industry association later reported that it took 23 hours for the Iberian grid to return to normal capacity.

Energy analysts noted that the blackout was not only a technical failure but also a structural one. Spain and Portugal depend heavily on wind and solar power, which provide more than 40 % of Spain’s electricity and over 60 % in Portugal. These sources supply little rotational inertia, so when the France–Spain interconnector tripped the system lacked the flexibility and backup capacity to stabilise itself. Reliance on a single interconnector also left the peninsula “islanded” and unable to import power quickly.

A continent on edge
The Iberian blackout came against a backdrop of soaring energy prices, economic malaise and rising electricity demand from data centres and electrified transport. Europe has spent the past two years grappling with the fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which cut cheap gas supplies and forced governments to scramble for alternative fuels. Germany’s Energiewende, once a model for the energy transition, has been strained. After shutting down its last three reactors on 15 April 2023, Germany shifted from being a net exporter of electricity to a net importer; by November 2024 imports reached 25 terawatt‑hours, nearly triple the 2023 level. About half of the imported electricity came from France, Switzerland and Belgium—countries whose power systems are dominated by nuclear energy. Germany’s gross domestic product shrank 0.3 % in 2023 and was expected to contract again in 2024, and a survey of 3 300 businesses found that 37 % were considering reducing production or relocating because of high energy costs; the figure was 45 % among energy‑intensive firms.

The collapse of domestic nuclear generation has increased Germany’s reliance on coal and gas. In the first half of 2025 the share of fossil‑fuel electricity rose to 42.2 %, up from 38.4 % a year earlier, while power from renewables fell by almost six percent. Coal‑fired generation increased 9.3 % and gas‑fired output 11.6 %; weak winds cut wind output by 18 %, even as solar photovoltaic production jumped 28 %. The result has been higher emissions and greater dependence on imports.

Yet Germany’s grid remains resilient: the Federal Network Agency reported that power disruptions averaged 11.7 minutes per customer in 2024—one of the lowest figures in Europe—and the energy transition has not compromised supply security. Nevertheless, researchers warn that unexpected shocks like the Iberian blackout could occur if investment in grid flexibility and storage does not keep pace.

Nuclear renaissance across Europe
The energy crisis has prompted many European governments to re‑examine nuclear energy. Belgium has repealed its nuclear‑phase‑out law and plans new reactors, arguing that nuclear power provides reliable, low‑carbon electricity. Denmark, Italy, Poland, Sweden and Spain have all signalled interest in building new plants or extending existing reactors. Italy intends to bring nuclear power back by 2030, while Denmark and Sweden are exploring small modular reactors. The European Union already has about 100 reactors that supply almost a quarter of its electricity. Nuclear plants emit few air pollutants and provide round‑the‑clock power, making them attractive for countries seeking to cut emissions and reduce reliance on gas. Critics remain concerned about waste disposal and the possibility that investment in nuclear could divert resources from renewables.

This shift is visible at the political level. In September 2025, France and Germany adopted a joint energy roadmap that recognises nuclear energy as a low‑carbon technology eligible for European financing. The roadmap aims to end discrimination against nuclear projects and represents a departure from Germany’s long‑standing opposition. It does not alter national policies but signals a shared stance in forthcoming EU negotiations.

Germany’s political U‑turn
Germany’s nuclear exit has become a central issue in domestic politics. Surveys show that two‑thirds of Germans support the continued use of nuclear energy, and more than 40 % favour building new plants. A 2024 report argued that there are no significant technical obstacles to restarting closed reactors and that three units could be back online by 2028 if decommissioning were halted, adding about 4 gigawatts of capacity. The same report noted that a moratorium on dismantling reactors and amendments to the Atomic Energy Act are urgent prerequisites.

During the February 2025 election campaign, conservative leader Friedrich Merz pledged to revive nuclear power and build 50 gas‑fired plants to stabilise the grid. His party’s manifesto proposed an expert review on restarting closed reactors and research into advanced technologies such as small modular reactors. In a surprising political shift, Merz’s government subsequently stopped blocking efforts at the European level to recognise nuclear power as a sustainable investment. At a Franco‑German summit in Toulon, he and French president Emmanuel Macron agreed on the principle of non‑discrimination for nuclear projects in EU financing.

