State of decision making in the Baltic States: Nuclear Energy past and for the future

State of decision making in the Baltic States: Nuclear Energy past and for the future JAKOBSONE-SNEPSTE Guna1[0000-0003-4583-5100], DEFFUANT Guillaume2[0000-0001-6265-9300], VITOLINA Ieva3[00000002-7089-1326], KAPENIEKS Janis sen.4[0000-0001-6244-2355] and VITOLINS V.5[0009-0006-4618-6914] 1. Researcher at Riga Technical University, Latvia 2. Directeur de Recherche, INRAE, France 3. Lead Researcher at Riga Technical University, Latvia 4. Lead Researcher at Riga Technical University, Latvia 5. docent at University of Latvia, Latvia Abstract. Energy dependence is a very important issue on the energy agenda of the Baltic States. The shortage of electric energy has been affected by several factors, which began with the Chernobyl disaster, the closure of Ignalina and the suspension of the Visagina project. Decisions have been influenced by political situations involving other neighboring countries. Various speculations about technical data, as well as legitimate concern about safety, among other reasons, have influenced the attitude of electricity consumers towards nuclear energy for decades. It is important to remember the chronology of historical events and the validity of decisions to understand the public`s negative attitude towards nuclear energy. This is just as important as seeing the differences between the latest technology and previous generations of nuclear reactors. Important to start a dialogue about small modular reactors (SMRs) in the wider community to reduce doubt and eliminate the spread of fake news. Consumers should be allowed to evaluate current data, indicators, and an objective evaluation of the latest technological solutions should be encouraged to avoid other possible threats that could arise due to insufficient electrical energy. This research is also planned to be continued and expanded. Keywords: Nuclear energy, Baltic States, Energy independence, Energy policy, SMR. Introduction On 2 February 2022, the European Commission (EC) approved in principle a Complementary Climate Delegate Act including, under strict conditions, specific nuclear and gas energy activities in the list of economic activities covered by the EU taxonomy [1] (The draft was formally adopted on 9 March 2022, and it was applied from 1 January 2023). With this document, the EC determines that the criteria for nuclear energy operations meet the EU`s climate and environmental goals and will help accelerated the transition from solid or liquid fossil fuels to a climate-neutral future. Currently, the Baltic countries do not use nuclear reactors for electricity production. Of the 3 Baltic States, only Lithuania has historical experience related to Nuclear Power Plant (at Ignalina). However, both Estonia and Latvia have a future vision for a new Nuclear Power Plant. How the past has influences today`s scenarios. What is the overall direction for the Baltic States and what are the implications for nuclear energy production? It is not clearly approved at the governmental level. The reason is the difference of opinion between political parties and citizens. It is important to bring this topic up to date and find out what are the historical and current reasons for the fear of nuclear energy in the Baltic States. And why do the Baltic countries need nuclear energy? If the Baltic States want to produce nuclear energy in the coming years, now is the last moment to start discussing this issue on a wider scale. It is also important to explain in more detail why the population is afraid of nuclear energy. Electric independence is the main reason why this topic is very relevant for the Baltic States. Also very high electricity prices. This paper is hence organizing in the 3 parts. Introduction, the first part describes the Lithuania`s Nuclear Power Plant Ignalina (1974-2009) and decommissioning (until 2038). Second part describes Visaginas NPP project fate (20072012). Third part describes current situation and plans: interconnection with European network and SMR. And finally, the conclusion. 1 The Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant (1974-2009) and decommissioning (until 2038) Lithuania was not ready to close Ignalina and in 1995 Jurgis Vilemas described the nuclear reactor`s capacity. With the reestablishment of independence, Lithuania became another country possessing commercial nuclear reactors. In 1993 the Ignalina nuclear power plant (NPP) produced 12.26 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, equivalent to 87.1% of Lithuania's total electricity production. This is the highest annual nuclear share ever reached by any country. Economic conditions and the lack of viable alternatives demand Ignalina's continued operation. It is therefore vitally important to develop safety enhancements reducing the associated risk. Lithuania has made good progress in generating a new nuclear industry infrastructure, but further strengthening is essential. [2] Construction began 1974, the first block of Ignalina was completed in 1979. On December 31, 1983, the first reactor was started. Initially, it was planned to build 3-4 blocks. After the Chernobyl accident, the construction of the second block was postponed until 1987. In 1989, the third block was built. But after “Ring of Life” protest, it was decided that third block could not be built.