Lithuania: Heading for the Nuclear Dustbin

Lithuania: Heading for the Nuclear Dustbin

Fear of losing EU financial support prompts Lithuania to bring
forward the closure of the world’s largest nuclear power
plant.

VILNIUS, Lithuania–The Lithuanian government
has finally settled on a date for the closure of the world’s
largest nuclear power plant after securing commitments from the
European Union that it will help to shoulder the costs of
decommissioning the plant. This removes one of the largest and
longest-standing obstacles to Lithuanian membership of the EU.

The EU has been calling for the closure of the
Ignalina power plant on safety grounds, as the plant was built to
the same design as Ukraine’s Chernobyl power station, site of the
world’s worst nuclear disaster, and has no system of holding
in radiation in the event of any tragedy.

In 1999, Lithuania agreed to shut down the first
block of the plant by 2005, and the decision was ratified by
parliament in 2000. The government has now agreed to EU demands
that the second block be shut down by 2009.

The government had previously said that 2009 was
too early a deadline. Possible dates floated in political circles
ranged from 2012 to 2017 and beyond.

The question of the timeline was intimately
connected with the issue of financial support from the EU. The EU
commission had failed to make a clear-cut, long-term commitment to
help support the plant’s shutdown beyond 2006, when current funding
runs out. As Liberal Party head and presidential candidate
Eugenijus Gentvilas said, “I think that not only the
government but society as a whole is afraid that, after pledging to
shut down the second unit in 2009, we will not receive as much
financial support as we need.”

The reason for the EU’s change of mind
appears to be the recognition that, in the words of the agreement,
decommissioning Ignalina “represents for Lithuania an exceptional
financial burden not commensurate with the size and economic
strength of the country.” The agreement further states that the EU
is “ready to continue to provide adequate additional Community
assistance to the decommissioning effort” once Lithuania joins the
EU.

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Antanas Valionis
said that the agreement paved the way for specific talks about the
amount of financial support. A supporter of the decision and member
of the ruling Social Democrat party, Juozas Olekas, argued,
“If we were to refuse to accept 2009 as the deadline, the EU
would refuse to provide financial help and we would have to foot
the bills for the shutdown ourselves,” which would be
possible only if the price of electricity were increased.

At the same time, Lithuania closed the energy
chapter of the acquis communautaire, the set of legislative changes
to be adopted before membership. It has now completed 28 out of 31
chapters, making it and Cyprus the candidate countries best
prepared to enter the EU in 2004.

The Lithuanian Economy Ministry has estimated
that the costs of closing the two reactors will amount to 2.4
billion euros ($2.2 billion) in the period to 2020 and 3 billion
euros in subsequent years. So far, EU member states have provided
assistance amounting to 203 million euros, and the European
Commission has pledged to provide 70 million euros in the first
three years of Lithuania’s membership.

The closure of Ignalina has been a highly
charged issue in Lithuania, with two parties–Ryot and New
Democracy–even suggesting that a referendum should be called. One
reason is the question of finding replacement sources of energy. At
present, Ignalina produces about 73 percent of all electricity
consumed in Lithuania, but it could cover all the country’s
needs and more. It is currently working at just 68 percent of
capacity. The plant’s managers pl an to export energy to
Latvia, Estonia, and the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. The
closure of the power station would increase Lithuania’s
dependence on fossil fuels, making it more dependent on Russia,
critics argue, and also adding to the country’s environmental
problems.

Safety is not a public concern. Prime Minister
Algirdas Brazauskas has expressed his conviction that Ignalina
could work safely for a long time, describing the issue as
political. Employees at Ignalina share his opinion. Roman Voronov,
an engineer at the plant, told TOL that Ignalina meets EU safety
standards and is far safer than Russian plants. For a
Chernobyl-style accident to occur, all employees would, he said,
“have to be members of Al Qaeda.” Work began on the
plant in 1978 and took 11 years. After the Chernobyl accident, the
commissioning of the plant was postponed and the Soviet authorities
suspended construction of a planned third block.

The perceived political nature of the decision
has raised hackles. Like many Lithuanians, Voronov believes that
the EU has been pressing for the plant to be closed in order to
open the Lithuanian energy market to EU electricity generators and
to protect its own markets from cheap electricity generated at
Ignalina.

Lithuanian experts have calculated that the
plant’s shutdown could cost Lithuania 32 billion litas
(approximately $8 billion) over 20 years. Swedish experts,
meanwhile, have put the cost at 18 billion litas ($5 billion) over
10 years.

The shutdown of the plant is likely to have
significant social consequences in the surrounding region,
particularly the city of Visaginas. Ignalina, which lies 130
kilometers northeast of the capital, Vilnius, currently employs
4,600 people.

To read more about the candidate countries,
please visit

Transitions Online.