From what I’ve gathered about Ignalina NPP:
- It was extremely safe with a very competent operational and maintenance staff. Lithuanian nuclear and other types of engineers took great care of it.
- It had complete protections / failsafes from any type of uncontrollable reactions to prevent any chances of a Reactor’s core explosion (unless it’s an act of terrorism; someone intentionally blows up a reactor from the inside).
- It produced an incredible amount of cheap electricity during the whole year consistently.
- It was the only NPP in the Baltic countries, thus, providing Lithuania with a very good advantage.
- If wasn’t closed, today it would have a big impact on Lithuania’s GDP (now that electricity is more expensive than ever).
- Closure of Ignalina NPP was/is extremely expensive and was partially subsidized by EU funds; however, Lithuiania’s majority part (over 50%) of capital is still used.
Some questions (I’m open-minded on this topic):
- In the 2000s, Merkel and Sarkozy promoted Putin and his Russia as a reliable peaceful partner and supplier of cheap gas and electricity to the grid. Was Ignalina NPP, when pressured to be closed by EU, was mainly part of this plan to make some EU members much less powerful / independent to produce electricity on their own? I’m sure LIT could’ve taken a stronger stance on this matter and arrive at a more fair agreement [for LIT] with Brussels.
- Why EU was forcing Ignalina NPP to be closed, even when the engineers / management conducted and presented analysis (independent and local) of complete safety and a spectacular track record of safety throughout decades since the launch in 1983?
- Japanese companies offered LIT to build a modern NPP with great discounts in 2011 to 2013 (after Fukushima accident). However, at the time, there was highly propagandist movement (organized by Ramunas Karbauskis) to forbid LIT from building a new NPP. Some say this was a strategic move by Russia to spread doubt in LIT and make sure LIT cannot become even more independent in terms of energy?
Resources
- https://iae.lt – official website (still being updated; 14 years after the decomission began since 2010 January 1st.
How big of a mistake was Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant closure for Lithuania?
byu/Illustrious-Tank1838 inlithuania
Posted by Illustrious-Tank1838
12 Comments
Its a huge win because we joined the EU.
I’d rather us focus on renewables, a nuclear disaster would affect the entire country even if it’s a small chance
During 2022 energy crisis Ramunas Karbauskis said we should have had an NPP. Blaming the government for the closure of Ignalina NPP. This man should be jailed for treason.
for sure it was quite a stupid mistake, however it was a requirement from the EU. I would, however, be cautious around using the term ‘safe’. Knowing how usually everything was built in cccp, where half of the materials somehow would get lost in transit or replaced with cheaper alternatives, especially around building the overall foundation (for a np!) it is quite a statement. nevertheless, it’s politics, rather than smart, well-thought, well-being oriented decisions.
I had a tour at the Ignalina power plant and the guide told us that the form of uranium fuel used in the reactor was only produced by Russia (no alternative ways of getting it). So if Lithuania had kept the nuclear plant, basically our entire energy sector would completely depend on Russia… I’d say closing it was a win.
Looking objectively – if everyone will be producing electricity… who will be buying it? 😀 The more sellers – the lower the price, less money can be get back from investments into electrification, well, the period is extended greatly.
And what was LT? Small post-soviet country wanting something and with nothing to offer, except for cheaper labor hands. When you have nothing to the table, you can be pushed around. This what actually happened.
Might be looked grim at THAT time. But understanding the threat from P.Xuilo, we had to get to safety ASAP.
Now we are spending higher percent of GDP for NATO, percent for Ukraine. When red threat will be dealt with, these funds can be safely diverted to build new safe nuclear plant.
Huge
The only mistake we made was that we didn’t build a new one.
>It was extremely safe
It had the same type of reactors as in Chernobyl NPP as far as I remember
loaded question. you immediately influence possible answers with words like “mistake” in the question. it was not a mistake, it was a win
EU offered to finance (80%?) of the fees related to closing it and storing nuclear fuel. These power plants were built with an expectation to run no more than 50 years safely, which conveniently would mean that we’d have to flush billions down the drain this year closing it ourselves. I personally think it was a wise choice, given that we only closed a decade ago
The fact that we don’t have a power plant today is not thanks to Merkel or Sarkozy, but rather to the best friend of modern-day Hitler – Gerhard Schröder, and the 17 Bundesland of Germany – Austria. They were the ones who made the greatest effort to ensure that Ignalina would be shut down. We wanted to build a new one to replace the old one, but in 2013, thanks to the Lithuanian cocksucking,peace of shits and former communists and their referendum , we ended up with nothing today