[3] In 1987, I.Multer describes the risks of the Ignalin power plant as follows: The second RBMK 1500 unit at Ignalina in the Soviet Union recently come on-line. It has the same core dimensions as the Chernobyl RBMK 1000 Units but a 50 per cent higher power output. The higher fuel rating means that there would be less time for the operators to react in a loss of coolant accident. Also the reactor has design characteristics which would not be acceptable in the West.[4] Conserns about risks arose because in 1993, Lithuania set a world record for the share of nuclear – generated electricity produced in one country, with nuclear.[5] When Lithuania assumed control of the INPP (after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991) the plant, its design and operational data has been completely open and accessible to western experts. Initially, effective assistance in the nuclear safety field was provided by Sweden, subsequently, most states having significant nuclear expertise also contributed. [5] A significant conclusion stated in the SAR (Safety Analysis Report, 1995-1996) is that none of the analyzed safety concerns require the immediate shutdown of the plant. [5] It should be noted that SAR authors was specialists from Ignalina NPP, RUSSIA, Canada and Sweden.” [5] The New York Times (1988) [5], wrote about a fire in a Lithuanian nuclear reactor. The newspaper reported that flames have been extinguished, the radiation has not escaped, the reactor have been shut down after the accident. After this happened, fire safety measures were taken, and scientific articles were written, about fire safety in Ignalina and fire hazard analysis. Stockholm`s Swedish Defense Research Establishment said then it had registered four separate discharges of radiation form the power plant in three months [6] after Ignalina come on line in 1983. In 1997, an overview of safety issues of the Ignalina NPP was created, which briefly described the differences between Ignalina and Chernobyl. The consequences of the Chernobyl event were unique and were caused by a design flaw in the original RBMK type plants. Subsequently, hardware changes were implemented to change the neutronic characteristics of the INPP (introduction of absorber rods, alteration of the fuel enrichment and changes in the design of control rods). Therefore, INPP reactors can not be equated with the unit, which failed at Chernobyl. Total power coefficient of reactivity should stay negative under all possible circumstances. This characteristic has been verified by extensive analysis by international experts. [5] In many (though not all) western reactors have accomplished by a prominently visible, hemispherical shell. In the INPP, these functions were accomplished by an extensive system of interconnected re-enforced compartments called the Accident Localization System (ALS). This system uses the same principle as employed by the BWR`s (Boiling Water Reactors) built by GE (General Electric). Analysis has shown that a break in reactors pipes will not lead to the overheating of fuel and thus to the release of excess radioactivity.[5] The objective reasons for this are the higher complexity of an RBMK (comparable western BWR1s) type reactor (a considerably larger number of pipes, valves, and associated equipment) and the lower level of quality control for Soviet design and construction. On the plus side, international analysis agrees that the INPP was remarkably robust, and that vast majority of initiating events will not lead to fuel overheating and the release of radioactivity from fuel [5] (would not Harm the environment). Originally the Ignalina plant was designed to provide power not only for Lithuania but also for neighboring Latvia, Belarus and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. In 1989, 42% of the power was exported, but this fell through the 1990s. In 1994, Lithuania agreed to accept funds – eventually 34.8 million ECU ($36.8 million) from the Nuclear Safety Account administered by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)e – to support a safety improvement program at Ignalina.