{"id":77981,"date":"2026-09-14T10:29:58","date_gmt":"2026-09-14T08:29:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/?p=77981"},"modified":"2026-09-27T10:35:15","modified_gmt":"2026-09-27T08:35:15","slug":"myths-and-realities-surrounding-armenias-nuclear-power-plant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/az\/myths-and-realities-surrounding-armenias-nuclear-power-plant\/","title":{"rendered":"Myths and realities surrounding Armenia’s nuclear power plant"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Armenian nuclear power plant, the Metsamor NPP, has been a key link in Armenia\u2019s energy security for decades. At the same time, contradictory claims are circulating around it: that the plant is \u201cextremely dangerous and should be closed immediately,\u201d that it has \u201cnever been damaged by an earthquake and is completely safe,\u201d that \u201cthe European Union demands its immediate closure,\u201d or, conversely, that the closure of the plant is simply a \u201cRussian propaganda ploy.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Myths and realities surrounding Armenia’s nuclear power plant<\/h1>\n

\"Arm\"<\/p>\n

What is true, and what claims are misleading?<\/span><\/p>\n

During our study, we combined data from the IAEA, the European Union, the Government of Armenia, the World Nuclear Association, and other sources.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

1. Myth: “The Metsamor NPP was damaged by the 1988 earthquake”<\/span><\/h2>\n

Fact: The main claim is false.<\/span><\/h3>\n

The Metsamor NPP\u00a0<\/span>did not suffer serious damage<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0during the Spitak earthquake of December 7, 1988 .<\/span><\/p>\n

The IAEA technical document states that after a detailed inspection of the two power units, no damage was found. The stations were not shut down by the automatic seismic protection signal as a result of the earthquake, as the signals recorded were below the activation threshold. The two units were subsequently shut down by government decision.<\/span><\/p>\n

The World Nuclear Association also notes that Metsamor was located about 75 km from the epicenter of the earthquake, the plant continued to operate normally and was not damaged, but both units were later shut down due to concerns about seismic safety.<\/span><\/p>\n

In other words, the claim that “the earthquake damaged the nuclear power plant” is not supported by facts.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

However, there is an important distinction here:\u00a0<\/span>the fact that the station was not damaged by the earthquake does not in itself mean that the station is free from seismic risks<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0.<\/span><\/p>\n

Concerns about seismic safety after the earthquake were one of the reasons why both power units were shut down.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

2. What happened to the NPP after 1988?<\/span><\/h1>\n

The first power unit at Metsamor was connected to the grid in 1976, the second in 1980. Both reactors are of the VVER-440 family. Currently, only the second power unit is in operation.<\/span><\/p>\n

After the earthquake, both units were shut down. The first unit was later permanently shut down, and the second, amid Armenia’s severe energy crisis, was restarted in 1995, after a series of safety and seismic protection works had been carried out beforehand.<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, the popular notion that “the plant was simply turned back on after 1988 without any significant safety work” also does not fully correspond to the facts.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the IAEA, a seismic reassessment of the plant was carried out before restarting, and numerous safety upgrades were implemented in subsequent years.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

3. Myth: “The Metsamor reactor is just the same old Soviet reactor that was not adapted to the conditions of Armenia”<\/span><\/h1>\n

Fact: reality is more complicated<\/span><\/h3>\n

The reactor used in Metsamor is of the VVER-440 family, but the specific version of the plant\u00a0<\/span>is the V-270 modification<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0, which was designed for areas with high seismic activity.<\/span><\/p>\n

The European Commission’s nuclear safety cooperation documents state that seismic reinforcements were implemented for Metsamor based on the original V-230 design, and it was classified as V-270.<\/span><\/p>\n

The IAEA assessments also indicate that reassessments have been carried out regarding the seismic safety of the plant, including after the Fukushima accident.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, this does not mean that the age and design generation of the reactor are not an issue.<\/span><\/p>\n

