NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN LITHUANIA

1
NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN LITHUANIA
Gediminas Adlys Kaunas Technological University
2
Two RBMK-1500 type reactors were designed
at the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant (INPP) with a
capacity of 1500 MW each. The first one
was commissioned in the late December 1983, the
second one in - August 1987.
3
Two reactors have produced more than 80 of
the total electricity amount in Lithuania until
the closure of the first unit in 2004.
Despite of the fact of the forced closure of one
of electricity generating units, Ignalina NPP
remains the main source of electricity in
Lithuania until now (Fig.1).
Fig.1. Part of the total electricity production
generated at Ignalina NPP during the years in
Lithuania
4
At the beginning it was projected to build
four RBMK-1500 reactors in the Ignalina NPP.
The 3rd Unit was build but not commissioned until
the collapse of Soviet Union, the 4th Unit was
never build.
Fig. 2. The 3rd Unit of Ignalina NPP during
dismantling in 2005
5
Nuclear energy plays an important role in the
countries with poor organic fuel reserves,
because the economy of each country is very
sensitive to organic fuel crises, which are
connected with following fuel price variations.
Oil and gas price is a very powerful tool to
influence policy of neighbor countries as it was
in 1990 and 1992-1993 when Russia interrupted oil
supply to the Baltic States 1. Dramatic changes
in the energy production profile before, during
and after energetic blockade in 1992-1993 are
reflected in Fig.3.
Fig.3. The structure of electricity production in
Lithuania
1. Keith C. Smith. Russian Energy Politics in
Poland, Ukraine and Baltic States. US-Romania
New Allies, New Challenges. October 19, 2004
6
Since 1991 until 2000 the electricity demand
in Lithuania has been falling. The reasons
for the reduced electricity demand were decrease
of industry production because of economical
blockade by Russia, economic recession,
restructuring of industry, higher electricity
prices, and turn - away from energy - intensive
production 2. The same situation was in
all three Baltic States (Fig 4).
.
.


Fig. 4. Final electricity consumption in the
Baltic States
2. H. Ryding. Current experience and future
export potential of electricity generated at
INPP. Forum of Baltic Regulators. 2001.
7
The electrical power generated at the Ignalina
NPP is cheaper as compared to the electrical
power generated at thermal power plants, in which
fossil fuel is used 3. Due to this reason
nuclear energy remains the main source of
electricity in Lithuania.
Fig. 5. Electricity generation costs in 2001
INPP Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant LPP
Lithuanian Power Plant KHPP Kaunas Hydro Power
Plant, KCHP Kaunas Heat and Power Plant, VCHP
Vilnius Heat and Power Plant, MCHP - Maeikiai
Heat and Power Plant.
3. Lithuanian National Energy Strategy 2002. LEI,
2003
8
Installed electricity generating capacity
exceeded domestic needs of Lithuania. Source
Lithuanian National Energy Strategy 2002. LEI,
2003 .
PLANTS
Tallinn

ESTONIA
NARVA TPP BALTIA TPP TALLIN CHP
1615 1090 190 2895
ESTONIA
LATVIA
RIGA CHP-1 RIGA CHP-2 RIGA HPP KEGUMS
HPP PLAVINAS HPP
142 390 402 263 870 2067
LATVIA

Riga
LITHUANIA
LITHUANIA
KAUNAS HPP IGNALINA NPP KAUNAS CHP MAZEIKI
CHP LIETUVOS TPP VILNIAUS TPP KRUONIO HAPP
100 1300 178 194 1800 384 900 4856