[7] However, in 2009 the European Union said the plant was too dangerous to operate and, that Lithuania has begun shutting down its main Soviet-era nuclear power plant. [8] Ignalina was the main producer of electricity in the country and therefore there were many and radically opposite opinions expressed in the public space on this issue. For example, the opposite opinions of Lithuanian politicians. The EU said the facility was too dangerous. The reactors were based on the same models that failed at Chernobyl in 1986, producing the world1s worst-ever nuclear accident.” [8] Lithuanian Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius opinion, that Lithuanians as decent Europeans, we are ready to meet our obligations to close the Ignalina power plant” [8] Leonas Asmatas – former energy minister of Lithuania see Ignalin`s closure as a betrayal of Lithuania`s security. [8] Ignalinas`s director, Viktor Shevaldin considered it an unprecedented case when the country is left without a main electrical resource. There were even opinions that with the closure of Ignalina, Lithuania will become more dependent on Russian gas. This is especially controversial for some Lithuanians. Not only was their country occupied but the Soviet Union the Cold War, but Russia has repeatedly shut off its gas pipelines in tis price disputes with Ukraine in recent years[8] The European Union was urging candidate countries to shut down their unsafe nuclear plants or take risk losing their bids to enter the EU[9] Ignalina was the only plant with Chernobyl-style reactors still operating outside Russia. It closed first reactor until at the end of 2004 [8] A new nuclear plants is scheduled to be built by 2020 [8] Brussels offered EUR 45 million for closing Ignalina. Lithuania says it need an additional 3 billion euros to cover all the costs involved in decommissioning the plant. Austrevicius says the calculation is based on the combined opinion of both international and local experts. The negotiator also urged caution, saying there is no previous experience in decommissioning Chornobyl-style reactors like those at Ignalina.[9] In a study published by the Austrian Ecological Institute rated Ignalina the third-most-dangerous plant, with a risk factor of 11. The two plants deemed most unsafe – Armenia`s “Armenia” plant and Bulgaria`s Kozloduy – each received 13 risk points.”[9] Presidential (Valdas Adamkus) spokeswoman Viola Gaizauskaite told: “The president started very clearly that what Lithuania has promised to do, it will. However, Lithuania cannot assume commitments that overstretch its financial and economic capabilities. Alone, Lithuania is not and will not be able to bear the cost of decommissioning.”[9] “Emma Udvin, a spokeswoman for the EU Commission in Brusssels, says the EU has already given Lithuania 100 million euros and is likely to give more – but not as much as Lithuania has requested.”[9] Until 2014, the European Union allocated 1450 million euros for the closure of the Ignalina nuclear power plant, 870 milion euros were allocated for 2014-2020, and 610 million euros are planned for 2021 – 2029.[3] After closing Ignalina the decrease in the amount of electricity produced was minus 65.1 precent. The missing part was imported from Belarus and Latvia. After the closure of the NPP, Lithuania had to import 62% of the required amount of electricity. It was a severe test for the Lithuanian economy. Natural gas based (fossil methane from Russia) CHP Lithuanian Power Plant is the main plant, replacing electricity production at the Ignalina NPP after its closure in 2009. It shall be put into operation till 2012 to energy savings of 740 GWh by 2016. [10] The first power unit of the power plant was stopped on 31.12.2004., the second on 31.12.2009. [3] The closure of Ignalina NPP marked the turning point for the Lithuanian energy sector. [10] Although the power unit of the power plant was stopped, decommissioning works are still ongoing. After the construction of a new spent nuclear fuel storage facility in 2017, it stores the spent fuel of the power plant. After 2020, the dismantling of the power plant buildings began. Decommissioning works are planned to be completed in 2038.[3] The main policy document to promote energy efficiency in Lithuania is National Energy Efficiency Programme for 2006–2010. Implementation of Energy Efficiency Action plan for 2010–2016.[10] Currently, the National Energy and Climate action plan of the republic of Lithuania for 2021 – 2023 foresees to safely decommission the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant and dispose of the resulting radioactive waste. [11] Unfortunately, at 2021 Lithuania had remained systematically and infrastructurally linked to the Russian energy system. Considering that it did not have energy interconnections with the EU mainland and that all fossil methane and most of electricity were purchased from a single monopolistic supplier, Lithuania started implementing infrastructure projects of regional importance to interconnect the Lithuanian and EU energy systems.[11] National Energy and Climate action plan of the republic of Lithuania for 2021 – 2023 provides reducing the influence of a single (monopolistic) energy supplier: by increasing the use of local and renewable resources, developing competitive local energy generation capacities and diversifying imports of energy resources that cannot be replaced by local sources.