The second unit of Metsamor was commissioned in 1980 and its initial design life was 30 years. That is, it was supposed to reach the end of its design life in 2010. Later, the operation was extended through safety and technical modernization programs.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

4. Myth: “The nuclear power plant should have been closed a long time ago, so it is now operating illegally”<\/span><\/h1>\n

Fact: This is also a misleading statement.<\/span><\/h3>\n

It is true that the reactor’s\u00a0<\/span>original design life has expired<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0. However, the end of the design life itself does not mean that the reactor must necessarily be shut down the next day.<\/span><\/p>\n

The operating life of nuclear power plants can be extended if appropriate technical assessments, safety measures, and regulatory requirements are implemented.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the case of Armenia, such work has been carried out, and large-scale modernizations have been carried out to extend the operating life of the second power unit. In 2023, Armenia and Rosatom signed a new contract for the modernization and extension of the plant’s operating life. According to the World Nuclear Association, as a result of this work, the goal was set to ensure the operation of the plant until 2036.<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, the claim that “the station should have been closed long ago, therefore the current operation is illegal in itself”\u00a0<\/span>is not factually substantiated<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

5. Myth: “The Metsamor River provides almost 40% of Armenia’s electricity”<\/span><\/h1>\n

Fact: According to the latest available international data, about 30%<\/span><\/h3>\n

The importance of the nuclear power plant in Armenia’s energy system is indeed great, but the figure of 40% should be used with caution.<\/span><\/p>\n

The World Nuclear Association notes the following picture for 2023:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  • natural gas – about 42%,<\/span><\/li>\n
  • nuclear energy: about 30%,<\/span><\/li>\n
  • hydropower: about 18%,<\/span><\/li>\n
  • Solar energy: about 8%.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    The World Nuclear Performance Report also estimates the share of nuclear energy at about\u00a0<\/span>31%<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0by 2024 .<\/span><\/p>\n

    Thus, it is correct to say that the Metsamor NPP\u00a0<\/span>provides about one-third<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0of Armenia’s electricity production , and therefore its role from the perspective of energy security is significant.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
    \n<\/div>\n

    6. Myth: “If Metsamor is closed, Armenia will simply switch to solar and hydropower”<\/span><\/h1>\n

    Fact: Renewable energy is important, but replacing it with a single source is not easy<\/span><\/h3>\n

    Armenia has significantly increased its solar energy production in recent years. However, for the energy system, it is not only the amount of electricity produced annually that is important, but also\u00a0<\/span>when and how consistently it is available<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Nuclear power provides continuous production, while solar production depends on the time of day and weather conditions, and hydropower also depends on the seasonal availability of water resources.<\/span><\/p>\n

    For this reason, the issue of replacing Metsamor cannot be solved simply by “closing the nuclear power plant and building solar power plants.”<\/span><\/p>\n

    For this reason, the European Commission, in its latest documents, talks about several directions at the same time: ensuring nuclear safety, creating new generating capacities, developing renewable energy, energy efficiency, and developing networks.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
    \n<\/div>\n

    7. Myth: “The European Union demands that Armenia immediately close the nuclear power plant”<\/span><\/h1>\n

    Fact: The EU’s position is real, but the wording “demands immediate closure” is incorrect<\/span><\/h3>\n

    One of the most debated issues on this topic is the EU’s position.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The documents show that\u00a0<\/span>the EU has indeed raised the issue of the closure and safe decommissioning of Metsamor for many years<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The 2017 EU-Armenia Joint Relations Document noted the need for a roadmap for the closure and safe decommissioning of Metsamor, while taking into account that Armenia must have replacement capacities to maintain energy security.<\/span><\/p>\n

    In 2023, the European Parliament resolution also expressed concerns about the continued operation of Metsamor and called for the development of a roadmap for closure and safe decommissioning. At the same time, the same document emphasizes the need to ensure replacement energy capacity and the safe operation of the plant during the transition period.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The approach in the 2025 EU document is again the same: continue to implement the stress test recommendations, ensure the safety of the plant, develop a decommissioning strategy, and simultaneously switch to new generating capacity.<\/span><\/p>\n

