Energy - Poland

One of them is about 50km away from a coal mine which I don't think is very far considering the size of Poland.


I can only speak for Ireland and we're a weird lot - we don't like the term 'drought'. That would be far too extreme. It's called 'a dry spell' ;-)

50 km is enough for a mine to have a minimal influence on ground waters

You're right. In this particular case, there's a direct geological and topographic connection.


What's your link to mining? Mine (excuse the pun) is a little dated since technical college in the 80s however the principles change as slowly as geology itself.

You couldn't be more wrong - coal mining involves the use of colossal amounts of water. Here's a link:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136481521000201X

TLDR: About a ton of water is needed to mine a ton of coal. In a typical operation, 250 liters of this would be freshwater, while the rest is recirculated. During the actual mining process water is needed to cool the cutting surfaces of mining equipment, and for preventing coal dust fires. During the processing stage water is again needed to manage coal dust as its crushed and ground. Often, the coal is then transported as a water-coal slurry by pipeline for final processing. Further amounts of water are needed for the general cooling and maintenance of equipment, as well as for providing the needs of the miners themselves.

Yes. This is the bit I know about most, and yes, water is always used. There's a good reason that the processing part (rather than the pit part) of a colliery is almost always on sloping ground ;-)

And there's of course also the role of water in coal-field powergen; the big cooling towers, the inflow/outflow and the steam all have their purpose, and coal-fired power stations tend to be built close to major rivers for a reason.

there is enough ground water in Polish mines as far as I know

Autocorrect messed my last post. Coal-field should read coal-fired. Coal field powergen is a different issue.


Even far too much, as any ful kno.


Which, it seems, is far from either an exhaustive knowledge or direct experience.

I suppose there's always Dr Google.

There is groundwater everywhere, not just inside mines, and that reserve is a finite quantity that needs to be managed wisely. Once water is used, it needs to dumped or treated. This part of the process can "spoil" more water than was used in the direct extraction and processing stage through negligent disposal that contaminates waterways and subsoil aquifers.

if you didn't notice even oceans have limited volume - as for subsoil groundwaters (in areas without mining) they are simply replenished by rainfall - at least here in Europe

You are correct. Those working on the face will have nothing to do at a hydro plant except perhaps pour the concrete during construction. A modern hydro plant operates practically without people, with the great majority of the people involved being high level professionals working at remote control sites.

Fair enoughski :)

But as for water loss from mines, no I'm not confusing it with coal power stations. Most water used in coal mining can't be reused or put back in the system and then there's evaporation of water during mining operations. I don't remember the details because I read it ages ago and I'm not going to consult Dr Google as Jon calls him/her :))

It's a funny thing but I often wonder how many of us would be able to sustain any of these debates if we were down the pub with no smartphones :)

It's a good thing if they can be replenished. Sometimes and in some places, the recovery rates can far exceed recharge rates. Another issue entirely, is making an entire aquifer unusable through its contamination. Negligent disposal of wastewater from coal mining operations can lead to this water penetrating into the water table. This water is highly acidic, and often contains heavy metals such as arsenic and lead. If this happens, it won't matter if it's recharging, since it will not be usable for any human activity.

ok I admit - I have very limited knowledge of how Polish coal mines look like - maybe the ground water they have to get rid of (I suppose you agree there is ground water in Polish mines) is not enough or too poor quality to use directly in mining processes (if it is too poor quality the limitation would be the efficiency of cleansing facilities) - so yeah I don't really know if mines use up water from elsewhere (but I somehow doubt it)

I know though there are ground waters in the mines here in Poland and they need to get rid of it : I just read the first sentences of a document about minining in Silesia and it states this: (google translate is your friend)

" Wraz z wydobyciem złóż węgla kamiennego z kopalń w Górno-śląskim Zagłębiu Węglowym (GZW) nieodzowne jest wytłoczenie na powierzchnię znacznych ilości wód podziemnych, których obecność wynika z poziomej i pionowej strefowości hydrogeochemicznej w obszarze

tego basenu węglowego"

the bolding is mine of course

If anything stands out about the oceans (I sailed back and to between Central America and Scandinavia via Greenland three times while working on the second largest crane vessel in the world) it is that they are bloody big and there is one hell of a lot of water in them.

Well, it's hard to mine underwater (that is not to say this is not done).

...and you do not make the connection between this and the actions of the Grantham Vampire?

I doubt the well-being of the miners or their families was at the forefront of her mind.

There's not that many former faceworkers still alive now. Most died early through pneumoconiosis and other awful illnesses. Kellingley (local to me) was the last deep mine to close and that was mostly automated where possible.