[11] In 2021, the situation of the Lithuanian electricity market was as follows: electricity system is connected to the Belarussian, Russian, Latvian, Polish and Swedish electricity systems.[11] The Lithuanian – Latvian – Estonian – Belarussian electricity systems - part of the IPS/UPS system operated by Russian electricity system operator.[11] In order for Lithuania and the Baltic States to move towards electricity independence, much attention is paid to the synchronization project (it is defined in all strategic documents), which would synchronize the electricity systems of the Baltic States with the continental European network. Work on the extension of the LitPol Link interconnection is also ongoing. A high-voltage 500 MW DC southwest interconnection – LitPol Link – costing EUR 250-300 million, to improve transmission capacity between Lithuania and Poland was commissioned in 2015.[7] This follows inauguration of an interconnector between Estonia and Finland to the north – Estlink-1, a 150 kV, 350 MW DC cable costing EUR 110 million and also supported by EU funding.[7] Another major transmission link westward under the Baltic Sea, the 700 MWe NordBalt project, connects Klaipeda in Lithuania and Nybro in Sweden. 550 million project was completed in 2016. [7] The revised energy policy in 2012 involved rebuilding the grid to be independent of the Russian/Belarus system and to work in with the European Network of Transmission System Operators (ENTSO) synchronous system, as well as strengthening interconnection among the three Baltic states.[7] Lithuania continues to take measures to isolate Kaliningrad.[7] In 1958 the USSR Counsil of Ministers gave a permission to build a typical research nuclear reactor (IRT) in the vicinity of Riga. [12] The “basin type” typical research nuclear reactor (IRT) with a 1000 kWth heating capacity was built in Salaspils – 20 km from Riga, Latvia. The IRT was used mainly for scientific research in radiation chemistry, nuclear physics, and radiobiology. The most significant work performed on the critical assembly was the unique liquid metal regulator of the nuclear reactor intended for the use in nuclear reactors in a weightless state in space. There were also investigated rotary cylindrical regulators of nuclear reactors.[12] In the early 1950s, the idea of creating an IRT arose and on September 26, 1961 Salaspils reactor was launched. Afterwards its heating capacity was increased to 2000 kWth, after reconstruction in 1974,-to 5000 kWth.[12] The results obtained during the research were not applied directly in nuclear energetics. At the end of the 1950-ties the Latvia scientists gained remarkable achievements in the application of radioactive isotopes and nuclear radiation.[12] The reactor continued working till its stoppage in 1998. On the whole, it had been active for 37 years and consumed 12.3 kg of the uranium 235U isotope.[12] Latvian scientists, together with specialists from Moscow, developed a project for the expansion of block 3 of the Ignalina NPP with a radiation contour. In general, the currently performed and planned closing costs of the Ignalina nuclear power plant are EUR 2,930 billion. The total expenditure should also count the additional security investment of USD 36.8 million from the Nuclear Security Account managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to support the safety program at Ignalina. 2 Visaginas NPP project fate (2007-2012) Visaginas Nuclear Power Plant was a planned nuclear power plant project in Lithuania. It was proposed to be built at the site of the closed Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant. [13] The plan was in 2020 to build a new nuclear power plant (Visaginas NPP) together with Estonia. The planned Visaginas nuclear power plant constitutes an integral part of the BEMIP. Baltic Energy Market Interconnestion Plan (BEPIM) [7] “was signed by eight states of the Baltic region and the European Commission.[7] The Visaginas power plant has not moved forward following a referendum in October 2012 in which two-thirds voted against the project proceeding.[7] 2010 was the first year without nuclear power [10] at Lithuania. In 2009, the government commissioned an international advisory consortium, led by the Rothschild investment bank, to prepare a business model and financing plan for the Visaginas project. This was adopted by the government, which proceeded to invite expressions of interest by major strategic investors to supplement the role of regional partners in providing a plant up to 140 MWe. This was put forward as an attractive investment proposition, with favourable environment, infrastructure in place, support from the EU Commission, and competition from Kaliningrad the only downside. The investor would get a majority stake (probably 51%) in the proposed new plant, alongside Lithuania`s Lietuvos Energija, Latvia`s Latvenergo, Eesti Energia and (until December 2011) Poland`s Polska Grupa Energetyczna (PGE)i. However, with Lithuania wanting 34% of the project and Poland then wanting 30% of it, Latvia and Estonia were unhappy with the prospect of minor stakes and the split was far from clear. [7] GE Hitachi planned to build a single 1350 MWe ABWR, several of which are operating in Japan, or a pair of these. The cost of the project was estimated ar EUR 4.92 billion.