    In other words, both extreme claims are wrong.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \u274c “The EU does not want Metsamor to be closed at all” \u2014 wrong.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u274c “The EU demands the closure of the station tomorrow” \u2014 also wrong.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u2705 Reality: The EU considers the safe closure and decommissioning of Metsamor a long-term goal, but at the same time recognizes Armenia’s energy security problem and speaks of the need for replacement capacities.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
    \n<\/div>\n

    8. And what does the EU say in 2026?<\/span><\/h1>\n

    The EU’s current position has become even clearer.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The European Commission notes that it continues to monitor the implementation of the Metsamor nuclear safety stress test recommendations and supports the development of a roadmap for the timely and safe decommissioning of the plant.<\/span><\/p>\n

    At the same time, the EU cooperates with Armenia in the development of renewable energy, energy efficiency, electricity networks, and regional energy connections.<\/span><\/p>\n

    In other words, the EU’s approach\u00a0<\/span>is not simply to “close the station”<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0, but:<\/span><\/p>\n

    safe operation \u2192 creation of new capacities \u2192 energy diversification \u2192 safe decommissioning.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
    \n<\/div>\n

    9. Myth: “Russia just says Metsamor is safe because it wants to maintain its influence”<\/span><\/h1>\n

    Fact: This is a political assessment, not technical evidence.<\/span><\/h3>\n

    In August 2026, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated regarding Metsamor that the plant is a system-building element of Armenia’s energy system and its closure could increase Armenia’s dependence on other countries. She also defended the plant’s seismic safety.<\/span><\/p>\n

    However, two different issues must be distinguished here.<\/span><\/p>\n

    First,<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0what is the technical security of the station?<\/span><\/p>\n

    Second,<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0what political consequences might its closure have?<\/span><\/p>\n

    An official Russian statement may provide information about Russia’s position, but cannot be considered independent evidence of the plant’s security.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The results of the IAEA, the national regulatory body, stress tests, and independent technical expertise are more important for assessing the safety of the plant.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
    \n<\/div>\n

    10. Myth: “Azerbaijan simply has security concerns over Metsamor”<\/span><\/h1>\n

    Fact: Azerbaijan’s statements should also be considered in the context of regional energy policy<\/span><\/h3>\n

    In August 2026, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev announced that the Metsamor NPP was old, posed a threat to the region, and would have to be closed \u201csooner or later.\u201d At the same time, he spoke about the possibility of power transmission lines through Armenia and future electricity supplies.<\/span><\/p>\n

    These facts are important because they show that the topic of nuclear power plants\u00a0<\/span>is no longer just a topic of nuclear safety<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0. It has also become a topic of regional energy competition and possible new energy connections.<\/span><\/p>\n

    However, Aliyev’s statement, like the statements of Russian officials,\u00a0<\/span>cannot replace an expert assessment of technical safety<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
    \n<\/div>\n

    11. Myth: “If Metsamor is closed, Armenia will inevitably become dependent on Azerbaijan”<\/span><\/h1>\n

    Fact: It’s not a predetermined scenario.<\/span><\/h3>\n

    In the event of the closure of Metsamor, Armenia’s energy system will undoubtedly need replacement capacity. But where and how that capacity will be created is a matter of political and economic decisions.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Armenia can combine:<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    • new nuclear power,<\/span><\/li>\n
    • small modular reactors,<\/span><\/li>\n
    • solar and other renewable energy,<\/span><\/li>\n
    • energy storage systems,<\/span><\/li>\n
    • high-efficiency gas stations,<\/span><\/li>\n
    • Electricity cooperation with Iran,<\/span><\/li>\n
    • development of regional power grids.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      Therefore, the equation “Closing Metsamor = mandatory purchase of electricity from Azerbaijan”\u00a0<\/span>is not a fact, but one of the possible scenarios<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
      \n<\/div>\n

