The future of nuclear energy in Armenia: debate, risks and strategic choices around the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant

The Soviet-era nuclear power plant in Metsamor, Armenia. Photo: Sebastian Castelier / Shutterstock

The operation of the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant—commonly known as the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant—remains one of the most debated energy and environmental issues not only in Armenia but throughout the South Caucasus region. As the only nuclear power plant in the South Caucasus, Metsamor occupies a critical place in Armenia’s energy security architecture, supplying a significant share of the country’s electricity. At the same time, the plant has long been the subject of international scrutiny due to its age, Soviet-era design, and geographic location in a seismically active region.

Located approximately 30 kilometres west of Yerevan and just 16 kilometres from the Turkish frontier, the facility’s potential environmental and safety implications extend beyond Armenia’s borders. Over the years, European institutions, international nuclear experts, and neighbouring states have repeatedly raised concerns about the plant’s safety profile.

The facility originally had two VVER-440 reactors, which were commissioned in the late 1970s. Following the devastating Spitak Earthquake, the plant was shut down due to safety concerns. However, the energy crisis that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union forced Armenia to make a controversial decision: restart one of the reactors.

Unit 2 resumed operations in 1995, becoming a cornerstone of Armenia’s electricity system. Today it generates roughly 30 to 40 per cent of the country’s electricity, making it the single most important power source in the national energy mix.

For many policymakers in Yerevan, that fact alone settles the debate.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has repeatedly emphasized the strategic role of nuclear energy in Armenia’s economy.

“Nuclear energy stands as a cornerstone in our strategy, ensuring both the energy security of our nation and the mitigation of climate change,” Pashinyan said at an international nuclear energy summit.

In another statement, he stressed that the government views the safe operation of the nuclear power plant as a strategic priority, noting that the facility remains a vital component of Armenia’s electricity balance.

For a landlocked country with limited fossil fuel resources and complicated regional geopolitics, nuclear power has become synonymous with sovereignty.

The debate around Metsamor has never been purely technical. It is about energy security, geopolitics, environmental risk, and the difficult choices facing a small state navigating an uncertain regional environment. Today, as Armenia considers extending the life of the plant while simultaneously planning its replacement, the discussion has intensified.

Armenia’s leadership insists that nuclear energy remains indispensable. Critics argue that relying on a decades-old reactor in a seismic region is inherently risky. Meanwhile, the emerging idea of building small modular reactors (SMRs) has added a new layer to the debate — one that divides experts almost as sharply as the question of Metsamor itself.

European concerns about safety

Despite its importance to Armenia, Metsamor has long been criticized by international institutions and neighbouring states.

The European Union has previously classified reactors of the VVER-440 V230 type — including the one operating at Metsamor — as belonging to the “oldest and least reliable” category among Soviet-built reactors in Eastern Europe. For years, the EU encouraged Armenia to close the facility and even offered financial assistance to support its shutdown. However, Armenian authorities rejected those proposals, arguing that closing the plant without a viable replacement would endanger the country’s energy stability.

Environmental organizations have also raised concerns about the plant’s design and its location in a seismically active region. However, officials in Yerevan point to decades of safe operation and to numerous modernization programmes implemented with international support. According to Pashinyan, Armenia operates the plant “in line with the safety standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency”. He has also highlighted that no nuclear or radiation accidents have occurred in the plant’s history.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has carried out multiple inspections and safety assessments at Metsamor, encouraging continued upgrades while acknowledging the improvements implemented by Armenian specialists.

Still, critics argue that modernization can only go so far.

“The fundamental design limitations of early Soviet reactors cannot be fully eliminated,” some nuclear analysts have argued, pointing to the absence of modern containment structures typical of newer nuclear facilities.

Concerns from neighbouring Turkey

Because of its proximity to international borders, Metsamor has also become a regional political issue. Officials and experts in Turkey have periodically raised concerns about the plant’s safety and potential environmental risks. Turkish analysts often point out that the facility is located only a short distance from the border and sits within a seismically active region. Some Turkish policymakers have called for the plant’s closure or for stronger international monitoring. In previous years, Turkish officials raised the issue in diplomatic and international forums, arguing that a potential nuclear accident would have consequences far beyond Armenia.

However, the Armenian authorities reject the idea that Metsamor poses an exceptional regional risk.

They point out that the plant has operated for decades without a serious incident and that safety upgrades have been implemented in accordance with international standards.

Georgia’s energy perspective

Regional voices from Georgia often frame the issue somewhat differently. While Georgian environmental groups have expressed concerns about the aging reactor, some energy experts in Tbilisi acknowledge that Metsamor plays an important role in maintaining electricity stability across the South Caucasus. Armenia and Georgia maintain close cooperation in electricity trade, and disruptions in Armenia’s power generation could potentially affect regional energy flows. Some Georgian analysts argue that debate should focus less on closing the plant immediately and more on ensuring that Armenia successfully transitions to a modern nuclear facility.