However, the internal debate is far from settled. Katherina Reiche, Germany’s economy and energy minister, ruled out a return to conventional nuclear plants, saying that the phase‑out is complete and that companies lack the confidence to invest. She argued that the opportunity to extend the last three reactors during the crisis had been missed and emphasised the government’s focus on developing a domestic fusion reactor and potentially small modular reactors. Reiche also insisted on a “reality check” for renewable expansion and called for up to 20 gigawatts of new gas‑fired backup capacity. Her position reflects caution within the coalition, and some experts note that restarting closed reactors may face legal and economic hurdles.

Industrial relief and future challenges
High energy costs continue to burden German industry. In November 2025 the ruling coalition agreed to introduce a subsidised power price of five euro cents per kilowatt‑hour for energy‑intensive companies until 2028, pending EU approval. The plan aims to ease the competitive disadvantage faced by manufacturers and includes tendering eight gigawatts of new gas‑fired capacity. Critics argue that subsidies are a stop‑gap and that longer‑term competitiveness requires affordable, low‑carbon baseload power and streamlined permitting for renewable projects.

The Iberian blackout served as a warning that Europe’s future grid must be flexible and resilient. Analysts emphasise the need for more interconnectors, battery storage and demand‑side management to accommodate variable renewables. Germany’s grid reliability remains among the best in Europe, yet the country’s growing dependence on imports and fossil fuels raises concerns about security and climate targets. The energy crisis has revived nuclear energy as a serious option across Europe, forcing policymakers to balance decarbonisation with security of supply. Whether Germany fully embraces nuclear again remains uncertain, but the debate underscores a broader realisation: the energy transition requires a diversified mix of technologies, robust infrastructure and pragmatic policies rather than dogma.



Featured


Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Да здравствует Украина

Es lebe die Ukraine - Да здравствует Украина - Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Nech žije Ukrajina - Länge leve Ukraina - תחי אוקראינה - Lang leve Oekraïne - Да живее Украйна - Elagu Ukraina - Kauan eläköön Ukraina - Vive l'Ukraine - Ζήτω η Ουκρανία - 乌克兰万岁 - Viva Ucrania - Ať žije Ukrajina - Çok yaşa Ukrayna - Viva a Ucrânia - Trăiască Ucraina - ウクライナ万歳 - Tegyvuoja Ukraina - Lai dzīvo Ukraina - Viva l'Ucraina - Hidup Ukraina - تحيا أوكرانيا - Vivat Ucraina - ขอให้ยูเครนจงเจริญ - Ucraina muôn năm - ژوندی دی وی اوکراین - Yashasin Ukraina - Озак яшә Украина - Živjela Ukrajina - 우크라이나 만세 - Mabuhay ang Ukraine - Lenge leve Ukraina - Nyob ntev Ukraine - Да живее Украина - გაუმარჯოს უკრაინას - Hidup Ukraine - Vivu Ukrainio - Længe leve Ukraine - Živjela Ukrajina - Жыве Украіна - Yaşasın Ukrayna - Lengi lifi Úkraína - Lank lewe die Oekraïne

Stargate project, Trump and the AI war...

