BSPC meeting Gdansk2pdf

A joint venture company of“Small Nuclear Reactors -SMRs -as well as “BigAtom” for the climate and environmentalfriendly energy transformation in Poland.Is it worth to do? Yes, very much...”Meeting of BSPC Working Group onClimate Change & BiodiversityGdansk, May 15, 2023 Professor Waclaw GudowskiOSGE and NCBJ2Energy System in Poland•Coal Dependency•Demand -Supply Gap Expected•District heating3Mid-size coal units dominate in Polish energy systemNumber of fossil -based power/heat generation units1109806759131731200-250 300-350 50-100 100-150 >350 150-200 250-300200+ smaller,mostly coal unitsto be replaced incoming decades,with a totalcapacity of 44GW SMRs fit to replace 100 -350 MWfossil -based unitsMany of the <350 MW units arecrucial for energy generation,district heating or industrialsitesThose units can be replaced bySMR or gas units:•Renewables cannot providestable concentrated energy orsteam in large quantities•Large nuclear plants do not fitthe siteMWe# ofUnits1 By equivalent el. output (MWe); only +50 MW units presented, appr. 80% of fossil -based units based on coalSource: Bloomberg, TGE, GPI, PSE, URE, ARE, Market data4Large -scale power decommissioningin energy system by 2040Pątnów2022 -2025: 0,2GW2026 -2030: 0,9 GWOstrołęka2036 -2040: 0,7 GWPołaniec2022 -2025: 0,2 GW2031 -2035: 1,4 GWKozienice2026 -2030: 0,5 GW2031 -2035: 0,9 GW2036 -2040: 1,0 GWSiersza2022 -2025: 0,2 GW2026 -2030: 0,2 GWDolna Odra:2031 -2035: 0,9 GWBełchatów2031 -2035: 5,1 GW2036 -2040: 1,2 GWTurów2036 -2040: 1,3 GWJaworzno, Opole, Rybnik,Łagisza2022 -2025: 0,7 GW2026 -2030: 3,4 GW2031 -2035: 0,4 GW2036 -2040: 0,8 GW1,2 GW -2022 -20255,0GW -2026 -20308,8 GW -2031 -20355,0 GW -2036 -2040In total, 20GW*of installed capacityin coal -fired power plants will beshutdown by 2040*Source: PEP 204053 3 4 5 6911 12 1212 1441272123141924293439442022 2025 2030 2035 2040GW•Source: PKN ORLEN & SGE analysis on the base of PEP 2040.* Demand from district heating not included .Demand for power*Stable sources of energy**Government’slarge -nuclear programGas14 GWPotential forBWRX -300fleet in Poland** Power capacity of coalsources of Energy generation1011141620293638424245051015202530354045502022 2025 2030 2035 2040Newcapacities needed to closedemand -supply gapNew investmentsin power gene -ration neededeven despitedevelopment ofrenewablesThe Polish electricity generation mix will fundamentally change as legacy coal and ligniteassets are reaching decommissioning age, run out of economically feasible fuel and do notsatisfy emission limits. Currently dominating coal will be marginalized by 20 40Number of BWRX -300 units6BWRX -300 –a perfect solution fortransformation of district heating market•Over 16 mln of Poles are connected to districtheating systems, including Warsaw with thelargest system heating network in Europe•55,200 MW of installed capacity have licencedheat producers in Poland (399 entities), with11 companies generating 33% of volume•51% of units are > 100 MW•72% of heat energy is generated based oncoal.In the coming years, the sector will requirea deep transformation•Gas isnot a n option anymore , while largenuclear power plants are not adequate tomeet the heat demand in Polish cities .PolandGermanyFranceSwedenCzech Rep.ItalyDenmarkRomaniaFinlandAustriaSerbiaSlovakiaLithuaniaHungaryUKHollandLatviaCroatiaEstoniaSwitzerlan dIslandSloveniaIrelandPoland has the highest number of district heating users in the EUCommercial district heating assets are aging and need to be replaced3917284735 331623Gas Hard coal Lignite Biomass0Oil0Heat boilers Power boilersAverage age of generation assets (years)xx Number of assets in Poland130 187mln24 17 8 1 2 117Why nuclear?8What is nuclear power about ??E=Δmc29FISSION as energy sourceFission products(real waste, ashes)Energy production~ 200MeVE=Dmc2+n 235U238U239U239Np239PuBuild up of transuranicelements&isotopesWaste or resource??1010Basic fission