My point was that the miners' demands had made the entities they worked for fundamentally uneconomical. For what it's worth, most of the mines had closed on Atlee's, Macmillan's, and Wilson's watch - while Thatcher simply put that last nail in the coffin. It's not a Tory/Labor thing, but simply coal miner unions getting out of control, but perhaps I am revealing my prejudice here.

People around the world seem to romanticize coal workers, whether it's the UK in the 1970s, Ukraine and Poland now, or Appalachia in the United States. Why is it that this group of people deserves all the grants and subsidies over a metallurgist, merchant sailor, or oil rig operator whose lives are just as fraught with danger and disease, and whose contribution to our collective well being is not less?

There was one entity by then, the NCB, however it wasn't the workers' wish to earn a fair wage that closed them; the coal they produced was of generally high quality and generally cheaper than the imported coal that replaced it. Largely it was political; her backers hated unions and despised the idea of anyone other than them getting the fruits of workers' labour.


It was mostly a good union (the other ones like NACODS were somewhat passive), but King Arthur (a good man but a wrong-headed one) was 'statist' to the point that he closed the NUM's Blackpool convalescent home because he believed that only the state should directly provide healthcare. At the time (I hated the Strike' it was something the 17/18 year old me couldn't escape from) I did think, and think even more now, that the NUM should have bought out the NCB (they could have got it for free) and run it themselves on the John Lewis model. The finance was available, as was the expertise, however politically it was not to be.

I don't fancy another off-topic warning, so I'll end by saying that although I loathe PiS, one of the few positives about them is that for whatever reason they do seem to be supporting the coalfield communities here in Poland.


Me too, however it's refreshing to have a good and positive discussion here with someone whose views differ, rather than just an online row.

Regardless of how efficient British coal mining was, or how good the quality of the coking and thermal coal produced, the burden of funding those pension schemes combined with the early retirement age was unparalleled when compared to other similar operations in other parts of the world. In other words, you are making my argument for me, because why would something be in need of constant support if it provides a higher quality product at a lower cost? Some crucial piece of the puzzle seems to be missing here.

I too am wary of an off-topic warning, so let me reiterate that Poland owes it coal miners only as much as it owes the members of any other industry which has become uneconomical to support - training and support in requalifying themselves for work in other sectors of the economy. I understand that for those over 45 this may be a tall order, and will mean that they will fall to the wayside of society. So be it. The money spent on supporting them in good status, is money that could go to a young engineer, or teacher in increased wages, and I hope there is no debate as to who is able to contribute more value to society - a retired coal miner, or a young teacher.

Yet Germany manages to fund the salaries and pensions of miners.


I'd say it owes coal miners in Poland a bit more than any other industry, unless of course that industry involves severely shortened life-spans and a particularly high injury rate.


Faceworkers of 45 often look and feel 20 years older, sadly.

In a decent society, can anybody of good conscience truly say "so be it" when people fall by the wayside for any reason whatsoever? None of us are an island, and the health, welfare and well-being of even the least of us is a matter for the whole of society. I don't mind paying more tax to lift some families/individuals out of poverty and stop others from falling into it. It's one of those things that distinguish us from the third world.

We're going off-topic a bit, so all I'll say is that if a country replaces a labour-intensive industry like coal with, say, hydro, it owes it to every single member of society not to let the mining etc communities fall by any wayside at all.

They somewhat mysteriously "couldn't afford" salaries and pensions for the miners yet equally mysteriously managed to budget for tax breaks for the well-to-do.

There are strong parallels here with the primary sector and energy supply in Poland. PiS for all their faults are at least looking after those communities as well as they can. When the pits were closed in the UK, most of them were deliberately damaged so they can never, ever be reopened. Although the age of King Coal is dead/dying, I hope Poland does not do that. In a future crisis, they may find pits useful. and there may even be a few people left who know how to work them.

I don't think we are, because questions of labor - as our discussion shows - are intrinsic to questions of energy and energy transitions. What happened to the UK, will inevitably have to happen to Poland. Therefore, we're on subject!

I appreciate the sentiment, but feel you are not giving yourself an honest account of the costs. It's not simply a few points of an increase on your tax bill, which you may be willing to suffer, but real lost opportunities. I actually googled a $ amount right now, it's for the period 2013-2018, and it's $8B that Poland had spent on direct subsidies and grants to the coal industry (including electrical price subsidies, because Poland pays outsize through EU carbon trading scheme). This number does not include the pensions which will have to funded unto the coal miner's death. Can you imagine what this amount of subsides could do in other parts of the country's budget like healthcare and education? Those same coal miners, instead of spending checks for increased consumption of consumer goods, will be receiving better healthcare and more opportunities to retrain. Thousands or tens of thousands of Poles could be sent to the best universities abroad with full scholarships from the Polish state, as many other countries in the world do. The infrastructure that is necessary for the future energy transition could start being built. Instead, Poland supports an enormous dying industry and makes commitments to pay for its workers decades ahead. The young deserve investment just as the old, if not more. I don't like to talk in platitudes like this, but you started.

