Lithuania’s Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant: strange priorities
Life is a series of compromises and trade offs. We balance every decision we make. We prioritise. Doing that means we can’t do this. Doing this means we can’t do that. Everything has as opportunity cost.
Take Lithuania for example. One of the conditions for Lithuania being admitted to the European Union in 2004 was that it closed Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is of a similar design to that at Chernobyl and like the doomed Russian reactor, Ignalina lacks adequate containment facilities in the event a meltdown.
The Lithuanian people are voting on October 12 in referendum on whether to hold to the promise to close the plant. However, ‘many of the Baltic country's leaders and voters want to renege, arguing that the risk of having to rely on nearby Russia for electricity outweighs the risk of another Chernobyl’.
As we said, life is a series of compromises. We have to prioritise. But might we humbly suggest that, if you think that buying electricity from another country until another solution is found is worse than the risk of a repeat of the worst nuclear accident in the world’s history, you have your priorities slightly confused.

Comments
And you know what? The suggestion to close Ignalina was made during the G7 meeting in Muenich in 1992. That means that Lithuania had 17 years to think about what to do and implement it - and guess what? They now suddenly will have a shortage... eh... someone obviously forgot to build some gas and/or biomass fueled co-generators, some wind turbines, and implement some cheap efficiency measures to make up for the gap in time... ooops!
Solution? Let's blame the EU for wanting us to close this Chernobyl type reactor!
Posted by: Jan Haverkamp | October 10, 2008 8:03 PM