Vilnius
Fig. 6. Major generation facilities in Baltic
States
Source K. Mikelsons. Next steps towards Baltic
electricity market. Development of Electricity
Markets and Security of Supply in the Baltic Sea
Region. 26-27 January 2006, Vilnius.
9
According to the agreement reached at the EU
accession negotiations, Lithuania closed the 1st
Unit of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant at the
end of the year 2004 The 2nd Unit has to be
closed at the end of 2009.
Table 1 . RBMK reactor lifetime prolongation
prognosis
10
Negative influence of this political decision
on the electricity market of Lithuania is
evident in 2005, Ignalina NPP produced 10,337.7
mln kWh of electricity or 4,763.9 mln kWh less
than in 2004. The export of electricity decreased
almost twice (7,439.3 mln kWh was exported in
2004). The closure of one of the units of
the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant provided Eesti
Energia with the opportunity to enter the
Lithuanian electricity market and to export
electric energy to Lithuania for the first time
in the companys history Eesti Energia. Annual
Report 2005/06. Tallinn, 2006.
Structure of generating capacities, MW, 2005
In Estonia 92 from oil shale In Latvia 68
from hydro- and 32 from fossil fuel In
Lithuania 75-80 from nuclear fuel
Source V. Jankauskas. Elrctricity Market in
Baltic Countries. Development of Electricity
Markets and Security of Supply in the Baltic Sea
Region. 26-27 January 2006, Vilnius.
11
Two main alternatives on the future
electricity production in Lithuania were
discussed during last time nuclear and
non-nuclear. The second alternative was
overweighting in 2000-2003. It was reflected in
Lithuanian National Energy Strategy 2002, the
document developed by Ministry of Economy on the
basis of studies produced by the Lithuanian
Energy Institute. Authors of this paper believed
that the revised National Energy Strategy will
provide a proper future development of the
Lithuanian energy sector until 2020. The Seimas
(Parliament) of the Republic of Lithuania
approved the updated Strategy on 10 October 2002.
According to the Strategy, the nuclear energy in
Lithuania has had to be changed by natural gas or
by orimulsion. The last was chosen as one of
alternatives during energetic blockade to secure
the fuel supply. Authors predicted that
after closure of the Ignalina NPP total demand
for the fossil fuel would increase almost 1.9
times within 20 years, the share of natural gas
in the primary energy balance would increase from
28.5 to 53 . The leading role in electric
power generation has to be taken by Lithuanian
Thermal Power Plant in Elektrenai after the
closure of Ignalina NPP. Lithuanian TPP can
burn natural gas, heavy fuel oil, and orimulsion.
12
Energy resources for production of electricity in
Baltic States (before and after closing of
Ignalina NPP)
13
Russian Ukraine, Russian Georgia natural
gas supply conflicts, doubled gas price for the
Baltic states in nearest future, Germany-Russian
agreement to build gas line on the bottom of the
Baltic Sea, overcoming Baltic States, crude oil
supply stopping by oil pipelines from Russia to
Maeikiai oil refinery there are only the part
of reasons for consolidations energy politics in
Baltic States.
In 2005 Lithuanian Parliament decided that
Lithuania must remain a nuclear State where
energy is produced in modern nuclear reactors
after all circumstances will be analyzed and
discussed. On 26 January 2006 government
officials from three Baltic States agreed to
commission a feasibility study for a new nuclear
power plant in the Baltic region. On 27
February 2006, the Prime ministers of Lithuania,
Latvia and Estonia issued a document expressing
their approval of construction of a new nuclear
power plant in the region and inviting the
national energy companies to invest in the
project. On 8 March 2006 the heads of
national energy companies Eesti Energia,
Latvenergo, and Lietuvos Energija signed the
memorandum of understanding about conducting the
feasibility study on the building of a new
nuclear power plant.
14
The goals of the study was to assess the
feasibility of constructing the plant taking into
account financial, economical, technological as
well as legal environments to Baltic countries
and EU. The study of available reactor
technologies shows that there is a satisfactory
range of suitable reactors with prevailing
international safety standards. The possible
investments would be 2.5 4 billions EUR. It
would depend on chosen reactor types and a number
of units. Assessment reveals that the
current Ignalina site is suitable for the
developing of a new reactor. The site of the 3rd
Unit of the Ignalina NPP could be chosen for the
new reactor.
15
On 9 January 2007 heads of Lithuanian,
Latvian, Estonian and Polish power companies
(Lietuvos Energija AB, AS Latvenergo, Eesti
Energia AS, and Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne
SA) completed consultations concerning
cooperation in construction of a new nuclear
power plant in Lithuania.
Polish participation in the project of the
construction of a new nuclear reactor is assumed
to be important for strategic cooperation of the
countries and it could expedite the
interconnection project of Lithuanian and Polish
power systems.
New interconnections
Poland - Lithuania 1000 MW Estonia
Finland 350 MW Lithuania Sweden 1000 MW
16
At present time the construction of a new
nuclear power station is four-lateral project,
involving Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland.
In this situation, the building of two modern
reactors with total capacity of 3200 MW is
discussed.
Lietuvos Energija AB continues preparatory
works for project of construction of new nuclear
power plant. It intends to evaluate possibilities
of logistics and construction site, located in
the territory of the existing Ignalina Power
Plant and prepare an environmental impact
assessment program.
Within a few upcoming months possibilities of
transportation of heavy and extra-large
equipment, necessary for construction of the
power plant, using country roads will be
analyzed, condition of roads, need for their
reinforcement, other ways of transportation will
be analyzed. With the consideration of
updated information about nuclear reactors of
eleven technologies, selected through a
feasibility study and provided by manufacturers,
possibilities of storing their equipment and
structures in the projected construction site
will be analyzed .
The study and program will be performed by
employing external consultants.
17
President of the Republic of Lithuania Valdas
Adamkus
Today Lithuania and the other Baltic nations are
taking action to reduce energy dependency. I hope
that this four-lateral project, involving
Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland, will serve
as an excellent example on how to design
real-term alternative energy projects and seek
competitive and ecologically clean energy
production. The construction of a new nuclear
power station poses a serious challenge to us
all energy specialists, politicians, and
society.
18
Thank you