Nuclear nation?

Experts agree that Poland's dependence on coal will have to end sooner or later, but some question the value of spending billions of euro on what could be a white-elephant project. Meanwhile, a 24-hour blackout in Szczecin has highlighted the need for investment not only in Poland's energy future, but its present as well. Zbigniew Kamieński, the head of the Energy Department at the Ministry of Economy, announced last week that Poland was planning to build its own nuclear energy plant. The government has started work on a new energy strategy and it is likely that the nuclear plant will be one of the strategy's key points.   The Ministry of Economy foresees that Poland's nuclear plant could be built within 12-15 years. According to the ministry's initial plans, energy from the plant would come online between 2021-2025. Details of the project, along with the government's total energy strategy, should be ready at the end of June 2008. After consultations with the relevant organizations, if the government accepts the policy document it will go to the Sejm.   No decision has been made yet about where the plant could be constructed. Several locations are under consideration though, including Żarnowiec in the Pomorskie voivodship, where construction of a previous nuclear reactor was  attempted from 1982-1990. The project was not completed due to protests, mainly connected with fears of a nuclear disaster after the Chernobyl explosion.   "In the late 1990s, there was also a plan to build a nuclear plant in Silesia, where the largest demand for energy is. But to build a nuclear plant a large water basin is necessary. In Silesia this could be a problem," said Daria Kulczycka, an energy expert at business advocacy group PKPP Lewiatan.   The most expensive option   The cost of building a new nuclear power plant is estimated at several billion euro, and not everyone is convinced the money would be well spent. Moreover, Poland has already committed itself to a joint venture with the Baltic States to construct a new nuclear plant in Ignalina, Lithuania, from which it would later draw energy.   "In my opinion [a new plant] is not the most urgent energy investment, considering Poland's energy needs," said Kulczycka. "This is only one of several ways to diversify energy supply in Poland and it is a really costly investment. It would be impossible for the state budget to cover such a large investment on its own. The government should consider whether there are not other, cheaper ways to produce energy from conventional sources at the moment," Kulczycka said.   Magdalena Zowsik, energy department coordinator at Greenpeace Poland, agreed the plan was too costly. "A nuclear plant generates a small amount of energy in comparison to its initial costs. With just a quarter of the funds [zł.1 billion of a total zł.4 billion] needed to finance Poland's part of the Ignalina nuclear plant construction, the country could build the infrastructure needed to reach EU requirements for renewable energy usage in 2010," she said.   To comply with EU law, 7.5 percent of Poland's energy needs to come from renewable sources by 2010. By 2020, renewable sources should account for 15 percent. "Investing in green energy has another advantage: Most investment costs can be covered from EU funds or by private investors," Zowsik pointed out.   Among the other arguments against nuclear energy is dependency on other countries for nuclear fuel, but PKPP's Kulczycka said, "We don't have to worry about dependency on other countries for our Uranium supply. There are a lot of countries that produce it."   The emissions argument   According to the ministry, the most important reason to build a nuclear plant is to cut CO2 emissions, a necessity given EU requirements. The government sees two ways to solve this problem - import energy from countries outside the EU or build a nuclear plant.   Greenpeace's Zowsik disagreed that there were only two options, citing renewable energy. "Huge investments in a nuclear plant mean that there will be a lack of funds in investments for the decrease of CO2 emissions," she said. "The government should focus on renewable energy sources. To build a wind farm requires only a few years, while it usually takes 20 years to start operation of a nuclear plant, including both construction work and administrative procedures. And a nuclear plant has never opened on time," she said.   With the carbon limits imposed on Poland by the EU, CO2 emissions are considered by many to be the largest problem facing both the economy and energy sector. The country is expected to reduce its present-day CO2 emissions by 40 percent by the end of 2020. "If it turns out that a nuclear plant is the cheapest way to decrease CO2 emissions, then we should build it," said Kulczycka.   Coal today, gone tomorrow   Most of Poland's energy currently comes from conventional sources, with some 90 percent from coal, both medium-quality bituminous and poor-quality lignite. Experts are split on the role coal should play in the country's future, however.   "Poland has one of the highest energy security levels in EU, due to its own coal supplies. It should take advantage of this and invest in clean coal technologies to produce energy," said Andris Piebalgs, EU Energy Commissioner.   On the other hand, PKPP Lewiatan's Kulczycka pointed out that Poland's dependence on coal is too strong. "Nuclear energy could free the country from a strong and problematic coal lobby," she said.   Speaking on condition of anonymity, a member of management at the Polish Energy Group told WBJ that investment in nuclear energy was necessary for Poland's future energy security. "Poland's bituminous coal supply will be exhausted in 20-30 years, lignite may last a bit longer - and when the coal is finished, our power will go off," the source said. "That is why we have to do something. We basically do not have any other choice than nuclear energy."   Poland's energy needs are expected to double by 2030. "One nuclear plant will cover around five percent of Poland's future needs. To improve the country's energy safety and secure economic growth, we will need several nuclear plants," the source concluded.   It's the infrastructure, stupid   PKPP Lewiatan's Kulczycka agreed, but called for caution. "In general, Poland needs a nuclear plant, perhaps more than one, but the most pressing thing at the moment is the financial calculation and analysis of the present situation. We need to consider how we will spend our funds and whether this is the best way to solve Poland's energy problems," she said. "First of all, the energy network and existing energy plants need immediate repair and renovation."   This statement was dramatically confirmed last week in the Zachodniopomorskie voivodship when energy supplies to Szczecin, Goleniów, Police and other regional cities were cut off by a powerful snowstorm. Energy generation, it seems, is not Poland's only pressing problem. Existing infrastructure needs to be rebuilt and repaired, otherwise future investments, including the nuclear plant, are unlikely to help keep the country's lights on.   Convincing the people   Regardless of the government's intentions or Poland's energy needs, the largest challenge facing the nuclear power project is convincing the people of its merits.   Research shows that the majority of Poles are against building a nuclear plant in Poland. In January, a survey by GfK revealed that 56 percent of Poles opposed the idea. A negative perception of nuclear energy persists in the country, especially since memories of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster remain strong.   Nuclear waste is also a problem, one which no nation has yet solved. Poland's pro-nuclear camp notes that nearly all of the country's neighbors - with the exception of Belarus - have at least one nuclear plant, and they somehow cope with their toxic waste. In response to such logic, however, Kulczycka said, "We should not build nuclear plants just because our neighbors have them. We need real financial analysis and discussion."