[7] Although at an early December 2010 meeting in Warsaw, prime ministers of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland confirmed their support for the Visaginas project [7], the futher and final decision on the non-implementation od the Visagina project was also influenced by the annexation of Crimea (Ukraine). 44.6% inflation (all goods and services) increase in February 2024, compared to May 2015 in Latvia.[15] In Lithuania between 2015 and today, inflation producing a cumulative price increase of 55.16%”[14] If we assume that the construction costs of Visaginas will be more than twice (coef. 2.2) as high in 2027 and increased labor costs, then the construction costs could be EUR 10.82 billion for 3400 MWe project. (1+0.5 (labor costs) +0.7 (materials)) =2.2 (coefficient). 3 Current situation and plans: interconnection with European network and SMR The fact that energy independence is important for Latvia is confirmed by the established Ministry of Climate and Energy, which was created on January 1, 2023. And in January 2024, the informative report (currently under discussion, not approved by the Cabinet of Ministers) “Nuclear Energy Development Opportunities in Latvia”. In order to achieve climate goals and increase electricity production capacity, the development of the nuclear power industry is consider as one of the solutions, planning the construction and long-term use of nuclear power plants with small modular reactors (SMR). Considering that all technical solution are in the initial stage of development, their implementation costs as well as benefits are not yet clearly known. [2] If a decision is made in Latvia on the use of technical solution to develop the nuclear energy sector, it can be implemented in two different ways: 1) build one or more nuclear power plants; 2) to look for cooperation opportunities to develop the nuclear energy industry in cooperation with Estonia.[2] In a situation where both Latvia and Estonia evaluate the development of nuclear energy as potentially the best solution for ensuring energy supply in the future, cooperation between the two countries is theoretically possible. [2] The construction of a nuclear power plant in cooperation with Estonia would solve the issue of storage of used nuclear fuel – in the east of Estonia, the structure of the earth`s layers is suitable for long-term storage of used nuclear fuel, while this is not possible in the rocks of Latvia. [2] Taking into account that the preliminary investments of the nuclear power plant reach 4500 thousand euro/MW, then approximately 2 billion euros are needed for the construction and feasibility study of the SMR nuclear power plant with a capacity of 300 MW. [2] A cooperation project with Estonia would be more beneficial for Latvia. (In the 2022, the electricity produced in Latvia had a deficit of 2.311.527 MWh.[2]) Latvia`s electricity policy has undergone drastic changes. Already in 2022, electricity trade with Russia has been terminated, and from July 2023, electricity trade transactions with the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, as well as the supply of electricity for trade using the electricity system of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, are prohibited. [2] To assess the economic competitiveness of energy, including electricity generation technologies, the levelized cost of energy (LOCE) is used as a generally accepted comparison indicator, which is determined taking into account the investments and operating costs required for the construction of the power plant, as well as the life cycle of the plant and the electricity produced during this cycle. [2] The report`s LOCE calculation indicates that modular (SMR) nuclear power plants are generally moderately expensive compared to other power generation technologies (Table 1). Table 1. LCOE assessment of potential power generation resources [2] Electricity production technology Capital costs (euro/kW) Operating costs (euro/kW) Power (MW) Workload (%) Life cycle (years) LCOE estimate (euro/MWh) Solar 925 20 100 18 25 60-80 Hydroelectric power station 2902 50 100 50 80 60-80 Onshore wind farms 1931 40 300 35 25 65-85 Nuclear power SMR 4500 128 300 80 60 70-95 Offshore wind farms 2740 86 300 40 25 90-110 Thermal power plant with a combined cycle gas turbine 1092 475 