POLAND's ENERGY -WHAT is it? WHERE is it from?

similar to the ENERGY CONSERVATION thread relegated to off topic

Im interested to know what 'powers' Poland (electricity speaking)

What sources are used -are there renewable energy sources and initatives etc?

are people encouraged to save electricity etc.

Coal mostly

vodka

True.

are there wind turbines? hydro plants (dams)? solar?

or is it just coal, gas, oil, nuclear? - linked to any other countries power grid?

I think it is primarily coal but an area of interest would be natural gas. Poland lies at the eastern end of the Permian basin which stretches from the Southern North Sea and contains the natural gas fields of the UK and Holland. The Polish area is comparitively under-explored and it is believed that Poland could contain some 30-40 TCF of natural gas. The exisiting producing areas needs to be re-surveyed by modern seismic.

There are some, but not many.


Mostly coal, but nuclear power plants are going to be built. There also should be new technologies, which let get energy from coal in much cleaner way, possibly also oil from coal.

Wise decision from Poland :)

Mostly coal power. However in the past couple of years Poland and Lithuania have been discussing the construction of a nuclear power plant outside of vilnius - hopefully they go ahead with it (lots of power, clean and maybe they'll shutdown some of those coal plants).

As for renewable/environmentally friendly/solar/wind etc. power plants? Nope. A couple of days ago in the news i heard that Poland, USA and Russia (i think) care least about the environment.

Polish Canuck or may i call Kanadol:)

after Chernobyl all Poland needs is a fukin@ nuclear plant :)

I like radio-active reindeer....how you think Santa flies????

Chernobyl was soviet technology and it was managed in soviet style, you really can't compare it to modern nuclear power plants.

he is correct, no comparasion!

while nuclear energy is safer today than ever, it still has the waste issue (even though storage is better than it was, its still not the greatest)

However, i would disagree with nuclear power on its price. its NOT cost effective to build. No company will build a plant unless the gov't pays for it. (our money)

it takes 7-12 years to build a nuclear power plant


neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm

Half of the problem ? Well that's a big portion. If CO2 plants are being shut down and replaced by nuclear power it does reduce the CO2.

Those "better and quicker means" have one big problem. Can they be developed at all ? Since 70's there has been talk of solar power taking over in next 10 years. It is hasn't happened yet (places like Arizona maybe an exception). Scientists can only do so much.Nuclear power is realistic option, it has no if's and maybe's and speculations.

Nuclear waste can be brought to Finland, we have very stable ground :)

half of the problem of the world (ie cars, planes etc. sorry my coma shoulda been a full stop)


so we should rush into thge first alternative then? thats bad management thinking.

we must explore all alternatives not just the first one that seems ok

there is only one real alternative. We don't know if and when the better energy producing is developed to high enough level. It can take 5, 10,20, 50 or 100 years...

ireland for EG has a HUGE natural resource of the west coast (atlantic) in Renewable energy. (wind & wave technologes)

so much so, its been reported Ireland could actually EXPORT energy we'd have that much to spare! :0

i dont think nuclear is the answer. as an energy yes it very good. but the time to buld is too long.

it costs too much to build

it costs too much to maintain

it costs too much to dispose of waste (safely even more :))

it costs too much to decommission

This is why for eg the UK is trying to get out of Nuclear Fuels as a source of power.
(its doesnt even supply 10% of its energy needs!)

Ireland is different from Poland (or Finland) both in geography and economy. You don't have so called "big industries" such as forestry that demand much energy. And it winds a lot more in Ireland. :)

What's good for one country may be not so good for others.

First CO2-driven global warming is a scientific fad dreamed up just a few years ago to suit Mrs Thatcher's plans to dismantle the UK's coal industry - she's the one who started the ball rolling by opening the Hadley Centre for Climate Change charged with (and supplied with generous funding) proving that coal was bad (the biggest miner's union was led by a fiery communist), and by setting up the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.

1) I'm not convinced that CO2 is driving climate change
2) Even if it is, money would be far better spent on coping with the effects of climate change
3) One thing is for sure: specialists can out argue non-specialists in any direction they want. a specialist CO2 freak can defeat a non-specialist global warming denier anytime (the term reminds me of holocaust deniers) ... and vice versa!

I second that this whole global warming buisness.....hhhmmmmm its just all a little too staged.

imnot convinced either but im arguing against nuclear on cost effectiveness

It's the thought of trying to maintain the concrete sarcophagus around the nuclear reactor for 200,000 years ...
Hmmm, a bit daunting since human civilization has only been going for around 7,000 or so.
Still, it'll be an off-balance sheet event and memory of the shareholders will have vanished into legend ...
Let's go nuclear and to hell with the planet.
And is it apposite to say that in between times there will be several ice ages? Just try to stop all that ice!! Ha ha ha!

One of the sweet car transformations that has taken place in Poland recently is the conversion to gas. Cars generally lose power, but it is significantly cheaper and it's far better for the environment.

cool,

do many stations sell it?

lol @ kanadol - my family in PL always calls me that!

Sounds like you don't know much about nuclear power. It's ok, not many people do. It's actually very safe here in canada. Canada has its own nuclear plant design (CANDU - read about it - google) which is one of the best designs in the world. Chernobyl wasn't really an accident - commie scientists were doing a very foolish experiment for "show." They by-passed many safety features and were very careless. I don't have time to get into the details but you can google it.

Now obviously wind power (like off the danish coast), solar power, etc. are the safest methods of power generation, they just don't produce enough juice.

How do i know this you ask? I used to work in a nuclear plant as an engineer!


Nuclear plants are very profitable. Yes the gov't has to help finance the (10 year long) construction but when it starts producing electricity it also produces lots of $$$. Americans want to build these plants and so does my provinces gov't.

Awww......you've got radioactive sperm :(

Look at it this way.....you'll have Hulk babies and can make your own army :)

Hahaha. I'll start a race of super humans.

Actually most people at the plant are exposed to more radiation from their TV's at home than they do at work.

I know. I was just kidding. I've been to a nuclear power plant....well outside of one :)

a closed one.........

Gas loadsa gas in Poland, even their Politicians produce it.:)