Poland's only local energy source is coal, which is why they're so set on using it. Natural gas comes mainly from Russia, and they don't have the capital for nuclear. Solar isn't a good option in Poland due to the long winter nights, and it's not a particularly windy country for wind generation.
They definitely have enough capital for nuclear. Their neighbours, Slovakia and Czechia, both have quite significant nuclear installations. Czechia generates 34% [1] of electricity from nuclear and Slovakia 52% [2]. Slovakia is finishing expansion of one of their nuclear power plants (Mochovce), which will add 2 more reactors - each with ability to deliver 13% of total country consumption [3].
Both Slovakia and Czechia are bit more "richer" than Poland (if you look at GDP (PPP) per capita), however Poland is much bigger economy - 5x size of Slovakia.
My guess is that because so far they had so much coal (largest reserves in Europe [4]), it was no brainer for them. However they are now in the process of commissioning nuclear power plant and plan to generate power from nuclear by 2033 [4]
Nuclear may have some of the same issues as coal, in that if its use declines worldwide it becomes more expensive for you to keep using it. Not to mention the historical baggage associated with it.
I grew up in rural Poland, and still visit frequently. Trust me, it's really poor. It does a great job of presenting itself as richer than it is, but leave one of the metro areas like Warsaw, Kraków, Gdańsk, whatever, and you see people living in what would be considered abject poverty in the US. It can barely keep its existing infrastructure working well.
You find it hard to believe that one of Europe's poorer countries has trouble finding the €20bn over 10 years it will cost? The UK is having trouble affording that for Hinckley C.
Poland isn't "one of Europe's poorer countries" and many countries that operate nuclear power plants are poorer than Poland (such as: Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, India, Iran, Mexico, Pakistan, Romania, South Africa, Turkey, Ukraine)
I wouldn't throw Brazil in there, Brazil has barely 2 functioning reactors (Angra I and Angra II) with the third one being stalled since 1984, restarted in 2007 and so far has no hope of being finished in time (announced for 2020 but now waiting investments to continue development).
We don't have trouble affording it in the UK, we have trouble with the morons in charge wanting to do it arse about face.
The smart way would be to commission half a dozen state of the art designs (the 2nd is cheaper easier than the first and so on) over a decade, the French did 15 reactors in about a decade and economies of scale and expertise make each successor simpler.
We desperately need more baseload supply to supplement on the ongoing renewables switch, the grid is is operating on the slimmest safety factor I can recall.
...and your peak demand for energy is heating in the winter. Not convenient if you have to somehow store all that energy from summer for use in winter.
Though I guess Poland is still heated by NG, even if it’s coming from Russia. Heating with electricity is pretty inefficient.
Heating with electricity is plenty efficient if using heat pumps. In fact, a very high efficiency natural gas advanced combined cycle plant providing electricity to heat pump heaters with a COP of 2.5 or better (often 3 or more) is actually more energy efficient than burning the natural gas for heat directly, as crazy as that seems.
But yeah, finding clean sources of electricity in winter is a challenge for a place like Poland. Poor hydroelectric resource. Only modest geothermal potential. Modest solar (not good for winter load). But wind potential isn't too bad in the north of the country and in the Baltic Sea. Nuclear power should be considered, however, as it is in Finland.
I’ve never heard of heat pumps being used in say an apartment building that tend to dominate these sorts of locales, but perhaps that’s just because the technology is new and the buildings are old?
Nuclear has super high capital costs that usually must be subsidized by the state (and insurance definitely needs to be subsidized). Not to mention corruption has to be low enough that a disaster doesn’t occur. I can see less developed countries not being able to take this route.
