IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sgh/gosnar/y2015i1p27-54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Czy rozwijać energetykę jądrową w Polsce?

Author

Listed:
  • Andrzej T. Szablewski

Abstract

Przedstawiony artykuł jest głosem w dyskusji na temat celowości rozwijania w Polsce energetyki jądrowej. Zaprezentowano w nim krytyczne spojrzenie na dotychczasowe podejście kręgów rządowych do rachunku opłacalności tego rodzaju energetyki, w którym po pierwsze, pomija, albo przynajmniej nie docenia się konsekwencji, jakie dla tego rachunku ma liberalizacja sektora elektroenergetycznego, po drugie, mimo szybko rosnących w rzeczywistości kosztów budowy wielkoskalowych elektrowni jądrowych ciągle przyjmuje się założenie, że będą one systematycznie maleć oraz po trzecie, nie uwzględnia się, bądź bagatelizuje znaczenie różnego rodzaju ryzyka, które w ostatnich latach zaczyna narastać. Oznacza to potrzebę przeniesienia punktu ciężkości w rachunku opłacalności z pytania, jaki będzie przyszły koszt wytwarzania energii elektrycznej w elektrowniach jądrowych na pytania o: a) rozmiar nakładów na ich budowę, b) czy i po jakim koszcie uda się sfinansować ich budowę, w sytuacji, gdy stale rośnie stopień niepewności, co do stopnia przyszłej konkurencyjności kosztowej wielkoskalowej energetyki jądrowej w stosunku do innych technologii wytwarzania elektrycznej i c) czy w związku z tym ich budowa będzie w interesie gospodarstw domowych i będzie sprzyjać konkurencyjności gospodarki. Zasadniczym celem artykułu jest identyfikacja – na podstawie analizy literatury przedmiotu – głównych źródeł ryzyka budowy nowych elektrowni jądrowych po to, aby uzasadnić tezę, że stale rosnący rozmiar tego ryzyka podważa ekonomiczny sens ich budowy w krajach, które weszły na drogę rynkowej transformacji sektorów elektroenergetycznych. Dotyczy to zwłaszcza tych krajów, które – tak jak Polska – zamierzają dopiero wejść na drogę rozwoju tego rodzaju energetyki.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrzej T. Szablewski, 2015. "Czy rozwijać energetykę jądrową w Polsce?," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 1, pages 27-54.
    • Handle: RePEc:sgh:gosnar:y:2015:i:1:p:27-54
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.journalssystem.com/gna/pdf-100815-33080
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kunsch, Pierre L. & Friesewinkel, Jean, 2014. "Nuclear energy policy in Belgium after Fukushima," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 462-474.
    2. Stephen Littlechild, 2008. "Some Applied Economics of Utility Regulation," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 43-62.
    3. Fam, Shun Deng & Xiong, Jieru & Xiong, Gordon & Yong, Ding Li & Ng, Daniel, 2014. "Post-Fukushima Japan: The continuing nuclear controversy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 199-205.
    4. Pierre Louis Kunsch & Jean Friesewinkel, 2014. "Nuclear energy policy in Belgium after Fukushima," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/189447, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Holt, Lynne & Sotkiewicz, Paul & Berg, Sanford, 2010. "Nuclear Power Expansion: Thinking about Uncertainty," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 26-33, June.
    6. Wodka, Nancy A. & Zelermyer, Salo L., 2010. "Using the Nuclear Option to Find Middle Ground on Energy Policy," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 19-26, May.
    7. Verbruggen, Aviel, 2008. "Renewable and nuclear power: A common future?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4036-4047, November.
    8. Boccard, Nicolas, 2014. "The cost of nuclear electricity: France after Fukushima," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 450-461.
    9. John Vickers & George Yarrow, 1988. "Privatization: An Economic Analysis," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262720116, December.
    10. Space, William, 2006. "Nuclear Power and Climate Change: Aspects of the Current Debate," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 73-82, July.
    11. Portugal Pereira, Joana & Troncoso Parady, Giancarlos & Castro Dominguez, Bernardo, 2014. "Japan's energy conundrum: Post-Fukushima scenarios from a life cycle perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 104-115.
    12. Paul L. Joskow & John E. Parsons, 2012. "The Future of Nuclear Power After Fukushima," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zeng, Ming & Wang, Shicheng & Duan, Jinhui & Sun, Jinghui & Zhong, Pengyuan & Zhang, Yingjie, 2016. "Review of nuclear power development in China: Environment analysis, historical stages, development status, problems and countermeasures," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1369-1383.
    2. Zimmermann, Florian & Keles, Dogan, 2022. "State or market: Investments in new nuclear power plants in France and their domestic and cross-border effects," Working Paper Series in Production and Energy 64, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Industrial Production (IIP).
