By "Europe asks" the article means someone wrote a white paper [1].

Europe's energy strategy–together with Russian and American military adventurism and Chinese economic nationalism–probably puts it into a recession this year. I have a lot of respect for the aims of the European project. But as currently structured, I see no mechanism by which hard decisions can be made.

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

▲

SilverElfin 2 hours ago | parent [-]

By mechanism and structure are you basically saying they’re too slow and bureaucratic to act in time to avoid a recession? Or that there is literally no way for them to revive nuclear for some reason?

	▲	amarant 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There is very little hope. Restarting plants that have been offline for years is not simple, and building new ones is a decades long venture. Either approach would take too long.
	▲	JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> they’re too slow and bureaucratic to act in time to avoid a recession? "The energy imports dependency rate in the EU was 57%, which means that nearly 60% of the EU’s energy needs were met by net imports" [1]. To put that in perspective, Sri Lanka–an island nation–has an import dependency ratio of 60% [2]. A European recession is coming because Europe made wrong decisions in the past. I don't know if there is anything it can do in the short term to fix this. Just, potentially, alleviate the pain. > there is literally no way for them to revive nuclear for some reason? Nuclear's problem in the West is we overregulate it. I'm not seeing a clear way for the EU to fix this problem, barring France striking a deal in exchange for extending its nuclear-weapons umbrella. For nuclear, the EU's veto rules mean between Germany's greens and Hungary's Russophilia, nothing transformative can get done. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/w... [2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.IMP.CONS.ZS?most_rec...