4 ms·

Different places change at different rates. One thing that will happen, however, is that as some of the big coal customers switch, the economies of scale for c

Different places change at different rates. One thing that will happen, however, is that as some of the big coal customers switch, the economies of scale for coal production change, and it becomes even more expensive. So, coal will eventually become too pricey even for places like Poland, even though "Poland" does not bring to mind "summer skies where solar would be competitive" (I may be biased as I've only ever visited Poland around Christmastime).

oppositelock 7y ago
Poland's only local energy source is coal, which is why they're so set on using it. Natural gas comes mainly from Russia, and they don't have the capital for nuclear. Solar isn't a good option in Poland due to the long winter nights, and it's not a particularly windy country for wind generation.
- xxpor 7y ago
  >they don't have the capital for nuclear I find that kind of hard to believe.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    You find it hard to believe that one of Europe's poorer countries has trouble finding the €20bn over 10 years it will cost? The UK is having trouble affording that for Hinckley C.
    - xeeeeeeeeeeenu 7y ago
      Poland isn't "one of Europe's poorer countries" and many countries that operate nuclear power plants are poorer than Poland (such as: Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, India, Iran, Mexico, Pakistan, Romania, South Africa, Turkey, Ukraine)
      - piva00 7y ago
        I wouldn't throw Brazil in there, Brazil has barely 2 functioning reactors (Angra I and Angra II) with the third one being stalled since 1984, restarted in 2007 and so far has no hope of being finished in time (announced for 2020 but now waiting investments to continue development).
    - noir_lord 7y ago
      We don't have trouble affording it in the UK, we have trouble with the morons in charge wanting to do it arse about face. The smart way would be to commission half a dozen state of the art designs (the 2nd is cheaper easier than the first and so on) over a decade, the French did 15 reactors in about a decade and economies of scale and expertise make each successor simpler. We desperately need more baseload supply to supplement on the ongoing renewables switch, the grid is is operating on the slimmest safety factor I can recall.
  - oppositelock 7y ago
    I grew up in rural Poland, and still visit frequently. Trust me, it's really poor. It does a great job of presenting itself as richer than it is, but leave one of the metro areas like Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk, whatever, and you see people living in what would be considered abject poverty in the US. It can barely keep its existing infrastructure working well.
- zeckalpha 7y ago
  Long winter nights are usually offset by long summer days.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    ...and your peak demand for energy is heating in the winter. Not convenient if you have to somehow store all that energy from summer for use in winter. Though I guess Poland is still heated by NG, even if it’s coming from Russia. Heating with electricity is pretty inefficient.
    - Robotbeat 7y ago
      Heating with electricity is plenty efficient if using heat pumps. In fact, a very high efficiency natural gas advanced combined cycle plant providing electricity to heat pump heaters with a COP of 2.5 or better (often 3 or more) is actually more energy efficient than burning the natural gas for heat directly, as crazy as that seems. But yeah, finding clean sources of electricity in winter is a challenge for a place like Poland. Poor hydroelectric resource. Only modest geothermal potential. Modest solar (not good for winter load). But wind potential isn't too bad in the north of the country and in the Baltic Sea. Nuclear power should be considered, however, as it is in Finland.
