Symbolic power: the future of nuclear energy in Lithuania

EU accession states may have thrown off their Soviet past in political terms, but abandoning some of the Soviet era technologies is proving to be harder. Civil nuclear power is on the way out in most of Europe, but for some ex-Soviet countries this may present serious problems of economic, social and cultural transformation -- especially in countries like Lithuania, where nuclear power supplies the bulk of the electricity. The issue has come to a head given the EU's insistence that several ex-Soviet states must agree to close their nuclear plant as a condition of EU entry. Lithuania is the accession country most wedded to and certainly most reliant on nuclear power. It has a nuclear plant which uses a technology (the RBMK, Chernobyl-type reactor) which the EU has insisted should be closed rapidly on safety grounds. This has proved an unpopular requirement in Lithuania for a variety of reasons. There are problem with ensuring continued energy supplies and replacing the lost employment and earning power. However Lithuania also has a more general commitment to this technology as a symbol of national prowess and independence. During and immediately after the struggle for national independence in 1991, the country had a mass anti-nuclear movement. This has been analysed as a covert expression of nationalist and anti-Soviet feeling, given that most opposition to nuclear power evaporated after independence (Dawson 1996). Subsequently the EU ruled that Lithuania's Ignalina nuclear plant should be closed. Yet now it is widely seen as a national asset, a view reinforced by resentment about the EU apparently imposing an unwarranted closure policy. This article will analyse how public and policy views on nuclear power have changed over time in Lithuania and how its symbolic meaning has changed during different phases of transformation of the Lithuanian society

Impact of Financing Instruments and Strategies on the Wind Power Production Costs: A Case of Lithuania

The paper aims at demonstrating the relevance of financing instruments, their terms and financing strategies in relation to the cost of wind power production and the ability of wind power plant (PP) to participate in the electricity market in Lithuania. The extended approach to the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) is applied. The feature of the extended approach lies in considering the lifetime cost and revenue received from the support measures. The research results have substantiated the relevance of financing instruments, their terms and strategies in relation to their impact on the LCOE and competitiveness of wind PP. It has been found that financing of wind PP through the traditional financing instruments (simple shares and bank loans) makes use of venture capital and bonds coming even in the absence of any support. It has been estimated that strategies consisting of different proportions of hard and soft loans, bonds, own and venture capital result in the average LCOE of 5.1–5.7 EURct/kWh (2000 kW), when the expected electricity selling price is 5.4 EURct/kWh. The financing strategies with higher shares of equity could impact by around 6 % higher LCOE compared to the strategies encompassing higher shares of debt. However, seeking to motivate venture capitalists, bond holders or other new financiers entering the wind power sector, support measures (feed-in tariff or investment subsidy) are relevant in case of 250 kW wind PP. It has been estimated that under the unsupported financing strategies, the average LCOE of 250 kW wind PP will be 7.8–8.8 EURct/kWh, but it will reduce by around 50 % if feed-in tariff or 50 % investment subsidy is applied