Subject: Re: How Europe wrecked itself
In that they never switched from Russian energy, I agree. They didn't do anything. Though it isn't entirely reliable given that Russia is in a war, and pipelines and tankers are vulnerable.

They didn't do the Net Zero thing, and your statement of "unreliable" in this context isn't related to the energy type under discussion. Hungary didn't slave themselves to wind and solar power, so they're not in the same boat as the rest of Europe.

As noted in more reliable articles (WSJ is a Murdoch rag),

Poisoning the Well logical fallacy. You dislike the conclusions of the article so you dismiss it by invoking the Boogeyman. *And* you didn't cite any additional sources. Here, let's go get some:

https://www.staffingindustry.c...
The euro area’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose to 6.4% in October 2025, up from 6.3% in October 2024, while the EU unemployment rate was 6%, up from 5.8% in October 2024, according to Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union.

Compare this with the US rate of 4.4%.

And even this is yet another red herring because the crux of the article is about the fate of Europe's heavy industries and their supply/pricing of electricity.

You're not even bothering to ack what the article says, which means you've made up your mind and there's no changing it, data be damned.

And Russia is NOT a red herring. The EU was importing lots of Russian energy prior to 2022. The "greenies" were not getting their way. After 2022, the EU made a concerted effort to get off of Russian energy. It's quite well documented if you care to look for yourself. There are associated costs with that, and it was ahead of when the EU really wanted to do it. They had a phased plan, but that mostly went out the window when Putin attacked Ukraine.

Yes it is. The fact of the matter is that Germany turned off several of its nuke plants
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/1...

Oh, wait! Sorry, they shut them *all* down. In 2023. Meaning...they had no other source of power.

The "Greenies" not getting their way? Who do you think has been driving European energy policy for years? The Greenies.

They never had a "phased" plan. That's the point. They turned off their old sources before they could replace the energy output, a really stupid mistake. Russia being Russia didn't force the Germans to turn off their nuke plants. That's the factoid that nukes your counterargument from orbit.

China is being smart about it, planning for the future. That's right, a future where they supply the cheap solar cells and all the rare earth deposits for magnets with the rest of the world a captive customer. Sheesh.

Germany's decisions were based on a valid concern about handling nuclear waste, the fear of a Chernobyl event (which couldn't happen in a water-moderated reactor, but most people don't know that),

Chernobyl was a water cooled reactor that relied on pressurized water. German reactors are boiling water designs. They're fundamentally different. As in, completely. The accident at Chernobyl was based on their design principles (which German reactors don't follow).

the Green Party didn't make those decisions (a quick check shows they only got 12% of the vote, which is not enough to set policy).

Sigh. That's not how parliamentary systems function. The Greens have been a part of governing coalition twice. And their energy policies are very similar to the Greens: all the way back in the 1980s the SD's wanted nukes gone.