.png)
Yet it is precisely a stable and sustainable energy policy that is the key to industrial self-sufficiency, affordability, and environmental responsibility. In an interview with Vladimír Hlavinka, owner of ORGREZ Group and founder of ORGREZ ECO, you can read about why it is so difficult to have a factual debate about energy—and what has nevertheless been achieved in recent years.
Energy should be a long-term priority instead of becoming a politicized issue used to score political points. But is it an issue that politicians care about?
From my point of view, only when they have the opportunity to show that they can solve a problem. Energy has not been a pressing issue in Europe for a long time. This was because, through gradual technological improvements, Europe achieved an energy price that—I know some people will probably stone me for saying this—was relatively cheap, available in sufficient quantities, and reliably supplied. This initially triggered enormous industrial development—and ultimately overconsumption, which of course began to affect the environment. It was only the oil crisis that showed how illusory our lifestyle was. And then the handbrake was pulled. Few people today remember the first dusting of power plants, older people may remember the desulphurization in the 1990s, which made it possible to restore the forests destroyed by pollution in the Ore Mountains. We have gradually worked our way towards reducing CO₂ production and have begun to strive for energy production that has a minimal impact on the environment, or green energy, if you will. However, I do not think this is a topic that politicians would address on a continuous basis. They view energy through the lens of a four-year election cycle. And that is wrong.
Is this a general problem, or does it mainly concern our politicians?
Let's look at countries that have long-term consensus across political parties, where energy is the backbone of industry and not a political issue. These countries have a consensus built at the government and municipal levels, with a concept that supports centralized heat supply, nuclear power plants, and renewable sources—and they stick to this concept and do not change it with every new government. Unlike us. It seems to me that every government that comes to power after the elections wants to create an energy concept, works on it for a year, approves it for two years, and releases it just before the elections so that the next government can redo it again. And that certainly does not contribute to building an energy system that is as efficient as possible, has a minimal impact on the environment, and, of course, has a minimal impact on industry's pocketbook.
From the perspective of the long-term concept of Czech energy, what do you think has been successful recently?
As I recently stated, the decision, and now the signing of the contract for the completion of Dukovany, was a great success. It came ten years later, but it came – the tender was ready in 2013, but the government at the time did not have the courage and canceled it. This step deserves recognition; it is a strategic decision that goes far beyond the horizon of these ruling parties. And even though it obviously commits the state to investments, it is definitely worth it.
What other key decisions do you think have historically shaped the Czech energy sector?
Looking back, the decision to complete the construction of two units at the Temelín nuclear power plant also required a certain amount of courage. Before that, it took courage to decide to become part of the European area, to decide that we wanted to join the electricity market and not sell electricity on the basis of long-term or bilateral contracts, but primarily according to stock market prices. These are all conceptual decisions that the general public is not very aware of, but which essentially brought the Czech Republic into the European energy community, into European industry. But it also helps us in a certain way to be self-sufficient, independent, and confident in the European energy market. This was the case in the past, unlike in some other parts of industry, when we had something to offer Europe in the energy sector.
How will these changes manifest themselves in the long term?
If utilized, these changes could initiate a positive trend in the area of services and supplies in the energy sector. For example, every country that commits to nuclear power plant construction will primarily develop its industry and services for the construction, modification, and operation of nuclear units, which it can then offer to foreign markets. The Czech Republic, or rather the former Czechoslovakia, was an energy superpower capable of building nuclear, thermal, and coal-fired power plants, and although we don't have much left of that, we still have something. This was due to the fact that for a certain period of time it was not entirely attractive, and for a certain period of time the construction of new units was not economically viable for investors, but we still have relatively a lot left, so we are able to do a lot of things.
So are we well prepared?
We are not as prepared as we could be. We have not taken care of the energy industry for a long time, and it was not in the best condition. However, it is not about halls and production machines, but about people. I think that we have a large enough group of people with technical education who are familiar with the issues and have practical experience to be able to get it started. So I am optimistic.
Is energy policy in other respects more about politics than about long-term planning?
Yes, for example in what is happening now with the Green Deal. Its rejection by those who previously accepted it. Either it is a misunderstanding, or it is an inability to think beyond the election campaign, the election period. In my opinion, the Green Deal is not about mapping out a path, but about setting goals that we should strive for in order to reduce our impact on the environment. It is a process governed by three basic attributes: to produce only the electricity we really need, to produce it in the most efficient way possible from a natural perspective, and at acceptable prices. And, of course, this method of production must be acceptable to the public.
But now is the time to criticize the Green Deal and, by extension, ESG, because it is nonsense and bureaucratization...?
ESG was supposed to serve to say: we in Europe manufacture our products with this environmental impact, and if you want to import to us, prove that you have the same impact, that you invest the same amount. If you don't pay attention to this, you will pay carbon import duties. And the reaction of Czech industry, which was supposed to protect it? "It's an unnecessary burden!" This is a misunderstanding of the system, which, although bureaucratic and not entirely to my liking in terms of its implementation, is set up correctly and its basic ideas are difficult to improve upon. Once again, we are faced with a conflict between the long-term view, the concept, and short-term statements that fit into political rhetoric. And the same people will end up shouting: protect Czech industry, protect European industry, because imports come from China, where environmental standards are not as strict. The example of the Green Deal illustrates how energy is increasingly being misused for short-term political gains instead of being conducted as a factual and strategic debate. And I mean this from both sides, both from the perspective of uncritical supporters of the Green Deal and from the perspective of its opponents.
How can politicians bring a long-term strategy to the public debate on energy and climate policy when issues such as reducing emissions are not attractive to the media and do not bring quick political gains?
Let me go back to the very beginning, when it was a rewarding topic for politicians—energy is a long-distance race, more like a marathon than a sprint or an 800-meter dash—something I could sell in this campaign. Take the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which is now considered one of the most successful forms of international cooperation in the field of ecology. It was only last year that the healing of the ozone hole and the effects of the ban on CFCs became apparent. And everyone has forgotten about it; the politicians who pushed for it at the time are no longer politicians, or are no longer with us. And now, as a politician, you have to push for a reduction in CO₂ emissions, a colorless, odorless gas. Although we have known about the principle of greenhouse gases for 200 years, it is difficult to defend. At the moment, it is therefore a very difficult question how to approach it other than through explanation and a long-term strategy. If nothing changes, with each subsequent election we will turn the rudder 10, 30, or 180 degrees—and we will get nowhere.
Does the public even have a chance to understand energy when the media often uses abbreviations and complex terms? Doesn't this obscure the essence of the problem?
From my point of view, journalists who cover energy do a really good job. Of course, they sometimes use abbreviations and something may not be entirely accurate from a technical point of view, but overall, I consider the way they try to explain and grasp the issue to be above standard. Energy is an extremely complex and technical topic, both for politicians and journalists. I often tell my colleagues: it's not just about whether we're for nuclear power or renewable sources. It's about the whole system – production, transmission, and consumers who are willing to pay a certain price. And all these parts are equally important. You can't just cram photovoltaics into the grid without knowing when you'll need the energy and how you'll actually trade it. And that's where the complexity lies. When someone starts talking about forwards, CAL27, quarterly contracts, most people lose track after a few sentences. But even so, I think it makes sense to explain. Without a healthy and balanced energy sector, which is one of the pillars of industry and the economy, we simply cannot move forward. Energy is the foundation.