      12. What does Armenia plan to do after Metsamor?<\/span><\/h1>\n

      Armenia is not considering a complete abandonment of nuclear energy.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Documents published by the Armenian government show that the option of building a new nuclear power unit continues to be studied. According to a 2023 government report, Russian, American and South Korean technologies, including small modular reactors, have been studied.<\/span><\/p>\n

      The government program for 2026\u20132031 envisages a program to build a new nuclear power unit and the completion of the reactor technology selection process by the end of 2027.<\/span><\/p>\n

      In other words, Armenia’s current policy can be described not as\u00a0<\/span>“abandoning the nuclear power plant”<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0, but as\u00a0<\/span>a process of replacing the old operating power unit and choosing the future format of nuclear energy<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
      \n<\/div>\n

      13. Small modular reactors: ready-made solution or still developing technology?<\/span><\/h1>\n

      Small modular reactors, or SMRs, have become one of the important areas of discussion in Armenia’s nuclear policy in recent years.<\/span><\/p>\n

      However, here too, it is necessary to avoid exaggerated claims.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Some of the SMR technologies are still in the development, licensing, or first commercial projects phase. Therefore, it is not correct to present them as fully established and widely used replacement technologies in all countries.<\/span><\/p>\n

      SMRs have already been considered as a possible option in previous long-term plans of the Armenian government, and in recent years, the Armenian authorities have continued to explore this direction.<\/span><\/p>\n

      The government’s 2026 program sets the deadline for selecting a new nuclear technology for 2027.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
      \n<\/div>\n

      What is actually fact and what is myth?<\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Claim<\/span><\/th>\nRating<\/span><\/th>\nWhat do the sources show?<\/span><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
      The 1988 earthquake damaged the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant.<\/span><\/td>\n\u274c\u00a0<\/span>Fake<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nAccording to the IAEA, a detailed inspection found no damage.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      The nuclear power plant was shut down after the earthquake.<\/span><\/td>\n\u2705\u00a0<\/span>Correct<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nBoth units were halted amid safety concerns.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      The Metsamor reactor is not adapted to seismic conditions.<\/span><\/td>\n\u26a0\ufe0f\u00a0<\/span>Misleading<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nThe V-270 version is a seismically reinforced\/adapted version.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      The reactor is of an older generation.<\/span><\/td>\n\u2705\u00a0<\/span>Correct<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nThe VVER-440 is a Soviet-generation reactor with a long history of operation.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      The nuclear power plant should have been closed long ago, and now it is illegal.<\/span><\/td>\n\u274c\u00a0<\/span>False\/unfounded<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nProject deadline extended through safety measures<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      The nuclear power plant provides about 40% of Armenia’s electricity.<\/span><\/td>\n\u26a0\ufe0f\u00a0<\/span>Exaggerated<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nLatest international data: around 30\u201331%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      The EU wants to close Metsamor<\/span><\/td>\n\u2705\u00a0<\/span>Partially correct<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nThe EU considers closure and decommissioning a long-term goal<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      The EU demands the immediate closure of the plant.<\/span><\/td>\n\u274c\u00a0<\/span>False\/Misleading<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nThe EU simultaneously emphasizes the need for replacement capacities and transitional security.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Russia claims that Metsamor is important for Armenia’s energy security<\/span><\/td>\n\u2705\u00a0<\/span>Correct<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nThat is Russia’s official position.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      The Azerbaijani leadership demands the closure of the station.<\/span><\/td>\n\u2705\u00a0<\/span>Correct<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nA similar announcement was made in 2026.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Closing Metsamor automatically means dependence on Azerbaijan<\/span><\/td>\n\u274c\u00a0<\/span>Unproven<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nIt’s a possible scenario, not a predetermined outcome.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Armenia is considering building a new nuclear power plant\/reactor<\/span><\/td>\n\u2705\u00a0<\/span>Correct<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nVarious technologies are being discussed, including SMRs.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
      \n
      \n<\/div>\n

