- Have you ever been to Chernobyl?

- Of course.

- And didn't what you see there shake your faith in your profession?

- No. If somebody is illegally driving a Trabant which is not in a sound condition and then crashes into a tree, the conclusion to draw wouldn't be to revert to a horse-drawn carriage. Chernobyl was a badly designed power plant operated without the proper controls and a culmination of every fault and wrong approach in the Soviet system. The disaster not only wreaked havoc in the Ukraine but also caused a lot of damage to the entire nuclear industry.

- In 2003 you supervised the restoration of operations at the Paks Nuclear Power Plant as a ministerial commissioner. Have you considered that the same kind of disaster as the one at Chernobyl could have also happened in Hungary?

- At our institution we studied the reasons for and consequences of the operational failure at the plant even before my appointment. It would not have led to any serious environmental damage. However, a more difficult technical situation could have been produced than the one that did develop.

- What conclusion did you draw that could be useful in regard to the construction of the new nuclear reactor in Paks?

- Serious organisational problems led to the operational failure of the plant. If a power plant is to operate efficiently, it's vital that its staff do not become lax. The efficiency of the Paks Nuclear Power Plant grew continuously from the early 90s and over time the blocks were increasingly better utilised. Since the production figures were impressive, a lackadaisical attitude developed and problems were thus not recognised. However, in the meantime the power plant began to deal with other things. To make matters even worse, one organisational restructuring followed the next along with constant changes in management, so the staff didn't necessarily concentrate on their primarily function. Their attention was distracted from the technical problems that were developing and in the confusion technical decisions were not made on a solid basis. The lesson to be learned from this is that a company's culture of safety and the proper discipline required for nuclear technology must be constantly maintained so that an organisation does not manoeuvre itself into a situation that could lead to a failure in operations. This is why the company and the team of experts operating the present blocks should not be burdened with the responsibility of constructing the new reactors. This must be realised in the framework of a separate organisation.

- You stated earlier that the old reactors, with their extended hours of operation, should be used in parallel with the new ones. However, according to the president of the Hungarian Energy Office, these will only produce energy for export purposes which, therefore, places a question mark over the development project. Do you think that the people who fund the project should be the ones who make a profit out of it, and that tax payers and consumers should not foot the bill? Do you share Zoltán Matos's view?

- This is the wrong approach. Since the cost of the developments is built into the energy to be sold, it is always the consumers who pay, irrespective of whether they are domestic or foreign. In my view, the argument that the Paks reactor is superfluous is not a professionally established one. A great deal of calculations and analyses have been carried out in regard to the project. They all demonstrate that building the blocks is justified: the first around 2020 and the other around 2025. By 2025 we will be four thousand megawatt capacity of generated power short compared to the present nine thousand in our power generating system because of environmental protection, economy and efficiency. At the same time, the demand for electricity will increase by one or two thousand megawatts. This means we will need a total of five to six thousand megawatts of new capacity, which cannot be produced on the basis of just one type of energy. It's not a matter of just nuclear energy or just renewable energy. A comprehensive energy portfolio is required and the construction of renewable, nuclear and natural gas power stations.

- Do the two blocks have to be built at the same time?

- It would be expedient but the construction will not take place in parallel as it will be staggered to a certain degree.

- Zoltán Matos is not the only person who believes that the construction of a new nuclear power plant should not be one of the most pressing issues on the agenda for the next four years. Péter Kaderják, for one, is also of this opinion. Don't we have at least twenty years?

- The construction of a nuclear power plant is a lengthy process. If parliament gives the green light it is only a matter of time before tenders have to be announced, on the basis of which it will be decided who the supplier will be and what type of reactor will be built in Paks. Just the preparation for the tender will take one and a half years. A professional evaluation of the submitted tenders will take up another year. Things will be delayed another five-six years in procuring licences from the authorities in regard to energy, water rights and those pertaining to environmental protection and nuclear safety. The first steps before the above are even started involve making the geological, meteorological and environmental feasibility studies. So what are we waiting for exactly?

- Maybe for the country to be disconnected from the umbilical cord of the IMF. Are you not afraid that this development, which will cost four times as much as metroline 4, will not turn into a hotbed of corruption? What if the uranium is stolen from the construction site?

- I am confident that the new government will be able to curtail corruption. If it fails to do this, the country will sink to the same level as third world nations. This is a nuclear development. The raw materials are a crucial factor here. And there is no question of tax payers' forints being used to fund it.

- But according to the managing director of Paks Nuclear Power Plant, the state would have to back the project with at least 50 percent of the funding but ideally with 75 percent.  

- It doesn't mean that 2,000 billion forints will be taken from the budget otherwise earmarked for the health service and education. The managing director's statement refers to the state' share in the company that will operate the power station.

- But surely you don't seriously think that banks reeling from the global crisis and no longer giving out loans will be queuing up to finance a mega project, especially if there is no state guarantee behind it?