    3. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2015. "Japanese fuel mix strategy after disaster of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant: Lessons from international comparison among industrial nations measured by DEA environmental assessment in time hori," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(PA), pages 87-103.
    4. Kan, Xiaoming & Hedenus, Fredrik & Reichenberg, Lina, 2020. "The cost of a future low-carbon electricity system without nuclear power – the case of Sweden," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    5. Zimmermann, Florian & Keles, Dogan, 2023. "State or market: Investments in new nuclear power plants in France and their domestic and cross-border effects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    6. Magazzino, Cosimo & Mele, Marco & Schneider, Nicolas, 2021. "A D2C algorithm on the natural gas consumption and economic growth: Challenges faced by Germany and Japan," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    7. Hong, Sanghyun & Bradshaw, Corey J.A. & Brook, Barry W., 2014. "Nuclear power can reduce emissions and maintain a strong economy: Rating Australia’s optimal future electricity-generation mix by technologies and policies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 712-725.
    8. Segantin, Stefano & Testoni, Raffaella & Zucchetti, Massimo, 2019. "The lifetime determination of ARC reactor as a load-following plant in the energy framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 66-75.
    9. Kharecha, Pushker A. & Sato, Makiko, 2019. "Implications of energy and CO2 emission changes in Japan and Germany after the Fukushima accident," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 647-653.
    10. Mariola Piłatowska & Andrzej Geise, 2021. "Impact of Clean Energy on CO 2 Emissions and Economic Growth within the Phases of Renewables Diffusion in Selected European Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-24, February.
    11. Chuanwang Sun & Nan Lyu & Xiaoling Ouyang, 2014. "Chinese Public Willingness to Pay to Avoid Having Nuclear Power Plants in the Neighborhood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-27, October.
    12. Hong, Sanghyun & Bradshaw, Corey J.A. & Brook, Barry W., 2015. "Global zero-carbon energy pathways using viable mixes of nuclear and renewables," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 451-459.
    13. Soytas, Ugur & Magazzino, Cosimo & Mele, Marco & Schneider, Nicolas, 2022. "Economic and environmental implications of the nuclear power phase-out in Belgium: Insights from time-series models and a partial differential equations algorithm," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 241-256.
    14. Wang, Ge & Zhang, Qi & Mclellan, Benjamin C. & Li, Hailong, 2016. "Multi-region optimal deployment of renewable energy considering different interregional transmission scenarios," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 108-118.
    15. Armin Leopold, 2016. "Energy related system dynamic models: a literature review," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 24(1), pages 231-261, March.
    16. Jin, Taeyoung & Kim, Jinsoo, 2018. "What is better for mitigating carbon emissions – Renewable energy or nuclear energy? A panel data analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 464-471.
    17. Verbruggen, Aviel, 2013. "Belgian nuclear power life extension and fuss about nuclear rents," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 91-97.
    18. Portugal-Pereira, J. & Ferreira, P. & Cunha, J. & Szklo, A. & Schaeffer, R. & Araújo, M., 2018. "Better late than never, but never late is better: Risk assessment of nuclear power construction projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 158-166.
    19. Rinne, Sonja, 2018. "Radioinactive: Are nuclear power plant outages in France contagious to the German electricity price?," CIW Discussion Papers 3/2018, University of Münster, Center for Interdisciplinary Economics (CIW).
    20. Kosai, Shoki & Yamasue, Eiji, 2019. "Recommendation to ASEAN nuclear development based on lessons learnt from the Fukushima nuclear accident," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 628-635.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    energetyka jądrowa; liberalizacja energetyki; ryzyko budowy nowych elektrowni jądrowych; nowe technologie;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • L52 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Industrial Policy; Sectoral Planning Methods

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sgh:gosnar:y:2015:i:1:p:27-54. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Grzegorz Konat (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sgwawpl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.