In a dramatic return to the global political stage, former President Donald J. Trump, as the current 47th President of the United States of America, has unveiled his latest initiative, the so-called ‘Stargate Project,’ in a bid to cement the United States’ dominance in artificial intelligence and outpace China’s meteoric rise in the field. The newly announced programme, cloaked in patriotic rhetoric and ambitious targets, is already stirring intense debate over the future of technological competition between the world’s two largest economies.According to preliminary statements from Trump’s team, the Stargate Project will consolidate the efforts of leading American tech conglomerates, defence contractors, and research universities under a centralised framework. The former president, who has long championed American exceptionalism, claims this approach will provide the United States with a decisive advantage, enabling rapid breakthroughs in cutting-edge AI applications ranging from military strategy to commercial innovation.“America must remain the global leader in technology—no ifs, no buts,” Trump declared at a recent press conference. “China has been trying to surpass us in AI, but with this new project, we will make sure the future remains ours.”Details regarding funding and governance remain scarce, but early indications suggest the initiative will rely heavily on public-private partnerships, tax incentives for research and development, and collaboration with high-profile venture capital firms. Skeptics, however, warn that the endeavour could fan the flames of an increasingly militarised AI race, raising ethical concerns about surveillance, automation of warfare, and data privacy. Critics also question whether the initiative can deliver on its lofty promises, especially in the face of existing economic and geopolitical pressures.Yet for its supporters, the Stargate Project serves as a rallying cry for renewed American leadership and an antidote to worries over China’s technological ascendancy. Proponents argue that accelerating AI research is paramount if the United States wishes to preserve not just military supremacy, but also the economic and cultural influence that has typified its global role for decades.Whether this bold project will succeed—or if it will devolve into a symbolic gesture—remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the Stargate Project has already reignited debate about how best to safeguard America’s strategic future and maintain the balance of power in the fast-evolving arena of artificial intelligence.