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        I’ve never heard of heat pumps being used in say an apartment building that tend to dominate these sorts of locales, but perhaps that’s just because the technology is new and the buildings are old? Nuclear has super high capital costs that usually must be subsidized by the state (and insurance definitely needs to be subsidized). Not to mention corruption has to be low enough that a disaster doesn’t occur. I can see less developed countries not being able to take this route.
- adrianN 7y ago
  They have wind and sun just like Germany.
- lacogubik 7y ago
  They definitely have enough capital for nuclear. Their neighbours, Slovakia and Czechia, both have quite significant nuclear installations. Czechia generates 34% [1] of electricity from nuclear and Slovakia 52% [2]. Slovakia is finishing expansion of one of their nuclear power plants (Mochovce), which will add 2 more reactors - each with ability to deliver 13% of total country consumption [3]. Both Slovakia and Czechia are bit more "richer" than Poland (if you look at GDP (PPP) per capita), however Poland is much bigger economy - 5x size of Slovakia. My guess is that because so far they had so much coal (largest reserves in Europe [4]), it was no brainer for them. However they are now in the process of commissioning nuclear power plant and plan to generate power from nuclear by 2033 [4] [1] https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energetika_v_Česku#Výroba_elektřiny https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energetika_v_Česku#Výroba_elek... (second row - Jadro - is nuclear) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Slovakia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Slovakia [3] https://www.seas.sk/mochovce-3-4-npp https://www.seas.sk/mochovce-3-4-npp [4] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/poland.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
  - rossdavidh 7y ago
    Nuclear may have some of the same issues as coal, in that if its use declines worldwide it becomes more expensive for you to keep using it. Not to mention the historical baggage associated with it.
CalRobert 7y ago
Wind would be more likely I'd think?
KptMarchewa 7y ago
You're assuming Polish government approaches this as an economic problem.
clomond 7y ago
While this is correct, it doesn't factor in that most of Poland/eastern Europe's coal electricity generation is sourced from often nearby lignite mines separate from the global commodity system (lignite = brown coal, the dirtiest least, efficient coal type). So the real economic force that will likely have an effect here is the decreasing costs of solar and wind, rather than global commodity price changes as certain markets migrate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mines_in_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mines_in_Poland
healsjnr1 7y ago
I think this economic argument is what is going to kill Australia's economy in about 6 - 10 years time. We are so dead set on maintaining our resource sector, in particular coal, that there seems to be no acknowledge that a crash is coming. Yes, the price is high right now, which is great as a producer. But at some point there will be an inflection: the high price of coal, vs decreasing renewables and improvements to grids will mean coal plants become less and less untenable. The price will crash, we'll be left with a massive oversupply of both the resource and the infrastructure. The communities that pushed for coal mines because they provide employment are going to be left with nothing. In the end, mines like the Adani's Carmichael mine will fail with only a small amount of the resources extracted. This is a great result for the climate, more coal left in the ground, it's just an ass about way of doing it that's going to wreak havoc with our economy.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- i2amsam 7y ago
  From the outside this seems obvious and perplexing why it is being done anyway.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
  This crash hit hard small Estonia right now, the market is open and every technology has become cheaper. The only argument right now keeping it alive is security aspect and not having either good climate nor gas around there. Or money to build my nuclear

