









































Energy Security in Poland: Where 
the Energy Sector Falls Short and 

Where It Can Go
Ariyand Amnipour

Volume Two
Edition One
Fall 2021

 
GEORGETOWN SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH JOURNAL

7



Georgetown	Scientific	Research	Journal	

 

 

 

Energy Security in Poland: Where the Energy Sector Falls Short 
and Where It Can Go 
 
Ariyand Amnipour 
 
Department of Biology, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 
Email: ama412@georgetown.edu 
https://doi.org/10.48091/gsr.v2i1.26 

Abstract 

In the aftermath of World War II, Poland rebuilt its energy sector through the use of fossil fuels, thus 
establishing a dependence on coal power. This reliance has slowed its transition to environmentally 
friendly energy sources, leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions. These characteristics of Poland’s 
energy sector serve as a roadblock to diversifying the nation’s energy sources and have subsequently resulted 
in its average energy security and poor environmental sustainability rankings in the top 25 largest on the 
2020 International Index of Energy Security Risk. This ranking highlights the areas of improvement 
necessary for the nation to achieve greater energy security. This paper outlines Poland’s current energy 
security status and provides policy recommendations that the nation’s federal government can employ to 
improve overall energy security by diversifying their energy sources and improving the environmental 
impact of the energy sector.  

Keywords: Poland, Energy Security, Policy 

1. Introduction 
Following World War II, Poland’s economy 

and infrastructure had been devastated due to 
warfare raged across the country. The country had 
been ravaged physically and economically, leading 
to a period of modernization and rebuilding. This 
period created a dependence on coal that is still 
central to the country’s energy sector today.1 

During the 20th century, coal-burning plants and 
factories contributed to the rebuilding of the 
nation’s economy. However, the economically 
favorable outcome of coal reliance has stifled 
Poland’s transition to cleaner energy sources in the 
21st century.1 Poland’s energy security, determined 
by reliability, affordability, and environmental 
impact of energy sources,2 has been negatively 
affected by its reservations about transitioning to 
cleaner energy sources. A lack of progress in energy 
diversification, along with coal’s prominence as a 

part of Poland’s energy supply and economy, have 
contributed to the country’s current energy security 
status and its energy security rating compared to 
other nations.3,4 

2. Energy Security Assessment 
According to the 2020 International Index of 

Energy Security Risk, Poland ranked 11th in the 
world for coal consumption and 10th for coal 
production.3 As of 2020, coal makes up 48% of 
Poland’s current energy mix and 79% of Poland’s 
power generation mix of energy sources.3 Energy 
mix is defined as the combination of direct energy 
use, while power generation mix is defined as the 
combination of energy sources used to generate 
electricity. Coal contributed to the largest 
percentages of Poland’s current energy mix and 
power generation mix.3 Comparatively, natural gas 
makes up 16% of the country’s energy mix and 7%  

8



Georgetown	Scientific	Research	Journal	

 

 

of the nation’s power generation mix.3 Nuclear 
energy did not contribute to Poland’s energy mix 
or power generation mix.3 Moreover, Poland, as of 
2018, was a net importer of petroleum, natural gas, 
and coal, showing dependence on foreign energy 
supplies.3 These factors contributed to Poland’s 
energy security risk score of 967 on the 2020 
International Index of Energy Security Risk 
evaluation.3 Comparatively, the Organization for 
Economic Co-operation and Development 
(OECD) had a group average score of 884.3 To 
give more context to Poland’s energy security risk 
score, Poland’s score ranked 12th out of 25 scores 
associated with countries considered “large energy 
users”.3 

Poland has also been evaluated by the World 
Energy Council and assigned a trilemma score, 
which is an evaluation of the energy security, 
energy equity, and environmental stability of a 
country scored on an A through D scale. Poland 
scored a trilemma score of 70.4 out of 100, with a 
rating of a B in energy security, a B in energy 
equity, and a C in environmental sustainability.4  

Polish energy security ranked 37th out of 101 
countries due to its import dependence, lack of 
electricity generation diversity, and energy storage 
capacity.4 Between 2010 and 2020, Polish import 
dependence has been trending towards more 
importation, which is a threat to energy security 
because foreign suppliers have control over energy 
supply and access.4 Diversification of electricity 
generation was the nation’s second-lowest key 
metric score, well below 35 out of 100, with 100 
being the highest level of possible diversification of 
energy in a country.4 These metrics are determined 
relative to the other nations’ ranking and 
evaluation.4 Due to Poland’s reliance on coal for 
power generation, there is limited use of renewable 
energy sources, natural gas, and nuclear power.3 
Energy storage capacity was found to be below 50 
out of 100,  which indicates a need for 
improvement because the country relies heavily on 
new production or importation of energy, as 
compared to relying on readily available stores. All 
three of these scores factored into an overall energy  

