Lithuania may be a good place for a new nuclear plant, but it would be difficult politically.
Ignalina NPP used to provide the vast majority of the country’s power. For nearly two decades after the restoration of independence in 1990 we were the biggest users of nuclear power in the world, with the two reactors at Ignalina supplying over 70% of the domestic power demand. But for some reason the EU didn’t want to have 30+ year old Chernobyl-style RBMK reactors operating on its territory, so shutting down the plant was part of the accession treaty into the Union in 2004.
The shutdown was supposed to happen in parallel to the building of a modern NPP, but as the deadline for the shutdown approached, the plans for a new plant were barely in the earliest stages, so in 2008 a referendum was held on a proposal to extend the operation of Ignalina. It got more than 90% of the votes in favour, but the overall turnout was slightly less than 50%, so the referendum failed, and Ignalina was shut down in 2009.
The planning for a new plant continued, but it got interrupted first by the financial crisis, then by various domestic political scandals, so it slowly dragged on for years. Then the Fukushima disaster happened, and other countries (e.g. Germany) announced they would discontinue nuclear energy. This fresh anti-nuclear sentiment, combined with those earlier domestic scandals, led to a 2012 referendum where nearly 65% voted against building a new nuclear power plant in Lithuania.
Even though most of the “against” campaign focused on the flaws and scandals surrounding the particular plan that was in development at the time, the wording of the referendum was open and generic, which means we now have a standing political mandate against any new NPP. And at least for now, all major political parties consider the question settled.
But Holtec is well within its legal rights and permits to discharge waste at the same rate as it did when operating, and it does not need federal, state or local approval to dump the contaminated water. This practice is standard for nuclear plants.
Tritium in low concentrations isn’t much of a worry, but I was still surprised that dumping is permitted. Nukes aren’t my specialty.
Lyman said a fourth option would be leaving the radioactive water onsite to decay over time into non-harmful helium [sic]. “Keep storing indefinitely and eventually the problem will solve itself," he said.
…
For tritium, this process would take just over 24 years.
a) TIL hydrogen can decay into helium if you start with enough neutrons in the hydrogen, and
b) With a half-life of 12 years, you’d still have 25% of the original tritium left after 24 years, I’m wondering whether a 75% reduction is sufficient or did someone in the spokesperson-to-editor chain not understand half-lives?
Suspension of nuclear pact reversible, Russia signals
Away from Warsaw, Russia has signalled the possibility of compromise on a key nuclear arms agreement with the US.
A decision to suspend participation in the New Start treaty “may be reversible”, according to a post on the Telegram messaging app by the Russian Foreign Ministry.
President Putin announced the suspension in his speech earlier today.
Agreed in 2010 and active the following year, New Start was aimed at preventing a nuclear war. It was the last deal on nukes still in place between the two former Cold War rivals.
American officials already believed that Moscow was failing to follow the pact. The fresh Russian statement levels the same accusation at Washington.
The firings come as the Air Force is expanding a review of whether nine instances of blood cancer found in officers over decades are linked to nuclear silo work. The broadened review includes all personnel who worked on, guarded, supported or operated ground-based warheads, Global Strike Command announced last week.
Seems like a nonsequitur, but maybe they’re connected.