oppositelock 7y ago

Poland's only local energy source is coal, which is why they're so set on using it. Natural gas comes mainly from Russia, and they don't have the capital for nuclear. Solar isn't a good option in Poland due to the long winter nights, and it's not a particularly windy country for wind generation.

xxpor 7y ago
>they don't have the capital for nuclear I find that kind of hard to believe.
- pjc50 7y ago
  You find it hard to believe that one of Europe's poorer countries has trouble finding the €20bn over 10 years it will cost? The UK is having trouble affording that for Hinckley C.
  - xeeeeeeeeeeenu 7y ago
    Poland isn't "one of Europe's poorer countries" and many countries that operate nuclear power plants are poorer than Poland (such as: Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, India, Iran, Mexico, Pakistan, Romania, South Africa, Turkey, Ukraine)
    - piva00 7y ago
      I wouldn't throw Brazil in there, Brazil has barely 2 functioning reactors (Angra I and Angra II) with the third one being stalled since 1984, restarted in 2007 and so far has no hope of being finished in time (announced for 2020 but now waiting investments to continue development).
  - noir_lord 7y ago
    We don't have trouble affording it in the UK, we have trouble with the morons in charge wanting to do it arse about face. The smart way would be to commission half a dozen state of the art designs (the 2nd is cheaper easier than the first and so on) over a decade, the French did 15 reactors in about a decade and economies of scale and expertise make each successor simpler. We desperately need more baseload supply to supplement on the ongoing renewables switch, the grid is is operating on the slimmest safety factor I can recall.
- oppositelock 7y ago
  I grew up in rural Poland, and still visit frequently. Trust me, it's really poor. It does a great job of presenting itself as richer than it is, but leave one of the metro areas like Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk, whatever, and you see people living in what would be considered abject poverty in the US. It can barely keep its existing infrastructure working well.
zeckalpha 7y ago
Long winter nights are usually offset by long summer days.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  ...and your peak demand for energy is heating in the winter. Not convenient if you have to somehow store all that energy from summer for use in winter. Though I guess Poland is still heated by NG, even if it’s coming from Russia. Heating with electricity is pretty inefficient.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    Heating with electricity is plenty efficient if using heat pumps. In fact, a very high efficiency natural gas advanced combined cycle plant providing electricity to heat pump heaters with a COP of 2.5 or better (often 3 or more) is actually more energy efficient than burning the natural gas for heat directly, as crazy as that seems. But yeah, finding clean sources of electricity in winter is a challenge for a place like Poland. Poor hydroelectric resource. Only modest geothermal potential. Modest solar (not good for winter load). But wind potential isn't too bad in the north of the country and in the Baltic Sea. Nuclear power should be considered, however, as it is in Finland.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      I’ve never heard of heat pumps being used in say an apartment building that tend to dominate these sorts of locales, but perhaps that’s just because the technology is new and the buildings are old? Nuclear has super high capital costs that usually must be subsidized by the state (and insurance definitely needs to be subsidized). Not to mention corruption has to be low enough that a disaster doesn’t occur. I can see less developed countries not being able to take this route.
adrianN 7y ago
They have wind and sun just like Germany.
lacogubik 7y ago
They definitely have enough capital for nuclear. Their neighbours, Slovakia and Czechia, both have quite significant nuclear installations. Czechia generates 34% [1] of electricity from nuclear and Slovakia 52% [2]. Slovakia is finishing expansion of one of their nuclear power plants (Mochovce), which will add 2 more reactors - each with ability to deliver 13% of total country consumption [3]. Both Slovakia and Czechia are bit more "richer" than Poland (if you look at GDP (PPP) per capita), however Poland is much bigger economy - 5x size of Slovakia. My guess is that because so far they had so much coal (largest reserves in Europe [4]), it was no brainer for them. However they are now in the process of commissioning nuclear power plant and plan to generate power from nuclear by 2033 [4] [1] https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energetika_v_Česku#Výroba_elektřiny https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energetika_v_Česku#Výroba_elek... (second row - Jadro - is nuclear) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Slovakia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Slovakia [3] https://www.seas.sk/mochovce-3-4-npp https://www.seas.sk/mochovce-3-4-npp [4] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/poland.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  Nuclear may have some of the same issues as coal, in that if its use declines worldwide it becomes more expensive for you to keep using it. Not to mention the historical baggage associated with it.

CalRobert 7y ago

Wind would be more likely I'd think?

KptMarchewa 7y ago

You're assuming Polish government approaches this as an economic problem.

clomond 7y ago

While this is correct, it doesn't factor in that most of Poland/eastern Europe's coal electricity generation is sourced from often nearby lignite mines separate from the global commodity system (lignite = brown coal, the dirtiest least, efficient coal type). So the real economic force that will likely have an effect here is the decreasing costs of solar and wind, rather than global commodity price changes as certain markets migrate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mines_in_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mines_in_Poland

healsjnr1 7y ago

I think this economic argument is what is going to kill Australia's economy in about 6 - 10 years time. We are so dead set on maintaining our resource sector, in particular coal, that there seems to be no acknowledge that a crash is coming. Yes, the price is high right now, which is great as a producer. But at some point there will be an inflection: the high price of coal, vs decreasing renewables and improvements to grids will mean coal plants become less and less untenable. The price will crash, we'll be left with a massive oversupply of both the resource and the infrastructure. The communities that pushed for coal mines because they provide employment are going to be left with nothing. In the end, mines like the Adani's Carmichael mine will fail with only a small amount of the resources extracted. This is a great result for the climate, more coal left in the ground, it's just an ass about way of doing it that's going to wreak havoc with our economy.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
i2amsam 7y ago
From the outside this seems obvious and perplexing why it is being done anyway.
9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
This crash hit hard small Estonia right now, the market is open and every technology has become cheaper. The only argument right now keeping it alive is security aspect and not having either good climate nor gas around there. Or money to build my nuclear