Fears for future of Lithuania's nuclear town

[jpak]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKL0189399920080207

VISAGINAS, Lithuania (Reuters) - When Lithuania's sole nuclear power station closes next year, European Union officials will sigh with relief, but nearby residents are already fretting over the future of their town.

The EU's concern is safety. The Ignalina plant has the same type of reactors as Chernobyl in Ukraine, where a 1986 reactor meltdown caused the world's worst nuclear disaster.

With the closure, Lithuania will lose a source of 70 percent of its electricity, and the population of nearby Visaginas, one in 10 of whom work at the plant, are worried about their future.

Visaginas, with its streets of concrete apartment blocks, was purpose-built for workers at Ignalina, where the first reactor came on line in 1983 and the second in 1987. It houses Lithuania's highest concentration of Russians, imported for their nuclear skills from the rest of the former Soviet Union.

<more>

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. I've been there.

actually, the safeguards (with EU help) have increased to western standards. The fact that it remains a graphite based system is the fear.

[DCKit]

2. The French have developed safer reactor designs (not sodium)...

But can Lithuania even afford new (filthy) coal plants?

Distributed co-generation, aka "combined heat and power" is probably the most affordable option, but they're going to need a lot of outside investment.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. their economy has been growing faster than the US'

but do they have the kind of resources to build a new clean nuke, or even dirty coal? nope.

[losthills]

7. There is no such thing as a "clean nuke...."

[Doctor Cynic]

8. I read in some French magazines

that the French company Areva will invest in a spanking new nuclear plant that will replace this old Soviet one. So things are still ok for that country.

[losthills]

9. "Okay?"

How?

[Doctor Cynic]

10. This is what I can find in English:

http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/17082/

I'm assuming they will use western rather than Soviet technology, but I did read that Areva was interested in the project.

[NickB79]

4. Surprise, surprise, look what's replacing that reactor

"Latvia imports electricity from Lithuania to supplement supplies from its own hydro-power plants. Estonia relies on heavily polluting oil shale, which is set to get more expensive under new taxes on carbon dioxide emissions.

Experts also forecast increasing energy demand in the Baltic states as the economies of the small countries expand.

The natural choice for all three is more gas and coal-fired power stations and Lithuania and Latvia have plans to boost output from such sources."

I will guarantee that far more people will die from the coal and natural gas plants brought online, and the subsequent air pollution that accompanies them, than have ever died from this reactor or it's waste products.

But what's a little more CO2 among friends, right?

[bananas]

5. Because fossil fuels are still that much cheaper than everything else.

Even with the carbon taxes.

And your "guarantee" is both worthless and meaningless.
No insurance company will make that "guarantee".
No Las Vegas bookie will make that "guarantee".
You won't even find a seedie loan shark who will make that "guarantee".
But you will find people on the internet pretending to make that "guarantee".

[NickB79]

6. So, CO2 and coal soot ash don't cause death and destruction?

Are you really trying to make a claim that coal and natural gas plants don't kill by the millions every year, and adding to their number won't make things worse?

Or is there something special about these particular plants that you have privileged information on?

[Systematic Chaos]

11. Notice how questions like these NEVER get answered...

...by the renewables zealots?

:rofl:

[losthills]

12. Notice who's asking them......

The same nuclear messiahs that tell us nuclear waste is nothing to worry about, uranium mining is no big deal, and cancer rates downwind of nuclear plants don't matter because people get cancer anyway.

Laugh it up....

[hunter]

13. So you'd rather live near a coal fired plant than a nuclear plant?

Personally I'd ban coal. After that nuclear power is much lower down on my own list of things hazardous to earth's natural environment.