It's simple. From an economic standpoint, nuclear power is cost-competitive with other types of electricity generation unless the country has direct access to low-cost fossil fuel options. In addition, on a Levelized Cost of Energy basis (LCOE), a nuclear power reactor offers multiple advantages in terms of security, reliability, and very low greenhouse gas emissions over its lifetime. Does this sound like the perfect energy source? Perhaps. However, some costs cannot be repaid with money.

Never before in Poland's history has social support for the construction of a nuclear power plant been so high – in a 2006 survey (CBOS), the percentage of those opposing nuclear energy was as much as 56%; currently, it is only 15% (IBRiS). This change is due to increased prices and the desire to become fully energy independent from Russia. Individually, many Poles believe that this switch to nuclear power will translate into personal profit, i.e., lower electricity bills. But this change in perception is not just because the war beyond Poland's eastern border. Education levels among Poles is about to reach European levels, and environmental awareness about the need to move away from fossil fuels (including coal) is also growing. So far, Polish society has been restrained by fears surrounding the use of nuclear power. In 1986, the accident at the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, not far from the Polish border, paralyzed the societies of Central and Eastern Europe for three decades. Fears of a recurrence of this type of event blocked any political action on this issue for years. Putting this incident into context, it is interesting to consider that in the year of the Chernobyl accident, the construction of a Polish power plant was already underway in Żarnowiec (Poland). It was never completed. Since 1986, the issue of nuclear energy has never again been successfully raised in Poland. "Meltdown" was one of these annoying buzzwords that easily aroused anxiety.

Nevertheless, times do change. A bottom-up energy revolution is currently taking place in Poland, and renewable energy sources are gaining more and more support. People are even increasingly investing in photovoltaic installations for their homes. But, unfortunately, more is needed to support the energy security of the entire country. Nuclear energy's potential is excellent, and, in 20 years, forecasts say, it could meet 25% to 40% of Polish demand, depending on the specificity of the plan for investments and the successful construction of plants in the country.

Clearly, nuclear power plants are not a short-term solution to Poland's need for energy security. Nuclear energy will take a dozen years to come online as a power source. Three nuclear power plants are to be built in Poland. Two of them are already being planned and will be equipped with two reactors with a capacity of 1 to 1.6 GW each. The third plant is still in the conceptual stage. Construction of the first is to begin in 2026. The first reactor will be launched by 2033, and the next after two years. One of these power plants will be built in the north of Poland, near Żarnowiec. The second power station will be built in Pątnów on the outskirts of Konin or in Bełchatów. Today, Poland relies upon power plants powered by brown coal, which is highly harmful to the environment. Investing in nuclear energy is challenging and costly relies upon several factors besides business, long-term plans, and construction facilities; it also depends on the diplomacy and alliances necessary for obtaining and implementing the technology. A country like Poland needs a reliable partner. It will not be the Germans. They are seeking the denuclearization of the continent and are phasing out their own power plants in exchange for a stronger focus on renewable energy sources.

Poland has a valid agreement on cooperation in the nuclear energy sector with the US, but plenty of offers are on the table. Potential partners include the United States – the US government together with the energy company Westinghouse and the construction giant Bechtel; Korea – together with the KHNP concern in cooperation with the energy company ZE PAK, the owner of Polsat Zygmunt Solorz and the energy concern PGE; and France – together with the EDF concern. As the process develops, several political groups will continue to pursue different interests. The cheapest (Korea's) solution does not have to win. Even though the French one is more expensive, cooperation with the French lobby may help in the fight for EU funds. Also, Poles are closer to European nuclear technologies.

 Politicians are interested in the short-term perspective – their goal may be that Poland implements all three concepts at once – American, French, and Korean. However, this is not an optimal solution. For example, in the US, different states with nuclear power plants using the same technology (Westinghouse) have formed companies to solve problems jointly, including purchasing and maintaining spare parts. They also share analyses of reactor safety systems. Plant maintenance also involves solving costly issues related to potential failures associated with aging equipment – thus, the analyses of one plant are helpful for the others and reduce overall costs for all. If three different technologies are implemented, this will all have to be done individually, including purchasing spare parts, building simulators, and training reactor operators. Positive scale effects in nuclear energy are visible at very low volumes.

Many things can go wrong with this rollout. And if they can, they will. Public investment at this scale increases the opportunity for corruption and potentially massive problems in implementing the plan effectively. Even the French and Americans are struggling to complete their last power plants at home: it's easy to find information about problems in every nuclear energy project: bankruptcies, company withdrawals, overscheduled budgets, and many missed deadlines. Besides, we cannot know the future, and it may turn out that in coming years, we will face another technological revolution, as it was in the case of solar panels–hence there is a risk that the costs of building a nuclear power plant will outweigh the potential benefits. However, considering current factors, it seems that nuclear energy is at least worth a try. Although it is hoped that any risks of failure will be accounted for, as they could be devastating.