Russia, No Longer a Nuclear Plant Provider

IRD: Mr. Ghafourifard, stating that construction of a new nuclear plant may be more economical than completion of the Bushehr plant, raised the question of whether the construction of the plant under this situation was correct. Is it really so?
 

SR: I think those words of Mr. Ghafourifard were expressed too late. He should have said that at the time when he was in the energy ministry. During that period, the Atomic Energy Organization was monitored by the energy ministry. If there was such a debate in this field, it should have taken place that time. But it did not happen, and the country’s authorities considered it right that the plant be built and completed.

It is too late for the parliament to provoke a discussion of the Bushehr plant. If the parliament had been entitled to discuss the problem, it should have been carried out when the plant was being constructed and completed. Now, while the plant goes through its final stages, and the fuel has been provided and is ready to be exploited, such words are damaging the country, because the Bushehr plant is the only path for our country to nuclear energy. This means that if we have the Bushehr plant, we can build other plants and use its technology. However, the plant cannot be the only nuclear power plant of the country and we need others.

Nowadays many countries provide a major part of their energy from nuclear power. France and Japan respectively provide 70 and 40 percent of their energy needs from nuclear power. This shows that the industrialized countries have invested in the field. It is true that we have oil, but it is not wise to use oil for such purposes, not while it has different applications and with which many products can be made.

The most important thing in response to the comment is that we are not at the beginning of the construction of the plant to make this kind of decision. It was decided to complete the plant because 85 percent of the construction activities were finished and many costs were already paid. If we're going to ignore the use of nuclear energy, that’s another discussion, but in the future, all countries will be forced to use nuclear energy.

So there is a discussion whether we basically want to have the Bushehr plant. If not, the Bushehr nuclear plant can be closed. But if we want to make use of nuclear energy, the plant is ready to work. Abandoning the plant does not seem very reasonable.

IRD: After the events at Japan's nuclear plant in Fukushima, there were concerns about the security of the Bushehr plant. For example, in a notification letter to the President, Gholamali Meigolinezhad, the representative of Bushehr, expressing concerns about an incident in this project, called for preventing the completion of the Bushehr plant. His notification reads, "As the process of the construction of the plant encountered difficulties frequently, the contractor is not responsible, and the crises created by the plants in Russia and Japan make preventing the completion of the plant expedient to the people of Bushehr". In your opinion, to what extent are these concerns reasonable?
 

SR: It is true that the incident in Japan led to the security concerns about nuclear plants. Before that incident, Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island incidents had occurred, but they did not lead to the exclusion of nuclear energy. But these events caused the International Atomic Energy Organization to devise more strict regulations and standards and demand more accurate implementation. It cannot be said that we should abandon nuclear energy due to the incidents at Japan's plant.

I was informed about the construction of the Bushehr plant from the beginning. All provisions for safety and security of the plant were observed, but when Russia accepted completion of the plant, the Russians reviewed all the standards and criteria. In addition, the Atomic Energy Organization monitored all phases of plant construction and confirmed its safety.

In the design and construction of the plant, a safe distance has been observed- the distance between the plant and the residential area of the city is very far. I remember that even at that time, authorities bought ranchers’ cattle to evacuate the area in the cause of the plant's safety.

So I do not approve of those words. The occurrence of such an event in the Bushehr plant is not likely, as it is not comparable to the Fukushima plant located on the beach of open seas, with a large number of human resources transferred to some other place. The Bushehr plant is neither close to open seas nor are there a large number of people in the area to make it a serious concern. But to take advantage of the benefits and concessions provided by the Atomic Energy Organization, many people have moved to the area. The current accumulation of human resources in the area is artificial.

Up this point, there was no problem. However, the decision about the construction and completion of the plant has not been consulted with parliament. The people who have decided that the plant be built and completed should be accountable for these issues.

IRD: Mr. Ghafourifard stated that Iran could conclude contracts with Russia and China to build a new plant. In your opinion, considering the experience of the Bushehr power plant, does that make sense?
 

SR: There is a sweet saying in our culture which goes, “a wise man will not be bitten twice from a hole”. Based on Russia's performance, I think we must conclude that agreements with the country should not be pursued again. In the case of Iran's Bushehr plant, Russia put much pressure on Iran and played games with the Iranian authorities and its national interests. So conclusion of a new contract with Russia or China does not seem logical.

In my opinion, we should not limit ourselves to certain countries. We should pursue international transactions, try to enter the international community, and then be able to find the best countries and technologies for our needs. Why do we need to invest in the countries that do not have the most advanced technology in this field? Is it necessary to be in conflict with many countries and not to be able to use their technology? Why do we not take advantage of France, which derives 70 percent of its energy from nuclear power and is very advanced in this field? Should our political cold and dark relations with them be overshadowed by these political issues? The nation's interests are above anything else. The national interests demand that our relations with the IAEA and other countries be improved so that we can use their experience and technology. Right now, it is unfortunately necessary to use the less experienced countries in this field.