processEnergynFuelIsotopeFissionFragmentFissionFragmentnnn2-3 “fast”neutronsper fissionAbsorption(non-fission such asto the ControlRods)Energy transferEnergyFuelIsotope ...Thermal(“slow”)NeutronnnnFissionprobabilityfunction ofneutronenergy andfuel isotope Unstable fissionfragments “ decay ”and some emitdelayed neutronsLeakageNuclei“Moderation ”(slowing)FissionFragmentFissionFragment11Nuclear fuel is extremely efficient: 1 fuel pellet can supplyenergy to one household for a whole year (5 MWh)Fuel pellet –enrichedUO21 cmUO21.5 cmCoal lNatural gas Oil480 m3 gazu, wkonsekwencji emisja0,93 ton CO2479litrów ropy, wkonsekwencji emisja1,2 ton CO2One pellet of1,1cm x 1 cmOne tonneand2,8 ton CO2emission12Nuclear energy –the only “low emission” and stableenergy sourceSource: Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) —Climate Change CO2eq emissions for different energy generation technologiesPV48kgCO2eq/MWhOff-shorewindOn-shorewindSMR hydro geot hermalConcentratedsolar38kgCO2eq/MWh27kgCO2eq/MWh24kgCO2eq/MWh12kgCO2eq/MWh12kgCO2eq/MWh11kgCO2eq/MWhCO2eq emissions for “low emission” technologies13Land/area in km2needed to generate power of 1 GWeLEGEND:On-shore wind , geot hermalSMRPVCoalOil“Big”atomCCGTOff-shore wind8 300 km2500 km2150 km2380 km26,7 km25,0 km23,8 km21,0 km22,0 km2Hydr oa14Used nuclear fuel and radioactive wastes?? Have a look atSweden and Finland, our Baltic neighbours14m/s SigridCentral Interim Storageof used nuclear fuel -CLAB15Which nuclear?16Development of nucler reactors from 50’sEvolutionaryLWR reactors ,eg. BWRX -300NuScaleRolls -RoyceOver 450 reactors if Gen IIi IIIconstructed in theworl d Advanced, non -LWRs reactors.Greeding as aparadigmAP-1000APR -1400EPRABWRLWR, PWR, BWRCANDUWER/RBMKWhy do we need Gen IV reactors??1795% 93%5%1%1%4%U-238U-235Fission productsPu+MAU-235U-238Composition ofthe freshand used nuclear fuelThe real wastes, nuclear ashes are only fission products! All other components of the usednuclear fuel can be recirculated and more than 20 times more energy can be extracted from theused fuel! But we need to master reprocessing of the used fuel and we need fast breederreactors (Gen IV). Not easy..Fresh fuel Used fuel18OSGE analyzed carefully all SMR technologiesPotential for industrial heatSMR Technology VendorModulepower(MWel)Number ofmodules onsiteLWR1 RR SMR PWR Rolls-Royce SMR Ltd 470 12 BWRX-300 BWR GE Hitach 300 13 NuWard PWR EdF-CEA, France 170 24 SMR-160 PWR Holtec International 160 1-25 SMART PWR KAERI 100 1-46 Nuscale PWR Nuscale 77 4-127 BANDI 60 PWR KEPCO - South Korea 60 1-48 Last Eneregy PWR Last Energy 20 1HTGR9 Xe-100 HTGR - pebble bed X-Energy 8010 MMR - TRISO/Helium USA HTGR - prismatic USNC Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp. 5-1011 U-Battery HTGR - prismatic U-Battery, UK 2Molten salt reactors12 Moltex SSR Molten salt - chlorides Moltex Energy - UK 300 113 IMSR Molten salt - flurides Terrestrial Energy Molten Salt Reactor Canada 19514 Hermes Molten salt - pebble bed Kairos Power 140 1-415 CMSR Molten salt Seaborg Technologies Molten Salt Reactor Denmark 100 1-8Heavy liquid metal reactors16 Westinghouse Lead Fast Reactor Liquid lead Westinghouse 450 117 TerraPower SCFR Natrium TerraPower Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor USA 345 118 PRISM Natrium, metallic fuel GE Hitachi 311 119 ARC-100 Natrium ARC 100 120 E-vinci MMR Natrium Westinghouse 3.5 121 SEALER Liquid lead LLC - Sweden 3 122 Aurora Microreactor Natrium Oklo Inc 1.5 123 Newcleo Liquid lead Newcleo 200 1-419SMR Technlogy VendorModulepower(MWel)Number ofmodules onsiteNEArankingLWRBWRX-300 BWR GE Hitach 300 1 26Nuscale PWR Nuscale 77 4-12 25RR SMR PWR Rolls-Royce SMR Ltd 470 1 22NuWard PWR EdF-CEA, France 170 2 20SMR-160 PWR Holtec International 160 1-2SMART PWR KAERI 100 1-4BANDI 60 PWR KEPCO - South Korea 60 1-4Last Eneregy PWR Last Energy 20 1HTGRXe-100 HTGR - pebble bed X-Energy 80 22MMR - TRISO/Helium USA HTGR -prismatic