security score of 62.7 out of 100.4  
The energy equity of the country, which is 

defined by accessibility and affordability, was an 
obvious strength of their energy sector at 84.7 out 
of 100. This metric explains Poland’s relatively 
higher trilemma score, as well as its B grade in 
energy equity.4  As of 2020, Poland scored a 100% 
in access to electricity, demonstrating that an 
overwhelming majority of citizens have access to 
electricity.4 Electricity prices also scored in the 90s, 
which shows electricity is provided at affordable 
prices to the population.4 However, this 
affordability is almost overshadowed by the 
nation’s environmental stability performance; the 
country ranked 63rd out of 108 countries with a 
score of 65.9 out of 100 in environmental 
sustainability.4 A major indicator of its poor score 
is its low metric of electricity generation from 
decarbonized sources; this is by far Poland’s lowest 
key indicator score, falling below 25.4 This metric 
contributes to Poland’s C rating in environmental 
sustainability.4 

3. Domestic Energy Ambitions 
Poland is currently trying to implement 

policies that increase energy security through 
domestic energy initiatives and transitions to 
cleaner energy sources.5 This can be seen in the 
federal government’s plans of Poland’s Energy 
Policy by 2030 (PEP2030), which has since been 
updated to PEP2040.6 

PEP2040, officially released in 2020, plans to 
reduce coal reliance by cutting the fuel from 80% 
to 60% of the national power generation mix; this 
will then be followed by an ambitious decline to 
22% by 2040.6 This reduction in coal reliance is 
fueled by planned investment in new energy 
sources such as nuclear energy. The Ministry of 
Energy expects to have six new nuclear plants 
producing domestic energy, with the first being 
launched in 2033; each subsequent plant will 
launch every two years until 2043 to produce a total 
capacity of 6-9 Gigawatts.7 The government plans 
to roll out Generation III and III+ nuclear plants, 
which they claim will still supply affordable energy 

9



Georgetown	Scientific	Research	Journal	

 

 

to citizens.7 Generation III and III+ plants are 
nuclear plants that have safety envelopes 
constructed on Western safety standards and 
require relatively large electric grids.7 Generation 
III power plants have reactor technology that give 
them the potential to function for upwards of 60 
years.8 This transition towards nuclear energy can 
be seen as a long-term goal of creating energy 
security because it diversifies Poland’s energy mix 
while also moving the country away from coal 
reliance. Since nuclear energy is currently not 
contributing to Poland’s energy or power 
generation mix, this would be a large step for 
Poland in achieving more energy security through 
diversification.3 

Additionally, nuclear power development 
would contribute to the environmental 
sustainability aspect of energy security because 
nuclear power is notably cleaner than coal; a coal 
plant on average will put out 704 to 709kg of sulfur 
dioxide per Gigawatt hour (GWh), 717-721kg of 
nitrous oxides per GWh, and 150kg of dust per 
GWh.9 According to PEP2040A, a nuclear plant 
will emit zero air pollutants through the 
technology of Generation III and III+ reactors.7 
Nuclear plants, however, create high, 
intermediate, and low-level radioactive waste that 
must be properly contained and managed through 
compaction.9 Radioactive waste is not a significant 
safety concern because Generation III and III+ 
reactors are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission and equipped with technology that 
allows them to run safely for approximately 60 
years.8 Radioactive waste is not a negative tradeoff 
of nuclear energy because Poland’s future reactors 
are expected to represent about 10% of energy 
generation, which will be more environmentally 
friendly than coal.7 The government claims nuclear 
energy will be Poland’s main strategy for reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions while also allowing the 
country to diversify their energy mix, thus 
increasing their energy security.7 

PEP2040 plans to reduce Poland’s emissions 
by 30% by 2030, in comparison to its 1990 
emission levels, with a mixture of investments in 

renewables and natural gas. Nuclear energy is its 
largest investment to reduce emissions.7 This 
progression towards ambitious environmental 
sustainability is a relatively new development. 
Poland’s reliance on coal has led it to shy away 
from accepting legally binding carbon emission 
reduction plans, as seen in 2015 when Poland 
vetoed an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol, an 
international treaty between state parties that 
promotes actions to address climate change and 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the 
United Nations Framework Convention on 
Climate Change.11,12 The amendment tried to set 
“a legal framework for carbon emission reductions” 
that would remain in place until 2020 and the 
European Union’s (EU’s) entry into the Paris 
Climate Agreement.11 Poland refused until 2018, 
when they ratified the amendment.11 In 2019, 
Poland was also left out of a EU 2050 climate 
agreement, which looked to push states to climate 
neutrality by 2050.13 Poland was steadfast against 
coming to terms with the agreement due to worries 
over financing their nuclear energy transition, 
claiming that Poland would reach climate 
neutrality at its own pace; the country even 
mentioned the idea of reaching neutrality by 
2070.13 The outcomes of this negotiation are part 
of the important context surrounding the slow-
moving progression towards a more 
environmentally sustainable future, as funding and 
EU assistance becomes key to pushing Poland 
towards their nuclear diversification goals. 