I also want to make sure you understand I am not arguing against coal-powered generation, but only against mining and the miners. The coal is of higher quality and cheaper when imported from Russia, and supposedly on par when considering Australia or SA. Just as British miners spread out across the world after the death of mining in Britain, so will Polish engineers spread out across myriad sites around the world to share the experience gained over centuries of mining in Poland. Polish universities will continue to have great geology depts and produce great geologists and engineers.

Can we morally 'invest' in one group, while ignoring the needs of others in society?

We aren't Americans and don't have the same 'free-market' ideology that they have over there (poverty stats especially in the south tell a sadder story about that), so why would we adopt similar 'free-market' solutions which we know don't work?

Yes, if society reduces funding in one area, they've got something to spend in another, however in a country the size of Poland, there's enough to go round to make sure everyone has enough.


If someone's been promised a good pension, that promise can either be met or broken. And broken promises eventually surface at the ballot box.

This doesn't always play out the way you say, as in America, for example, voters in their majority rewarded the politicians that promised to dismantle the coal industry. Despite the heartbreak and dislocation it entails, the people in their collective wisdom saw that the pain of a minority cannot threaten the wellbeing of the majority.

edit: reading Coal Mining in the United Kingdom wiki page now, and learning that UK coal production peaked in 1913 at 287 million tonnes. I find this absolutely incredible considering modern Russia mines something on the order of 400mm tonnes. Crazy props to the Brits!

For a decade, then rewarded the other party for a decade. Right now, things seem to be starting to change slowly again, and depopulation of former coalfield areas is after all something that played its part. There *may or may not be a key by-election in the spring in a particularly significant place and observers will be watching the run up and the result very keenly.

*It depends on the outcome of a current jury trial and there are legal reasons not to comment publicly before a verdict is reached. PM me if you're interested.


Me too, however I suppose the population was lower in 1913. It's still a mystery though, since nearly all industry was steam powered and heavy industry is a massive user of power.

I wonder what the Russians do with it all.

@jon357
I meant incredible in its sheer amount. We're talking about modern Russia, which whatever you think about it has more industry, and its population uses more electrical appliances, than England 110 years ago. Russia is just a much larger country with a very large and coal hungry metallurgical industry, great demand for coal in thermal power generation, and then also a large exporter. It's one of the modern world's largest producers along with China, the US, and Australia. It's why I used it as a close example. Given that more than a 100 years have gone by since, it's incredible that what the UK did in 1913 can still even be compared. Shows how far ahead of the world it was at the time, and also how much was lost through WW1.

Huge, isn't it, now I think about it. What I first noticed was indeed the contrast rather than the 1913 amount.

To give some perspective, Attercliffe Road in Sheffield (a road near Sheffield city centre with several big steelworks, Steeleye Span sung about it) was so brightly illuminated from the furnaces that it really did feel like night was day, as the song lyrics went. When I was a kid I used to find it fascinating to see. All the main buildings still in use in the 80s were pre-1914 and all would have been powered with coal. I suppose most of the electricity used by the steelworks near where I live in Warsaw ultimately comes from coal, and of course the heavier the industry, the more power it generally uses.

All though steel output in Sheffield is now higher than it ever was back in the 80s, it involves far less labour and a huge amount of electricity. When we think about Poland's energy needs, perhaps people sometimes forget how much is used in industry as opposed to domestic use which is relatively small.


Yes. Apparently we borrowed a fortune in money from other countries in order to loan it to Tsarist Russia. You can imagine the rest of the story.

we cannot rely on Russians to supply us for political reasons (the same reasons why Poland is trying to end dependency on Russian gas) - also if you didn't notice the price of coal on the world markets fluctuates heavily - the current price on the european markets is around 200 dollars per ton (and it was less than 125 $ at the end of June) - at the same time Polish power plants buy Polish coal at less than 60 dollars a ton

Ok. That means Polish coal producers are losing $140 on every ton mined in lost profit (this is probably in a context where the cost of extraction is also higher in Poland than it is in the largest exporting countries). In today's global market, these kind of artificial greenhouse conditions can only be sustained by the state. This doesn't come without a cost. That cost is subsidies. Who pays for these subsidies is the Polish retail and industrial consumer of energy.