Poll: What is the optimal Czech generation mix, and does it include nuclear? (1/4)

In cooperation with students of Security and Strategic Studies at Masaryk University, we interviewed four figures from different areas of the Czech energy sector. In this series of views on the future of Czech energy, we present their perspectives on the optimal Czech energy balance in the coming years, as well as their views on the construction of new nuclear capacity.

The first respondent whose views we are publishing is Martin Hájek, director of the executive office of the Czech District Heating Association.

The Czech Republic should strive for a balanced balance for three reasons. First of all, in the interests of good neighbourly relations, it is not right to shift our problem onto neighbouring countries, as Germany, for example, likes to do. We should not do to neighbouring countries what we would not like done to us. Secondly, in a real crisis, neighbouring countries can be expected to prioritise their own customers; limitless reliance on solidarity is completely naïve. Thirdly, the import capacity of the Czech transmission system is and will remain limited. If we target a balanced balance, we will have a certain reserve in case not everything goes according to plan. By a balanced balance, I mean the winter months, not the whole year. It is absolute nonsense to think that we can make up for a shortage of electricity in winter with excess generation in summer. We cannot rely on seasonal electricity storage being available by 2050 at the required scale and at acceptable costs; moreover, there is the question of its efficiency.

It is clear that so-called renewable energy sources cannot under any circumstances ensure the requirement for a balanced winter electricity balance in Czech conditions. They will remain a supplementary source for many decades to come. The real choice is therefore between natural gas and nuclear energy. And the decision will be made by elimination. If we fail to build new nuclear units, only gas will remain. Nothing else can cover our winter electricity needs. If we manage to build nuclear units, we can have gas-fired sources to cover peaks and provide flexibility. Gas has a place in the mix in any case. The question is what we will use to generate baseload electricity. If we want nuclear units, our timetable is already very tight. But there is not much time to spare for gas-fired units either. After all, even the preparation of larger wind farms takes 10 years.

I do not feel qualified to assess this; it is a security and political question, not an energy one. However, I see great inconsistency among some opponents of involving the Russian Federation in the construction of a nuclear facility. I would expect that if someone considers the Russian Federation a security risk and therefore rejects its involvement in the construction of a nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic, they would take the same position on imports of natural gas from that country into the EU and the Czech Republic. Surprisingly, this is not the case in many instances, and then it is necessary to ask about the reasons for the differing approach.

Any major infrastructure project is economically risky, and it makes no difference whether it is a nuclear power plant or, for example, an international airport. The risks are construction delays and budget overruns, so these are the risks that need to be addressed; moreover, they are interconnected. Their treatment depends on the overall construction model, and this is a complex issue that cannot be resolved in two sentences.

The Czech Republic needs to fundamentally address the security of electricity generation as early as 2030, and no later than 2035. Given this timeframe, no significant technological progress can be relied upon. Preparation for construction must begin essentially immediately, whether it involves a large wind farm, a large combined-cycle gas power plant or a nuclear power plant. All of these projects have preparation periods of 10 years or more, so it is high time. Technological progress may lead to modifications of the project during preparation, but given the time factor, it can have virtually no impact on the decision to build capacity.