300 65 30 100-120 The fourth generation nuclear reactors retain the ability of nuclear reactor to quickly adjust electricity production to actual demand, but since the SMR capacity is significantly lower than the production capacity of traditional nuclear reactors, the reactor is operated with a much smaller amount of nuclear fuel (enriched uranium). [2] The time required from the moment when a decision has been made on the production of enectricity in nuclear power plants to the start of operation of the first nuclear power plant is approximately 10-15 years. [2] In 2010, as part of the conceptual study Construction of nuclear power plants in Latvia, “Latvenergo” examined five potential locations for new nuclear power plants – three possible locations on the coast of the Baltic Sea (West of Latvia), namely Pape, Pāvilosta and Ovīši, as well as two locations near large lake: Burtnieki and Rāznas, and one place near Riga – Acone [2] (Fig.1). In order to make a decision on the construction of a new nuclear power plant with SMR in Latvia, the location of the plant should be revaluated. [2] The conditions for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Estonia will be evaluated in accordance with the final report of the nuclear energy working group on the prospects for the development of nuclear energy, which was published on the website of the Ministry of Climate of Estonia in the Estonian language “Tuumaenergia töörühma lõpparuanne” on December 30, 2023. [2] High-level representatives of state institutions participated in the working group and the report was developed in accordance with the guideline developed by the IAEA “Cornerstones in the development of the national infrastructure of nuclear energy.” [2] The main international cooperation partner in all topics related to radiation and nuclear safety in Estonia is the IAEA, which offers various trainings, consultations and expert missions, compiles guideline materials and international standards. The USA, France Germany, Japan, Canada and Finland have also offered cooperation and assistance in the field of nuclear energy.[2] For now, there is hope that Estonians will vote for SMR. The most suitable technology for a possible Estonian nuclear power plant, according to research conducted by Fermi Energia OU, is the boiling water MWRX-300 nuclear reactor developed by GE-Hitachi. It is estimated that the total capacity of the nuclear power plant could reach 600 or even 1200 MW (depending on the selected development scenario). According to surveys conducted by Fermi Energia OU, at the beginning of 2022, the construction of a nuclear power plant in Estonia was supported by 59% of the surveyed population. [2] Lithuania has developed plans for its energy independence and greater energy efficiency. And actively working on the possibility of developing the use of its natural resources in order to become less dependent on imports. And at the same time, the energy policy is created in such a way that in the future greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and the use of renewable energy sources is increased. Lithuania is currently research for carried out in Lithuania to assess the future use of nuclear energy and greenhouse gas emission monitoring methodologies, including energy production with SMR. [2] Estonia is highly dependent on fossil fuels, especially oil and electricity produced from these sources. However, Estonia is developing rapidly in the field of alternative energy sources such as wind and biomass. Also, Estonia is actively working on the possibility of developing the use of its natural resources in order to become less dependent on imports. And at the same time, the energy policy is created in such a way that in the future greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and the use of renewable energy sources is increased. Including the use of SMR. Fig.1. – Premilinary location of nuclear power plants according to “Latvenergo” 2010 research data.[2] Like other Baltic states, Latvia was also highly dependent on imported energy resources, especially Russian gas. However, Latvia producing large part of green electricity with hydroelectric power plants and is strongly focused on biomass, wind and solar energy as a sustainable source of energy. Latvia has taken measures in the energy sector to promote more efficient energy supply and increase energy supply security. And at the same time, the energy policy is created in such a way that in the future greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and the use of renewable energy sources is increased. Latvia has set high goals regarding the use of renewable energy sources and the reduction of emissions in order to achieve the goals set by the European Union. And started discussions in the political environment about the possibilities of SMR. The nuclear power plant construction projects planned in Latvia were stopped