The PEP2040 plan is an ambitious target by 
Poland, but feelings of uncertainty linger with 
respect to when it will be achieved. These fears are 
fueled by the political moves and stances taken by 
the Polish government, outlined in the previous 
paragraph, which illustrate the government is not 
taking on legally binding actions to meet these 
goals. Nonetheless, Poland promises that the 
nation will achieve this PEP2040 plan. However, 
the pace at which it does seems uncertain. Poland’s 
inability to deliver is underscored by the 
overambitious PEP2030 plan, published in 2009, 
which needed to be amended in 2019 to extend the 

10



Georgetown	Scientific	Research	Journal	

 

 

country’s deadline to meet the stated goals to 
2040.7 This need to delay dates by a decade throws 
into question if the nation will meet its own 
deadlines once again. These fears must be 
addressed, and ambitions realized to ensure that 
Poland moves toward joining the rest of the EU in 
reducing emissions through energy diversification 
before the devastating impacts of climate change 
become irreversible.  

4. Policy Recommendations 
Moving forward, Poland’s citizens need to call 

on their government to move towards 
environmental sustainability and diversification of 
energy supply. These are important aspects of 
energy security that can create assurance of more 
reliable domestic energy for Poland’s citizens. In 
2009, Poland’s citizens and those of other 
European nations suffered blackouts and energy 
shortages due to a dispute between a Russian gas 
company, Gazprom, and Ukraine, as the two 
fought over pricing of Russian gas exported 
through Ukraine.14 As Poland looks to diversify to 
cleaner energy sources, their strategy, one shared 
by many members of the EU, serves to offer a large 
benefit to the country; diversification will move the 
nation away from a heavy dependence on one 
exporter and allow for less devastation in the future 
if the reliability of one energy source is diminished.  
In the wake of the 2009 shutdown, these countries 
should seek to move away from Russian energy 
export dependence, diversify their energy 
suppliers, and build up domestic sources in an 
attempt to improve energy security and avoid 
future blackouts due to foreign disputes.14 

One policy recommendation that Poland and 
its citizens should support is investment in the 
Energy Bridge Project between Ukraine and 
Poland. The Energy Bridge will connect Poland to 
Ukraine across their shared border to create a new 
nuclear energy supply from the Ukrainian state-
owned utility company, Energoatom.15 The 
project will connect Energoatom’s Khmelnitsky 
nuclear plant, supplying Poland with nuclear 
generated electricity that can help the country as 

they transition away from coal, allowing for greater 
diversification of energy in Poland.15 Nuclear is 
also clean energy that will allow for greater cuts in 
emissions as the country moves away from coal.9  
Utilizing Ukrainian nuclear energy can help 
Poland move away from coal faster, moving them 
closer to the EU goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. 
Ukraine has a demonstrated history of trade with 
Poland, which has contributed to the fact that in 
2017 and 2018 Poland was Ukraine’s second 
largest economic exportation market, with a trade 
value of approximately $2,727,594 and $3,257,236 
USD respectively .10 Due to this 
interconnectedness through trade, the Polish 
government may see Ukraine as a more reliable 
partner than Russia, one which Poland can work 
with in the future. 

Poland’s government should also invest in 
carbon capture and sequestration technology. This 
would increase the energy security of Poland 
because carbon capture would reduce the number 
of emissions that the country’s coal sector 
produces, thus making the energy source less 
environmentally harmful. Specifically, the country 
should invest in post-combustion carbon capture. 
The use of post-combustion capture is a 
technology that allows for fossil fuel-fired power 
plants to reduce emissions by separating  the gas 
products of the coal energy production and 
sequestering the carbon dioxide that would usually 
be released into the atmosphere.16 Implementation 
of this technology in existing plants is necessary 
because Poland is expected to be carbon neutral 
after 2050 due to its coal dependence, but carbon-
capture could speed up that process and improve 
relations between the member state and the EU.13 
Carbon-capture may be an expensive solution, but 
the EU might be willing to help fund the initiative 
if that means Poland will reach its 2050 goal. 

