Lithuania closed their own plant with pressure from EU, and later voted down a proposal to build a new NPP instead. I guess that gave them a feeling of "nuclear safety". Now they lost that safety through no fault of their own, and they can't have it back, so they are upset.

I only hope Lithuania will take it to a good direction: if there is and would never be any nuclear safety anyway, maybe they can at least enjoy the benefits of NPP by building their own.

Lithuania is too small to have any nuclear industry of their own. They would have to depend on some big nuclear power in supply chain and spent fuel processing. And Big Nuclear is like Big Oil - very corrupting to your society. What is going to work for them is combination of solar&wind - that combination works great on Baltic - plus natural gas with diversifying supply from Russia with LNG from US, Saudis, etc. plus high power integration into EU power grid which they have already done.

Natural gas isn't helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Lithuania can opt for small nuclear reactors like Estonia did:

> https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/No-time-to-waste-in-...

Honestly, whatever Estonia or Lithuania do would hardly directly affect total greenhouse gas emissions of our civilization. Given local geopolitics their first priority is survival and prosperity as independent states. If they can do it while getting and staying "clean" - and i think they can do it by using more solar&wind (and that will even enhance their independence) - great, and if they have to burn some natural gas - nobody will really notice given their size especially considering that natural gas is the cleanest energy source among the "dirty". While getting nuclear in any way for them would mean losing a bit of independence (that closing of their own NPP at the will of EU is a clear example that your nuclear industry decisions aren't really yours and are actually subject to the will of the bigger powers).