Beijing's new Taiwan playbook

Beijing's military machinery and political ambitions have moved it closer to a point where it could attempt to seize Taiwan by force.  Decades of double‑digit defence spending have yielded advanced amphibious assault vessels, fleets of hypersonic and ballistic missiles and an air force that can saturate airspace around the island.  Naval analysts note that the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s new Type 054B guided‑missile frigates incorporate artificial‑intelligence‑enabled sensors to improve anti‑submarine warfare and fleet air defence and can undertake long‑range escort missions.  Dozens of civilian‑flagged research vessels, operating under the cover of scientific exploration, have spent years mapping the seabed across the western Pacific and as far afield as Guam and Hawaii to improve Chinese submarine navigation and to erode the United States’ traditional advantage in undersea warfare.  Expanded missile launch infrastructure in Xinjiang, featuring scores of launch pads, is intended to increase the survivability of China’s land‑based nuclear forces.Yet despite these capabilities, Beijing has shown little appetite for a near‑term invasion.  A recent threat assessment by the United States’ intelligence community concluded that Chinese leaders do not currently plan to execute an invasion by 2027 and lack a fixed timetable for unification.  Taiwan’s defence ministry concurs that China’s build‑up is relentless but emphasises that deterrence, rather than assumptions about invasion windows, will shape Beijing’s calculations.  Analysts argue that a war would trigger unprecedented economic costs.  Taiwan’s semiconductor industry underpins global technology supply chains and about a fifth of world trade transits the Taiwan Strait.  Any conflict that closed this artery would reverberate through financial markets, manufacturing and energy supplies.  Even without U.S. intervention, Chinese leadership would risk social stability at home if a miscalculated assault stalled or provoked severe sanctions.Against this backdrop, Beijing has refined what some analysts describe as a grey‑zone strategy — a web of coercive measures designed to wear down Taiwan’s morale and manoeuvre it towards “reunification” without firing a shot.  People’s Liberation Army aircraft entered Taiwan’s air defence identification zone more than three hundred times a month after William Lai’s 2024 election, only for the number of incursions to fall sharply in 2026 as planners redistributed sorties to training and maintenance.  China’s coast guard now conducts routine multi‑ship patrols in the restricted waters around Kinmen and Pratas, two Taiwanese‑administered archipelagos close to the mainland, to normalise jurisdictional claims and erode Taiwan’s threat awareness.  As part of the large‑scale “Strait Thunder 2025A” and “Justice Mission 2025” exercises, the People’s Liberation Army practised cutting power and blockading Taiwan’s liquefied natural gas terminals — a rehearsal for imposing energy strangulation during a future crisis.Energy insecurity is a key prong of Beijing’s hybrid approach.  Taiwan imports around 97 percent of its energy, with liquefied natural gas accounting for roughly half of electricity generation.  When war in Iran temporarily choked off shipments through the Strait of Hormuz earlier this year, Chinese‑language social media channels flooded TikTok and Xiaohongshu with ominous videos claiming Taiwan’s gas reserves would expire within a fortnight and extolling “peaceful unification” as the only remedy.  Officials from the Taiwan Affairs Office even offered to supply electricity and gas from the mainland as soon as Taiwan surrendered its sovereignty.  Taiwan’s government countered by publicising the diversification of its imports, increasing strategic reserves and conducting joint navy‑coast‑guard drills to escort fuel tankers through potential blockades.  Such moves aim to reassure citizens and blunt the psychological impact of Beijing’s energy narratives.Political infiltration forms another component of the grey‑zone campaign.  Beijing has long supported parties in Taiwan that advocate a looser relationship with the mainland, but recent cases show a willingness to back actors whose public stance on unification is ambiguous.  Taiwanese courts convicted a former spokesperson for the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) after she accepted funds from Chinese handlers and provided contact lists of government agencies.  Investigators say the case is not isolated: election interference and covert recruitment have targeted both the centrist TPP and elements of the governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).  At the international level, Chinese diplomats persuade or pressure host governments to label Taiwan as a province of China; Taiwan stayed away from this year’s World Trade Organization ministerial in Yaoundé after delegates were issued documents bearing that designation.This cognitive warfare extends to culture and education.  President William Lai has warned that video‑sharing platforms may be used to cultivate the notion that Taiwanese and mainland Chinese people are “one family” and to foster resignation towards annexation.  His administration has banned certain Chinese apps from public‑sector devices and proposed curriculum changes to strengthen civic identity and debunk disinformation.  Opinion polls still show a solid majority of Taiwanese identifying as Taiwanese rather than Chinese, suggesting that Beijing’s narrative campaigns have yet to shift the island’s self‑perception.While China deploys these non‑military tools, Taiwan is struggling to adapt its defence posture.  The DPP has proposed a special budget worth around US$40 billion to procure hundreds of thousands of unmanned systems, develop an integrated air and missile defence network and fund the domestic arms industry.  Opposition parties controlling the legislature have delayed the budget, preferring a smaller package focused on conventional platforms such as artillery and anti‑tank missiles.  Delays threaten to slow deliveries of High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, self‑propelled howitzers and anti‑tank weapons from the United States.  At the same time, Taipei is investing in its first domestically built submarine and plans to upgrade two Dutch‑built boats from the 1980s.  Such measures are meant to raise the cost of aggression and complicate any blockade.Elsewhere in the region, countries are recalibrating their own strategies in anticipation of cross‑strait tensions.  Japan has acquired Tomahawk cruise missiles from the United States and is modifying its destroyers to carry them, signalling a shift towards a counter‑strike doctrine that can threaten missile launch platforms on the Chinese coast.  The Philippines and Japan have agreed to step up military intelligence sharing and have begun negotiating a boundary in their overlapping exclusive economic zones east of Taiwan.  Manila is seeking Japanese anti‑submarine destroyers and anti‑ship missiles to bolster its navy.  Such cooperation, alongside the United States’ continued security commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act, suggests that any attempt by Beijing to seal off the island would face a more coordinated regional response.Seen together, these developments reveal why Beijing may perceive hybrid coercion as “something better” than a risky assault.  China’s ability to project force across the Taiwan Strait has improved markedly, but its leaders recognise that a failed invasion would jeopardise economic growth and political legitimacy.  By combining military modernisation with psychological operations, energy leverage, political interference and calibrated maritime pressure, Beijing hopes to corrode Taiwan’s will and convince its citizens that unification is inevitable.  Whether this strategy succeeds will depend on Taiwan’s resilience, the cohesion of its democratic institutions and the willingness of regional partners to deter aggression.  For now, the contest remains a test not of who can fire the first shot, but of whose vision for the island’s future will ultimately prevail.