USNC Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp. 5-10 17U-Battery HTGR - prismatic U-Battery, UK 2 15Molten saltHermes Molten salt - pebble bed Kairos Power 140 1-4 22Moltex SSR Molten salt - chlorides Moltex Energy - UK 300 1 19IMSR Molten salt Terrestrial Energy Molten Salt Reactor Canada 195CMSR Molten salt Seaborg Technologies Molten Salt Reactor Denmark 100 1-8Heavy metal coolantTerraPower SCFR Natrium TerraPower Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor USA 345 1 20ARC-100 Natrium ARC 100 1 18Aurora Microreactor Natrium Oklo Inc 1.5 1 15E-vinci MMR Natrium Westinghouse 3.5 1 14SEALER Liquid lead LLC - Sweden 3 1 13Westinghouse Lead Fast Reactor Liquid lead Westinghouse 450 1PRISM Natrium - metallic fuel GE Hitachi 311 1NEA SMR DASHBOARD –March 2023Assessment criteria :1.Licensing,2.Siting,3.Financing,4.Supply chain,5.Engagement,6.Fuel.SMR assessed byNEA /OECDNot mature enough for the first roundof the NEA/OECD assessment20BWRX -300 vsother technologies –OSGE evaluationBWRX -300 NuScale Rolls -Royce USNC X-energyTECHNOLOG YBWR –based onproven technologyPWR –new project PWR –new projectHTGR, many novel,unproven solutionsHTGR -pebble bed,complicated systemFUELLEU, licensed,avaiableLEU, license requiredLEU, license requiredHALEU, needlicensing, supplyproblemsHALEU1,Need licensing andsupply securityTECHNOLOGYMATURITY Mature, ready todeploymentNot matured,questionableintegration of steamgenerator with RPVNot matured,technology needs tobe demonstratedNot matured,technology needs tobe demonstratedNot matured,technology needs tobe demonstrated,however in China thisreactor type worksDEPLOYMENT BEFORE2030, oddsHigh Medium Low Low LowPASSIVE SAFET High, provenHigh, to bedemonstratedHigh, to bedemonstratedHigh, but tpbeprovenHigh , to be provenFINANCING POTENTIALVendor andtechnology wellknown for fininacinginstitutionsNew solutions need tobe demonstrated,financing institutionsmay have doubtsNew solutions need tobe demonstrated,financing institutionsmay have doubts,insurance issuesNew solutions needto be demonstrated,financing institutionsmay have doubts,insurance issuesAdditional risks withHALEUNew solutions need tobe demonstrated,financing institutionsmay have doubts,insurance issuesAdditional risks withHALEUOSGE analysis??????????!!!!!!!!!?!?USA has a program to regain capabilities for HALEU production22GEH BWRX -300 technology•GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) is a world -leading providerof advanced reactors, fuel and nuclear services•More than 80 years' experience, 67 reactors licensed in 10countries•GE Group designed and built BWRs around the world withpower range from 58 MWe to 1600 MWe•The BWRX -300 is evolutionary, not revolutionary, with worldclass safety , using proven components and licensing initiatedin US and Canada•10th generation of BWR boiling water reactors•The project is based on the GEH ESBWR reactor licensed in the USA•Designed with a low investment cost in mind•Significant reduction in construction costs per 1 MW of installedcapacity•Top-class security systems•Optimal for electricity generation, heating and industrialapplications including hydrogen production•The project is optimal for cooperation with renewable energysources -it allows for a power change of 50%: 0.5% of power /minute•Savings due to the lack of CO2emissions at the level of approx. EUR2,5 bnduring the operation period of the BWRX -300 projectcompared to a CCGT unit of comparable power (assuming a 25 -yearinstallation life cycle and an EUA price of EUR 80/t)•Examples of countries where BWR has been used: Sweden, Finland,Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, USA, Japan and Taiwan2360 years of Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)innovation•The BWRX -300 is designed to provideclean, flexible and dispatchable electricitygeneration , itcanalso supply steam forprocess heat applications, district heatingand hydrogen production•The BWRX -300 is projected to have up to60% less capital cost per MW whencompared with other typical water -cooledSMR and large nuclear designs•Designed for significant reductions inoperating staff, maintenance cost, andsecurity requirements , can be constructedin 24 -36 months , power plant isapproximately 10% of the size andcomplexity of a large nuclear projectBy deploying a 300 MW plant SMR instead of CCGT it could be savedca. EUR 2.0-2.4bn in costs of CO2 emissions (25 years period)200 MW500 MW1315 MW250 MW800 MW5 MW65 MW65 MW1600 MW600 MW300 MW24Simplicity Drives Cost Reduction–Reduce Regulatory Documents and--Safety enhancementB W R X -3 0 0 S m a l l M o d u l a r R e a c t o r 24Systems/componentssimplified:•Passive Containment Cooling(PCCS)•Containment (use of SC)•Boron injection•Security (built into design)•Turbine•Generator (air cooled)>50% building volume reduction/MW>50% less concrete/MW25Special safety mechanismsB W R X -3 0 0 S m a l l M o d u l a r R e a c t o r 25Excessive Pressure in the RPV:Staggered ICS loop initiation initiated by:•Sudden reactor isolation•Station blackout•Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS )Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) conditions in Containment:All ICS loops are immediately initiate to mitigate LOCA26Three Independent 100% Capacity ICS loopsEach ICS loop includes:•Separate cooling water poolbelow refuel floor•Separate condenser/heatexchanger located in the ICSpools•Separate steam supply andcondensate return lines withdual RPV integral isolationvalves•Separate / independentsystem initiation valves•Each loop can remove 100%of decay heat approximatelyone minute after Reactorshutdown (33 MWth )27Plan of the power station•The reference site for BWRX -300 is entirelyconfined in a260 m by 332 m footprin t,which includes the plant buildings,switchyard, cooling tower (if needed), siteoffice, parking lot, warehouse, and othersupporting facilities•The footprint of the power block isapproximately 140 m x 70 m332 m260 m28How much does it cost?2929216298939791 8086621977301 306 303621890523604 58668205001000150020002500PLN/MWhAverage electricity generation costs for different energy technologies –Ernst & Young analysisThe cost of generating electricity in nuclear power plants, includingexpenditure on the development of grid connections, is the lowest ofall the electricity generation technologies analyzed . 1.The average cost of electricity generation for individual technologies wascalculated in accordance with the parameters specific to individual technologies,including :1.1 Life time,1.2 CAPEX ,1.3 Averaged over 2023 -2060 fuel costs,1.4 Averaged 2023 -2060 CO2emission costs,1.5 Other OPEX –fixed costs and other costs except for fuel,1.6 Capacity Facto r.2.The average production cost was calculated as annual capital costs, fixed andvariable (averages over the period of operation) divided by the annual amount ofenergy produced3.The weighted average cost of capital was adopted for each technology at the samelevel.4.Included: u nit costs for the development of the power grid determine the cost ofcapital for the construction or modernization of connections to the transmissionand distribution grid for new developed capacities in individual technologies .Assumptions for comparing the costs of electricity generationFor conventional units and nuclear units, it is assumed that the existing connection infrastructure will be used to a large e xtent.Higher grid development costs are taken into account for LNR than for SMR due to the use of locations without existingconnection capacity. The highest costs related to the development of the grid are assumed in the case of RES due to theirdispersed nature (which, depending on the source, may range from several dozen to even several hundred PLN/MWh).Source: EYreportAverage cost of electricity generation including unit capital costs ofpower grid development [PLN/MWh, fixed prices 