      Conclusion: The real danger lies not in myths, but in oversimplified ideas.<\/span><\/h1>\n

      A fact-checking of the Metsamor NPP shows that the reality lies between the two extremes.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Metsamor is neither a “catastrophic bomb” that could explode at any moment, nor a “perfectly safe” station around which all concerns are fabricated.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

      It is an old-generation nuclear power plant, built in a zone of high seismic activity, and its safety systems have been upgraded many times over the years. It was not damaged during the 1988 earthquake, but after that earthquake, seismic safety issues became one of the most important issues for its future operation.<\/span><\/p>\n

      At the same time, Metsamor continues to be an important component of Armenia’s energy system, producing about a third of the country’s electricity.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Therefore, the main question is not\u00a0just\u00a0<\/span>“to close or not to close?”<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

      The real question is:<\/span><\/p>\n

      How to ensure Armenia’s energy security at a time when the operating Metsamor reactor is approaching its extended operating limit, and with what new capacity should it be replaced?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

      In this regard, Armenia simultaneously faces three different challenges:\u00a0<\/span>nuclear security, energy security, and geopolitical dependencies<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0.<\/span><\/p>\n

      And that is precisely why any claims about the future of Metsamor should be verified not through political statements, but\u00a0<\/span>through technical data, international expert assessments, official documents, and energy balances<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Main sources<\/span><\/h3>\n
        \n
      • IAEA<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Technical data on the seismic safety of Metsamor and the consequences of the 1988 earthquake.<\/span><\/li>\n
      • European Commission \/ EU<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Official positions on Armenia’s nuclear safety, Metsamor decommissioning, and energy diversification.<\/span><\/li>\n
      • World Nuclear Association<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 History, technical specifications and energy balance of the Metsamor reactors in Armenia.<\/span><\/li>\n
      • Government of Armenia<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Documents on the long-term development of Armenia’s energy system and plans for a new nuclear power unit.<\/span><\/li>\n
      • Official source of Azerbaijan<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Ilham Aliyev’s 2026 statement on Metsamor and regional energy connections.<\/span><\/li>\n
      • Freedom<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Maria Zakharova\u2019s 2026 statement on Metsamor and Armenia\u2019s energy security<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

        Kolya Mkrtchyan<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

        The material was prepared within the framework of the Disinformation Flows Monitoring Project<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

        \"\"<\/p>\n

        #CivilSocietyCooperation #ishrarmenia #ishrfactcheck<\/span><\/p>\n

        The project is implemented with the financial support of the Federal Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        The Armenian nuclear power plant, the Metsamor NPP, has been a key link in Armenia\u2019s energy security for decades. At the same time, contradictory claims are circulating around it: that the plant is \u201cextremely dangerous and should be closed immediately,\u201d that it has \u201cnever been damaged by an earthquake and is completely safe,\u201d that \u201cthe European Union demands its immediate closure,\u201d or, conversely, that the closure of the plant is<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":113,"featured_media":77982,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"slim_seo":{"title":"Myths and realities surrounding Armenia's nuclear power plant - Menschenrechte Osteuropa - News & Konflikte","description":"The Armenian nuclear power plant, the Metsamor NPP, has been a key link in Armenia\u2019s energy security for decades. At the same time, contradictory claims are cir"},"_slim_seo_primary_term_category":220,"_slim_seo_primary_term_post_tag":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[220,218,471,1376],"tags":[823,1381],"class_list":["post-77981","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-armenia","category-bl-en","category-country-armenia-en-2","category-opr-armenia-2026","tag-civilsocietycooperation","tag-opr-armenia-2026"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77981","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/113"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=77981"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77981\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":77990,"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77981\/revisions\/77990"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/77982"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77981"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77981"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/humanrights-online.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}