Extending the plant’s life

Facing these competing pressures, Armenia has adopted what might be described as a pragmatic strategy: extend Metsamor’s operation while preparing for its replacement. The current plan foresees the reactor operating until 2036, following a series of modernization programmes.

During a parliamentary session, Pashinyan confirmed that the government is already examining the possibility of extending the plant’s life even further if necessary.

“We are now in the process of extending the operation period of the Metsamor nuclear power plant until 2036,” he said. “After that, another phase is expected to extend its operation for another ten years.”

At the same time, Armenia is searching for partners to build a new nuclear facility.

Several countries have expressed interest in the project, including the United States, Russia, France, China and South Korea.

The stakes are enormous: building a new nuclear power plant in Armenia is estimated to cost between three billion and five billion US dollars, making it one of the largest infrastructure projects in the country’s history.

A new nuclear plant — or a new approach?

For years, Armenia’s energy planners expected to replace Metsamor with a large reactor capable of producing 1,000 to 1,200 megawatts of electricity. However, recent discussions suggest that the government may instead pursue a different path. At international forums, Pashinyan has indicated that Armenia is increasingly interested in small modular reactor technology.

“Armenia has made a decision to pursue small modular reactor technology,” he said at a nuclear summit in Paris, noting that the government is currently reviewing proposals from international partners.

SMRs are smaller nuclear units that can be built in factories and assembled on site. Supporters argue that they offer several advantages: lower upfront construction costs, faster deployment, enhanced safety systems, and flexibility for smaller electricity markets.

For a country like Armenia, whose electricity demand is relatively modest, these features appear attractive. Yet the technology remains largely untested on a commercial scale.

The critics of SMRs

Not everyone is convinced that small modular reactors represent the solution Armenia is looking for. Some nuclear experts warn that the technology, while promising, is still in its early stages. Only a handful of SMR projects are currently under construction worldwide, and none have yet demonstrated long-term economic viability at scale.

One of the main criticisms concerns cost.

Because SMRs produce less electricity than traditional reactors, some analysts argue that they may ultimately generate power at a higher price per kilowatt-hour. Others question whether the promised cost savings from factory production will materialize.

There are also concerns about regulatory frameworks and waste management.

Critics warn that building multiple small reactors could create new complexities in nuclear oversight and spent fuel management — particularly for countries with limited nuclear infrastructure.

Within Armenia itself, some experts worry that abandoning plans for a large reactor could limit the country’s future energy export potential.

Others argue that relying on SMR technology could expose Armenia to technological risks if the first generation of commercial designs fails to deliver on expectations.

Nuclear energy and geopolitics

Beyond technical debates, the future of Armenia’s nuclear energy sector has become deeply entangled with geopolitics.

For decades, Armenia’s nuclear industry has been closely linked with Russia. The country relies on Russian nuclear fuel and technical cooperation.

However, recent developments suggest that Armenia may be exploring new partnerships.

In early 2026, Armenia and the United States signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement that could allow billions of dollars in American nuclear exports to Armenia.

The move sparked a reaction from Moscow, which has traditionally viewed Armenia as part of its strategic sphere of influence.

Russian officials have warned about the potential safety risks of American reactor technology in Armenia’s seismic environment and emphasized the reliability of existing Russian designs.

The competition between Russian and western companies for Armenia’s future nuclear project has therefore become part of a broader geopolitical contest in the South Caucasus.

The energy dilemma

For Armenia, the dilemma remains clear.

Closing the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant without a replacement would dramatically increase the country’s dependence on imported natural gas and potentially destabilize electricity prices.

At the same time, operating a Soviet-era reactor indefinitely is not a viable long-term solution.

This leaves Armenia navigating a narrow path: maintaining Metsamor while preparing the next generation of nuclear infrastructure.

As Pashinyan put it, the decision on a new reactor is “of crucial strategic importance” and must be made with careful consideration of economic and technological factors.

A decision that will shape the region

Few infrastructure decisions in Armenia carry such wide-ranging implications.

The future of Metsamor will influence not only the country’s energy security but also regional environmental debates, relations with neighbouring states, and Armenia’s geopolitical alignment.

Whether Armenia ultimately builds a large nuclear reactor, deploys small modular reactors, or adopts a hybrid strategy remains uncertain.

What is clear, however, is that nuclear energy will remain central to the country’s future.

The aging reactor at Metsamor may symbolize the past — a relic of the Soviet industrial era — but the choices Armenia makes today will determine what its nuclear future looks like for decades to come.

Anna Vardanyan is an Armenian political journalist and researcher specializing in defence, international relations, and security issues in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

New Eastern Europe is reader-supported. If you value independent coverage of Central and Eastern Europe, please consider supporting our work.
👉 Click here to donate.

Armenia, energy policy, nuclear power plant, South Caucasus