2022]30*Example CCGT Rybnik –public information scaled to 300 MWe**without financing (loans) costs***as for 2023 Q1**** assuming only electricity production of BWRX -300 8 000 hours per year***** assuming emission costs ~ 90 EUR/tCO2 , LNG price -50 EUR/MWh****** Assuming a CCGT replacement investments of 60% of the initial investmentConclusionsComparison of costs: BWRX -300 vsCCGT1. Costs of CCGT in the period of 25 years and 60years are significantly higher than costs of BWRX -300 (nearly 3 times for the period of 25 years andover 4 times for the period of 60 years)2. Deployment of BWRX -300 does not require anysignificant grid investments3. Existing human resources from coal/gas -fired plantscan be retrained for BWRX -300 units4. The cost of heat energy from the BWRX -300installation, assuming only heat production, shouldnot exceed approx. EUR 12/GJ5. The expected average cost of generating electricityfrom the BWRX -300 is:a. average cost of electricity productionassuming a 30-year decapitalization period–ab.50 EUR/MWh ****b. Estonian Fermi Energia ( with Vattenfall andFortum as shareholders)estimates similarcosts –55 EUR/MWh in2031 r. AssumptionsCCGT* BWRX -300CAPEX per MWe 333mln EUR** 1 500 mln EUR***Construction time 36Months 36MonthsLife time 25years 60YearsAnnual electricityproduction2,20 TWh 2,20 TWhEmis sions CO2 annually 772 800 t25 years 19 320 000 t60 years 46 368 000 tLNG consumption annually 3 561 290 MWh25 years 89 032 258 MWh60 years 213 677 400 MWhNuclear fuel for BWRX -300 6tCosts 25 years LNG 4 452***** mln EURCO2 1 739***** mln EURNuclear fuel 195mln EUROther OPEX 138mln EUR 727 mln EURCosts 60 years 15 388 ****** mln EUR 2 213 mln EURSimplified expenditures 25 years 6 661 mln EUR 2 422 mln EUR60 years 15 721 mln EUR 3 713 mln EUR31BWRX -300deployment strategy32Synthos Green Energy (SGE) a keyelement of the large private ownedfund covering over 2 5portfoliocompanies.The company focuses on thetransformation of the energygeneration and established theStrategic Partnership with GE -HitachiNuclear Energy.PKN ORLEN is the largest multi -energy concern in Central Europe.The Group owns refineries located inPoland, Lithuania and the Czech Rep.as well as the largest network ofpetrol stations in the region .The Group provides energy and fuelto over 100 million Europeans, andits products are available in nearly90 countries on 6 continents.Synthos Green Energy and PKN ORLEN ha veestablish edthe JV –ORLEN Synthos Green Energyto deploy the GEH BWRX -300 SMRs.Poland's first power plant with the BWRX -300reactor will generate first power to the grid in 2029.33PKN ORLEN: the largest company in CEE regionFTE62 000Sales revenue90 bn $CAPEX8,2 bn$EBITDA12 bn $•Following the acquisitions of ENERGA, LOTOS and PGNiG , the ORLEN Groupwill have a sales revenue of approx. USD 90 billion , serving over one hundredmillion customers in Central Europe .•After the acquisition, the Group will generate revenues of approx. USD 90billion per year and would be around 150th place in the ranking of the largestcompanies in the world "Fortune 500".•USD 73 billion –CAPEX budget to 2030 for energy transformation into a multi -utility powerhouse ,of which approximately USD 27billion will be spent ongreen projects reducing our dependence on fossil fuels .•In the Group’s updated strategy to 2030 (announced last week), first SMR willbe ready before 2030.7refineries in 3 different countriesPetrochemical assets and pipelines in6 different countriesProduction in Europe and NorthAmerica (Canada)3 100 petrol stations in6different countries* Based on company’s plan, according to the Strategy 2023 -203034Synthos Green Energy -a key element of thePoland’s largest private owned industrial group•Synthos Green Energy is a key element of the Poland’s largestprivate owned industrial group , using synergies within the Groupto carry out the energy transformation.