Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek's address at the Energy Efficiency Business Week conference, held at the Kaiserštejn Palace on 12 Nov 2008 2008

Energy is at the center of attention these days because using energy effectively is just as necessary for civilization as securing enough of it. It makes no sense to have one without the other. A high standard of living must not threaten the environment, and achieving energy savings must not come at the expense of citizens' quality of life. Energy is what joins our EU presidency trio. The French presidency is preparing the climate-energy package for approval. Energy security is one of our three main priorities. And the Swedish presidency wants to focus on the issue of energy effectivity. All of these efforts are tied to each other, of course, and we are consulting each other on them. Despite huge progress in the last 18 years, the Czech Republic ranks among the worse parts of the world in terms of production of greenhouse gases per inhabitant. With 14.2 tonnes of CO2 per inhabitant, we are exceeding the EU average (10.5 tonnes). This is also far above China, which in terms of overall volume is the largest polluter in the world, but only emits 5.7 tonnes per inhabitant per year. At the same time it is clear that despite all the necessary savings, energy consumption in the Czech Republic will rise in coming years; according to conservative estimates by 1 % per year. We must therefore cut emissions, which we are bound to by the EU's plans, but also increase energy production, which is an absolute necessity. In the brief time I have here, I want therefore to defend two theses. The first: The best energy is the kind that is not produced. And the second: It's better not to produce CO2 than to get rid of it through complicated means. The Czech government has had the opportunity to become acquainted with an independent study by the McKinsey consultancy, which looked at the possibilities for energy savings that we are considering, their economic advantages, as well as our potential with a view to changes in the fuel mix and their influence on CO2 production. The greatest possible savings, which will also bring a positive economic effect, are in cutting energy demands from housing, in producing more effective vehicles and in steps in industry which will decrease energy demand. Despite all the practical obstacles and initial costs, this is the path we should take. Because it serves the purpose of that paradigm of civilisation: That energy savings not decrease citizens' standard of living, but rather increase it. So much for the first thesis: The best energy is the kind that is not produced. As regards limits in CO2 production, the study I mentioned comes to an unambiguous message: It is necessary to bet on nuclear energy. As far as limits to CO2 emissions are concerned, nuclear energy by far has not only the greatest potential, but it is also by far the cheapest, safest and most secure path. Renewable energy sources bring an absolutely disproportionate growth in costs, and, what's more, they do not mean stable energy deliveries. At the same time, natural gas is relatively expensive, and also increases our already unfortunate energy dependence on Russia. In comparison with the now-popular CCS (Carbon Capture Storage) technology, the atom wins across the board. Electricity production in nuclear power plants means that practically no CO2 is released, which is a problem resolved without further costs. The second option means the carbon dioxide is captured and stored underground. I am convinced that it has no other logic than to be amenable to the interests of the companies supplying this complicated technology. Aside from all that, nuclear power plants offer a flexible source which can adapt well to fluctuations in demand, and therefore makes energy use more effective. It pleases me greatly that nuclear energy is no longer a taboo in the EU, that a debate is underway on the topic in the European Council, and that nuclear fora have been held in Prague and Bratislava. I am pleased that the Netherlands Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, who is here today, is a supporter of nuclear energy. I am convinced that it is in the interests of the environment and European citizens to push for a renaissance of nuclear energy. My opinion is that the conclusions are obvious. If we want to use energy effectively, approach the environment carefully and not threaten citizens' standard of living, we have two sets of tools at our disposition here and now. The first is to carry out savings measures that deliver positive economic effects at the same time. This is especially important in the current financial crisis. Support for the construction of low-energy buildings is worth considering, for example. This could also be an answer to the turbulence on the mortgage market. Savings on high energy costs for such buildings' operation increases the ability to make payments. Secondly, we should support the development of nuclear energy in the energy mix. In the Czech Republic, using only half of its potential would mean that the goal of cutting emissions, which European Union has placed on us by 2030, would be fulfilled. In addition, this would all come with price cuts for electricity. In conclusion, I also want to mention a third assumption for effective energy handling. That is innovation. Without it, there would be no savings, nor any new, more effective energy sources. The existence of civilisation itself depends on innovation, on the constant search for better solutions. We must start here. While we have to decide between the solutions we have available to us today, innovations in the future will bring possibilities we have not even dreamed of. Innovation is not "merely" a tool to search for answers to our problems, including the solution to energy needs. Innovation itself is the answer.