5. Conclusion 
Poland has much work to do to improve its 

energy security, as indicated by the Global Energy 
Institute’s and the World Energy Council’s 
evaluations. The Polish government’s lack of 

11



Georgetown	Scientific	Research	Journal	

 

 

movement in 2015 towards legally binding 
protocols to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
through the Kyoto Protocol is a glaring sign that 
the government is not doing as much as it can, in 
terms of improving energy security through 
environmental sustainability. Poland needs to 
rejoin Europe in its action towards fighting climate 
change because Poland is currently moving at its 
own pace, as demonstrated by its refusal to sign on 
to the 2050 carbon neutrality agreement, unlike its 
closest EU allies. In addition, by delivering on the 
PEP2040 ambitions, such as through the 
development of Poland’s nuclear power sector, the 
country will move towards diversification and 
more self-sufficiency. Therefore, meeting these 
goals without further delay or setbacks is 
imperative to improve Poland’s energy security. 

In conclusion, diversification and 
environmental stability are the two aspects of 
Poland’s energy sector that require improvement. 
Movement away from Russian fuel and towards 
Ukrainian nuclear energy is a cleaner and more 
secure option. Additionally, post-combustion 
capture would make coal plants more 
environmentally friendly while Poland transitions 
from coal to nuclear power and other energy 
sources, thereby improving its overall energy 
security.  

References 
1. Hockenos, P. (2020). As Pressures Mount, Poland’s 

Once-Mighty Coal Industry Is in Retreat. Yale 
E360. https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-pressures-
mount-polands-once-mighty-coal-industry-is-in-
retreat. 

2. Sabonis-Helf, T. 2020. “Energy Security and 
Strategy Lecture.” October. 

3. Global Energy Institute. (2020). International 
Index of Energy Security Risk. 
https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/sites/default
/files/2020-04/iesri-report_2020_4_20_20.pdf. 

4. World Energy Council. (2020). WEC Trilemma: 
Country Profile. 
https://trilemma.worldenergy.org/#!/country-
profile?country=United%20Kingdom&year=2020. 

5. Barteczko, A. (2020). Poland to Accelerate Coal 
Phase-out, Spend Billions on Renewable and 

Nuclear Energy. Reuters. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-coal-
idUSKBN25Z1G3. 

6. International Trade Administration. (2019). 
Poland’s Energy Strategy by 2040. 
http://www.trade.gov/market-
intelligence/polands-energy-strategy-2040. 

7. Ministry of Energy. (2019). Energy Policy of Poland 
Unt... - Poland - Climate Change Laws of the World. 
https://climate-
laws.org/geographies/poland/policies/energy-
policy-of-poland-until-2030-and-2040-pep-2030-
and-pep-2040. 

8. Goldberg, S. M. & Posner, R. 2011. Nuclear 
Reactors: Generation to Generation. Nuclear 
Reactors, 40. 

9. Rashad, S. M, & Hammad, F. H. (2000). Nuclear 
Power and the Environment: Comparative 
Assessment of Environmental and Health Impacts 
of Electricity-Generating Systems. Applied Energy, 
65 (1), 211–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-
2619(99)00069-0. 

10.  World Bank. (n.d.). Ukraine Exports by country and 
region 2018 | WITS Data. Retrieved November 18, 
2021, from 
https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Cou
ntry/UKR/Year/2018/TradeFlow/Export 

11. Zulinski, J. (2018). Poland’s Transition to a Cleaner 
Economy Article. 
https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/polands-
transition-to-a-cleaner-economy. 

12.  United Nations. (n.d.). What is the Kyoto Protocol? | 
UNFCCC. Retrieved November 18, 2021, from 
https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol 

13. Baczynska, J., Strupczewski, G. (2019). EU Leaves 
Poland out of 2050 Climate Deal after Standoff. 
Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
climate-change-eu-idUSKBN1YG01I. 

14. Reed, S. (2019). Burned by Russia, Poland Turns to 
U.S. for Natural Gas and Energy Security - The New 
York Times. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/business/po
land-gas-lng-russia-usa.html. 

15. Hersh, M., & Kee, E. (2018). What Role Can 
Energy Bridge Play in Ukraine’s Energy Resilience?. 
Atlantic Council. 
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysourc
e/what-role-can-energy-bridge-play-in-ukraine-s-
energy-resilience/. 

12



Georgetown	Scientific	Research	Journal	

 

 

16. Lockwood, T. (2017). A Comparative Review of 
Next-Generation Carbon Capture Technologies for 
Coal-Fired Power Plant. Energy Procedia, 13th 
International Conference on Greenhouse Gas 
Control Technologies, 14-18 (114), 2658–70. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1850. 

 

13




	Table of Contents
	Letter From the Editors
	Letter From the Editor-in-Chief Emerita
	Energy Security in Poland: Where the Energy Sector Falls Short and Where It Can Go
	Impacts of Climate Change on Mycorrhizal Fungi in Salt Marsh Habitats
	CRISPR and COVID-19: Lessons Learned to Prepare for the Next Pathogen
	The Impacts on Well-being of Undergraduate College Students Serving in a Resident Assistant Role
	About the Authors
	Acknowledgements



