Nuclear strong-arm tactics advised

In negotiations with the European Commission to close Ignalina, the world's most powerful nuclear production facility, Lithuania needs to secure financing for building a new plant, according to European Parliament MPs.

Meeting at Lithuania's Economy Ministry after meetings with the Lithuanian president, two Euro MPs and a host of nuclear energy scientists held a seminar with Lithuanian MPs and specialists this week.

The scientists were from FORATOM, a European nuclear industry lobbying body that describes one of its functions as liaising between the industry and the European Parliament.

Euro MP for northeast England and British Labor Party spokesman on energy issues Gordon Adam said, "We have to look at the broad context. In the EU, in the national parliaments, a lot of forces are anti-nuclear. I wouldn't say Lithuania is being discriminated against."

"In Lithuania the reactors are the RBMK type, with the stigmata of Chernobyl," Adam said, and this was being exploited by anti-nuclear forces as a "strong propaganda point."

Adam said Lithuania had no plan to replace the 80 percent of domestic electricity demand currently satisfied by Ignalina's two reactors after they are closed, which the EU is demanding by 2009.

He said it was up to Lithuania to decide whether to seek energy self-sufficiency, or with regards to Ignalina to "make it an economic weapon."

Adam explained after the seminar that he believed there was truth in the idea that the EU is worried by the prospect of cheap Lithuanian electricity flooding the market.

Lithuania's position is one of frustration. Christian Democrat MP Algirdas Saudargas said the whole issue was "concentrated and politicized into one date," namely 2009, and that surely a longer term for working out the details, perhaps 15 years, wouldn't hurt the country's entry into the EU.

FORATOM's David Sycamore said, "Our purpose is to provoke a debate in Lithuania, discussion on how to build for long-term needs. You need to tell the EU, ?what you want us to do is bogus,' in other words, to replace Ignalina. That is the thrust of our advice."

A Finnish member of FORATOM, Sami Tulonen, made the point that in 10 years Europe will be 70 percent dependent on energy imports.

He said Finland was 72 percent dependent on imports to meet its growing energy needs, and that 50 percent of this amount came from Russia.

Finland's Parliament is debating the construction of a fifth nuclear energy facility.

Nuclear expert Jiri Beranek of the Czech Republic said Lithuania's problem was one of image, and no one in the West believed Ignalina's two RBMK reactors could be made safe.

"Russian technology is not bad. But you won't be able to prove the reactors are safe. That is the heritage of Chernobyl."

Beranek said that since it would be impossible to break the equation that Ignalina equals Chernobyl, Lithuania should demand a "good, or even better, or the best replacement" from the EU.

The Ignalina nuclear power plant produces upwards of 75 percent of Lithuania's electricity. But it was designed to service the entire northwest of the Soviet Union and operates well below full capacity.

It houses two RBMK reactors - more modern models than those used at Chernobyl. RBMK is the Russian acronym for a large channeled power reactor. Used fuel rods can be replaced without shutting the entire reactor down, which meant the Soviet Union never exported this type of reactor, since it was originally designed for producing weapons-grade nuclear materials.

The EU has called consistently on Lithuania to close Ignalina by 2009 in exchange for EU membership. Lithuania agreed to close the first reactor by 2005, and the fate of the second reactor was to be decided on when the country drafted its next national energy strategy in 2004.

The plan has now changed, and Lithuania will make a decision on when to close the second reactor before the current year ends. So far it isn't clear if Lithuania intends to mothball, decommission more fully, or dismantle the reactors. Shortfalls in electricity would likely be compensated for by burning heavy fuel oil imported from Russia or using natural gas-fired plants.