Nuclear Power: Europe’s new concern about Metsamor
Armenianow.com
10 June 2004
Special from Caucasus Media Institute
The European Union will allocate 100 million Euro to Armenia for
interrupting the exploitation of the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant
and searching for new energy sources. However, the grant was frozen
and will not be allotted unless the Armenian government announces
the precise term for closing the plant.
Metsamor Power Plant from the South-East..
Resistance to the Europeans’ demand was decisive: Armenian experts and
the representatives of state structures express radically different
opinions. The Armenian government declares that some 800 million Euro
is necessary to close Metsamor and for other relevant arrangements,
as well as for developing alternative energy systems.
The first block of the Armenian power plant was launched December 22,
1976; the second started January 5, 1980. It was built by a project of
first generation plants. Under ecological pressure that strengthened
in 1988, the two blocks of the plant were stopped the following
winter. The 1988 strong earthquake of Spitak that killed tens of
thousands turned out a decisive factor. In 1988-1992 the republic
literally plunged into darkness, and, by the government’s decision,
the plant restarted in 1995. The power project envisages 30 years of
exploitation. Then why is Europe in a hurry? What’s the ground for
the unrest?
“We think that no nuclear power plant must be in a seismic zone as
it is dangerous for the region as a whole. There are also technical
reasons because that plant is an old generation construction and
does not comply with contemporary standards,” says Alexis Loeber, EU
Armenia Office director. According to European experts, the Armenian
plant is one of such dangerous constructions throughout the world.
The probability of repeating earthquakes in the same territory is
a truth seismology recognizes. The settlement and the temple of
Garni situated not far from the power plant are historically known
to have suffered from a mighty earthquake that ruined them. “Those
seismic risks that are considered today in Armenia are not that
dangerous. But geological events are a complicated processes. There
can be an earthquake that occurs once 20-30 years; it is impossible
to guarantee anything,” acknowledges Alvaro Antonian, head of the
Armenian national service of seismic protection.
According to Areg Galstian, Armenian deputy minister of energy,
the reactor of the Metsamor plant is the modernized and stable
version of the Russian, Bulgarian and Slovakian reactors of the same
generation. The security systems were strengthened before the restart,
taking account Armenia’s peculiarities.
Charles Dunlop, an expert from the American University of Armenia,
says that the second reason for closing the Metsamor plant is that the
reactor is not in line with contemporary standards although American
and European donor organizations have allotted around $50 million to
solve that problem. The reactor of the Armenian power plant has no
concrete protecting layer, which would keep the stream of exhaustion
from polluting the atmosphere. But, Konstantin Pyuskulian, deputy
director of the plant’s security department, says that today it is
both financially and technically impossible to construct a concrete
protecting layer for the Armenian plant.
Alvaro Antonyan Head of National Seismic Center.. There’s also
another perplexing circumstance: the nuclear fuel is imported to
Armenia from Russia via air. In terms of the economic blockade, this
is the only way of transporting the product. “It is the same as a
flying potential nuclear bomb. This is a way practiced nowhere else
all over the world. The fuel is generally transported either via sea
or by railway,” says Alexis Loeber. “Even if the airplane crashes,
there will be less damage than the air pollution in case of using
a bomb with depleted uranium,” confidently says, Armen Saghatelian,
director of the Center for Ecological Studies.
The Metsamor plant currently generates 1/3 of the energy consumed
in Armenia.
“The closing of the plant for Armenia will signify a return to the
darkness of 1988-1992,” says Galstian and, at the same time, adds
that if the plant gets closed, Armenia will have to depend on the
only gas pipeline, the technical state of which is not very good.
The construction of the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline may be a good
incentive for developing thermal power plants. But this, too,
according to the Armenian official, is not a complete alternative to
the nuclear power plant. “We never say ‘no’, we say ‘yes’, we will
shut down the Metsamor plant but we must have alternative sources and
capacities.” According to him, if everything takes its normal course,
the Metsamor plant will close in 2016.
And if the dialogue between the European Union and Armenia on the issue
of closing the plant does eventually take place then the closing will
be no earlier than 5 years following the decision made. About this
much time is necessary to create capacities partially alternative to
the Metsamor plant.