- Companies in the relevant field as well as banks are indeed enquiring about the project. I must emphasise that the state does not have to directly put money into this. It is still a subject of debate exactly what kind of state guarantee is necessary.  

- But should the government willingly forego its 35-billion- forint income from dividends, which it is entitled to after 2009 as the owner of MVM? 

- The new government has the choice to better facilitate the development by not taking out the profit from the Paks Nuclear Power Plant and MVM but instead allowing it to accumulate in the hands of these two companies. 

- The 35-billion-forint dividend does not even add up to two percent of the 2,000-billion estimated cost of the nuclear power plant development. So somebody will have to foot the bill.

- I think that despite this the project can be financed from various sources.

- Not only do many people question the feasibility of a new nuclear power plant but also how MVM's board decided upon new measures some weeks before the elections. Opponents of the project believe that as a minimum one representative of the Hungarian State Holding Company or the minister exercising the proprietary rights should have taken part in this sitting. This is especially the case if the project has to be realised in such a way that it can later remain in state ownership.    

- I don't believe any risk is created by the decision made by MVM's board for one company to be formed to procure permits and to launch the development. These responsibilities should not be placed on the shoulders of the Paks Nuclear Power Plant.  

- You stated earlier that there is a shortage of experts in the energy sector. Can we nevertheless claim that Hungary has the appropriate expert capacity for this nuclear project? 

- Preparations were made in Hungary during the 60s and 70s with the objective of constructing a nuclear power plant in Paks in the 80s. This was done so that we would at least be self-sufficient at a knowledge level. We now have the necessary infrastructure to put together a proper team of experts. For example, a nuclear training reactor is operated at the Technical University, and there is also a research reactor at the nuclear energy research department in the Central Research Institute for Physics. Both of them are unique facilities in the region. In addition, we have the wide ranging technical and natural science expertise necessary for the operation of a nuclear power plant at our disposal in Hungary. However, it is true that we do not have enough engineers for the construction phase. Directed educational programmes are therefore necessary in order to realise the project.

- Are such programmes already underway in the country?

- Educational programmes have been prepared but not yet launched since we are not training as many engineers as we would need. Don't forget that the engineers of the future are still sitting at their desks in secondary schools. If the second new block in Paks comes on line in 2025, the 30-year-old experts of that time are now only 15. The greatest problem in their case is that in secondary school education the natural sciences have been somewhat sidelined. The number of physics and chemistry lessons has fallen and physics is no longer a compulsory part of the final school leaving exams. This leaves its mark on the whole of society and holds back our industrial development.

- All of this is scarcely an excellent basis for the construction of a nuclear power plant. Is the situation the same on the manufacturing and supplier sides?

- There is an abundant supply on the manufacturing side at the moment, although it's also true that it could become scarce at any time. However, twenty-five countries have declared that they would like to use nuclear energy which do not themselves have nuclear power plants. The Russians, French and Japanese have significant potential to construct a nuclear power plant.

- Which of them would you prefer to see participate in the construction of the new Paks blocks?

- That is not my decision to make.

- But you would think that if anywhere then the answer to this question could be sought from the Institute of Nuclear Techniques.

- During the preparation of the parliamentary decision it was realised that it would be worthwhile to build reactors that operate on the principle of so-called pressurised water technology, like the ones presently in operation. 85 percent of new nuclear power plant developments in the world are based on this technology. In regard to this there would be five suppliers: a German-French consortium, the Russians, the Americans and the Japanese, and more recently the South Koreans have appeared on the international market. However, it seems that the Japanese do not want to build a nuclear power plant in Europe by themselves. It will be possible to make the final decision on the basis of who will apply for the Paks tender and who will submit the best financial and supply conditions. In respect to technology and safety the possible power plants are similar to one another.

- I read on your notice board that the future of nuclear energy usage depends upon the reliable dissemination of information. Shouldn't a referendum be held on the new nuclear power plants? After all, this was promised by Ferenc Gyurcsány and there's little risk involved. Nuclear energy is relatively well received in Hungary.

- In a legal sense, there is no need for a referendum on the construction of a nuclear power plant. Decisions can be made at a professional level. A referendum would introduce the kind of political motives into the issue that are irrelevant to professional arguments. And, in any case, societal control is built into the licensing system, and those affected will be given the opportunity to participate in public consultations.

- Recently the Energy Club turned to the courts in regard to the extended hours of operation of the Paks blocks. They claim that it's not known how much the modernisation cost, nor who did the work, or how it was carried out, and they are therefore seeking legal redress to gain answers. However, according to MVM, these facts do not belong in the public domain. What's your opinion?

- The Energy Club is an anti-nuclear organisation and it openly professes to be that on its homepage. Public consultations were held on the extension of the plant's operation even in Slovenia, Austria and Romania.