•The fund has over 25companies in its portfolio in 6 segments -the companies in the portfolio conduct sales activities in 100+countries .N°1 European EPS(expandable polystyrene )producerN°1 Europeansyntheticrubber producer17 of the top 20 globalproducers of tiressupplied:N°3 largest Europeanproducer of ceramictiles N°3 largest Europeanproducer of sanitary wareand bathroom equipment10 production plants &storage facilities in 5European countriesN°1 global manufact .of natural, 3 -layerwooden floors3 Productionfacilitiesin EuropeN°1 producer anddistributor ofphotovoltaics in CEE20 countries aresupplied from 2 mainfactories in PolandFTE16 500Net Asset Value7 bn EURCountries covered100+Business entities25+35October 2019 –Synthos owned by MichałSołowow ,as first on the world, startedcooperation with GEH regarding BWRX -300.October 2021 -Synthos GreenEnergy signed agreements for theproduction of 10 reactorpressure vessels (RPV) forBWRX -300 units in CEE Michał Sołowow , JonBall –Executive VicePresident of GEH, andrepresentatives of DoE,who took part in signingSynthos -GEH agreementin BrusselsJune 2021 -strong interest inthe BWRX -300 results incooperation with the largestPolish company –PKN ORLENand establishing a jointventure company2019 2022On the road to SMR fleet in Poland...July 2022 -the Company applied for ageneral opinion from the President ofthe National Atomic Energy Agency .At the same time, the Company startedpreliminary analysis of potentialdeployment locations.36Efforts to accelerate SMR development in PolandPolishGovernmentPartners& clientsApprovingbodiesTechnologyprovidersFinancialaspects•Regulation enforcement•Investment subsidies•EU financing application•Generate demand•Co-investment•Vendor•Solution developmentand marketing•Project management•Cooperation with scientificcommunity (NCBJ) on HTGRdevelopment•Development of nuclear scienceecosystem•Informing society on SMRtechnology•Funding support•Fostering businesscoopeation•Licensing processSociety &Academia37Site Selection Process•Siting Criteria•Evaluation Process•Potential Sites38Safety1.Seismic hazard1.1. capable fault D≤5 km1.2. active fault D<20 km2.Emergency response plans3.Human external events4.Geotechnics5.Flood hazard6. Mini ng activities7. Extreme meteorologicalevents8. Radioactive dispersion inwater and air9. Limited use areaEnvironmental1. Forms of nature protection1.1. national parks1.2. nature reserves1.3. landscape parks1.4. protected landscapeareas1.5. Natura 2000 areas1.6. monuments of nature1.7. documentation sites1.8. ecological grounds1.9. nature and landscapecomplexes2. ecological corridorsEconomic1.Water supply2.Area availability3.Access to transmission grid4.Access routesSiting Criteria –groups39Establishment ofthe SitingCriteriaInternalprescreeningExternalprescreeningPlan of theinvestigationDetailedinvestigationPreparation ofSite EvaluationReport&EIAReportSubmission toPAA&GDEPApplication forSite PermitSite PermitSite selection processCompleted In Progress40Site selection process (2)•More than 60 sites were pre -screenedduring internal process•Internal prescreening and prioretisationhave been made•Ongoing external screening by the state -owned research institute –GIG (theCentral Mining Institute)Baseload power plantsŻarnowiecOstrołękaStawy MonowskieBełchatówTurówWłocławekWarta -KlempiczOpoleTczewGrudziądzMałkiniaNowe MiastoPolkowiceChotczaKozienicePołaniecRybnikGościeradówSierszaŁaziskaŁagisza Industry locationsDąbrowa GórniczaNowa HutaBlachownia Stalowa WolaJaworznoPrimary localizations: Ostrołęka, Włocławek,okolice Warszawy, Dąbrowa Górnicza, StawyMonowskie, Kraków, Tarnobrzeg -Stalowa Wola .Warszawa41Is nuclear energysafe??42Death rates per TWh ofelectricity production43Is nuclear expensive ??44Conclusion : talking about money .. areRES reallyaffordable ????THANK YOUA joint venture company ofORLEN Synthos Green Energy sp. z o. o.Q22, 39th floorAl. Jana Pawła II 2200-133 Warsaw , PLWaclaw GudowskiProfessor, OSGE and NCBJwaclaw.gudowski @osge.com