along with the Lithuanian protest action “Ring of Life”. Society is not rady yet to accept the construction of new NPP in Latvia, therefore it is important to uptodate this topic and introduce the differences and technological progress that distinguish Ignalina-Type reactors from the new modular reactors (it is necessary to educate about the benefits and the extent of the risks). In the summer of this year, the first results of Latvian-Estonian cooperation opportunities in the field of wind energy production will be known. Acknowledgement: This work has been supported by the European Union HORIZON programme, Project number: 101079206, Project acronym: TED4LAT, Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2021-ACCESS-03 Conclusions The measurement, assessment, and effective mitigation of energy intensity compose a foremost objective of contemporary energy policy. This is because energy is the main intermediate resource for socio-economic development in any country. [2] Consequently, the appropriate energy use enables to resolve the problems of economic competitiveness, energy security, and environmental sustainability. [2] The Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP), endorsed on 17 June 2009, is another essential factor driving energy infrastructure projects further. The BEMIP, an initiative of the European Commission with 8 participating Baltic Sea states, is an unprecedented step in EU energy policy.[10] All three countries are working to diversify their energy sources to reduce dependence on foreign resources, especially Russia. Considering that the development of SMR technologies is very fast, in the next 10-20 years SMR technologies can become a widely applicable and effective solution in the production of electricity and thermal energy. [2] SMRs are fourth generation nuclear reactors with increased safety requirements, higher efficiency and reduced amount of radioactive waste. [2] The advantage of SMRs is their simplified design, economy in case of mass production and the possibility of completely building the modules in the factory, delivering them to the developer by rail or using a truck. The principle of passive cooling also plays an important role, which significantly increases the safety of SMR. [2] Therefore is necessary to continue research in this field and to educate and inform consumers about the benefits and risks associated with SMR. Fears of a repeat of the Chernobyl disaster must be allayed. It should be noted that until now Chernobyl disaster has not been repeated in reactors similar to it. The Baltic States must continue to develop innovative technologies and increase their energy independence. References 1. European Commission: EU taxonomy: Complementary Climate Delegate Act to accelerate decarbonization. In: European Commission, Business, Economy, Euro, Finance, European Commission (2022). 2. Latvia`s Ministry of Climate and Energy: Nuclear Energy Development Opportunities in Latvia. In: Ministry of Climate and Energy, pp. 2-20. Ministry of Climate and Energy, Riga (2024). 3. General Lithuanian encyclopedia Homepage, http://www.vle.lt, last accessed 2024/03/17. 4. Multer, I.: Exploring the safety of Ignalina. Nuclear Engineering International 18(23), 21-22 (1987). 5. Almenas, K., Uspuras, E.: A Brief overview of Ignalina NPP safety Issues. INPP Printing Department, Lithuania (1997). 6. Iams, J.: Soviets use advanced system after fire at nuke plant. In:UPI, News World Communications, Washington, D.C. (1988). 7. World nuclear association Homepage, http://world-nuclear.org, last accessed 2024/03/17. 8. Houlton, S.: Shutting down. In: Deutsche Welle, Reuters, Bonn (2009). 9. Mite, V.: Lithuania: EU Urges Closure Of Ignalina Nuclear Plant. In: Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Europe, Washington, D.C. (2002). 10. Baležentis, A., Baležentis, T., Streimikiene, D.: The energy intensity in Lithuania during 1995–2009: A LMDI approach. Energy Policy 39(11), 7322-7334 (2011). 11. Lithuania government: National energy and Climate action plan of the republic of Lithuania for 2021 – 2030. In: European Commission, Energy. Climate change, Environment, pp. 8-39, European Commission (2022). 12. Mikelsons, K., Ekmanis, J., Gavars, V., Tomsone E., Zeltins N., Development of nuclear energetics in Latvia. In: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information, USA (2010). 13. Pajuste, E., Līckrastiņa, A., Bajinskis, A., Stīne Teimane, A.: Nuclear education for sustainable nuclear energy development – past and future perspective of Latvia. In: 20th INPRO Dialogue Forum on Challenges and Issues in Capacity Building for Ensuring Nuclear Energy Sustainable, Development. OAK Ridge National Laboratory, USA (2023). 14. Inflation calculator of Lithuania Homepage, http://officialdata.org, last accessed 2024/03/17. 15. Inflation calculator of Latvia Homepage, http://tools.csb.gov.lv, last accessed 2024/03/17.