Military Review

Mobile nuclear power: from batteries to floating nuclear power plants


Towing the Akademik Lomonosov floating nuclear power plant to the place of work. Photo by Rosatom

The development of nuclear power continues, and one of its most interesting areas is the creation of compact and mobile power plants. They have noticeable advantages over traditional stationary NPPs and can be used in various fields. In recent years, several similar projects have been developed in our country, and the most famous has already been brought into operation.

Floating power plant

On May 22, 2020, the first domestic floating nuclear power plant (FNPP) "Akademik Lomonosov", pr. 20870 was put into commercial operation. The station is deployed in the port of Pevek (Chukotka Autonomous Okrug). In December last year, she gave the first current to the local power grids, and in June heat supply began.

The main element of the floating nuclear power plant is a floating power unit - a non-self-propelled vessel of a special design with a displacement of more than 21,5 thousand tons. The power unit is equipped with two KLT-40S reactors and two steam turbines. "Akademik Lomonosov" can produce electricity and steam for heating, as well as carry out desalination of sea water.

The power unit is operated together with special onshore facilities. From the ice it is protected by a special pier. Also onshore is the infrastructure for the transmission of electricity and steam to local distribution networks.

"Akademik Lomonosov" in the port of Pevek. Photo by Rosatom

The maximum power capacity of the newest floating nuclear power plant is 70 MW. The maximum thermal power is 145 Gcal / h. It is argued that such characteristics are sufficient to provide a settlement per 100 thousand inhabitants. It is curious that the entire population of the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug is half as small, and there is a serious reserve of capacity.

"Akademik Lomonosov" will be able to work up to 35-40 years. Annual maintenance and repairs can be carried out on-the-fly. After 10-12 years of operation, average repairs are required at the factory, after which the power unit can return to the berth and continue to generate power.

Rosatom is already proposing a new FNPP project with improved characteristics. By replacing two KLT-40S units with RITM-200 products, it is possible to bring generation to 100 MW and improve other parameters.

So far, only one floating power plant has been built on avenue 20870, which now provides power to the remote region. At the same time, several foreign countries have already become interested in Russian floating nuclear power plants, and real orders may appear in the near future. Russia is quite active in "trading" stationary land-based nuclear power plants, and now exports can expand at the expense of floating stations.

Betavoltaic battery from MISiS. Photo by NUST MISIS

Pocket power unit

Remarkable results have also been obtained in the field of ultra-compact power plants. Thus, the National Research Technological University "MISiS" has been working on a "nuclear battery" for the past several years - the so-called. a beta-voltaic current source based on nickel-63. The first prototype of such a device was presented in 2016, and it was further improved.

The principles of the betavoltaic system are quite simple. The battery contains a radioactive element that decays to form β-particles. The latter fall on the semiconductor converter, which leads to the formation of an electric current. By using different fissile materials, semiconductor configurations, etc., batteries with different characteristics can be created.

"Nuclear batteries" from MISIS have an interesting design. This element contains 200 layers of nickel-63 with a thickness of 2 microns, separated by 10 micron diamond transducers. The latter have a microchannel three-dimensional structure, which makes it possible to almost completely absorb the formed β-particles.

The finished battery has minimal dimensions - no more than 3-4 mm thick, taking into account the case. Weight - 0,25 g. The performance is just as small. Electric power is only 1 μW. However, the new product from MISiS compares favorably with other developments in increased efficiency and lower cost. In addition, it is capable of delivering current for many decades.

Mobile nuclear power: from batteries to floating nuclear power plants

The mobile power unit TPP-3 is one of the earliest developments of this class. Photo Wikimedia Commons

At present, the domestic "nuclear battery" of the beta-voltaic type is becoming the topic of publications in scientific journals and events are underway for international patenting. In the future, it is possible to introduce such devices into practice. The main field of application will be a variety of research and special devices with low energy consumption and high requirements for the duration of the operation. For example, it can be equipment for marine or space research.

Previously, they tried to introduce nuclear power sources in medicine, but they had to be abandoned due to negative side effects. The new version of the battery does not threaten human health, thanks to which it can be used in neuro- and cardiac pacemakers, various implants, etc.

Small-sized mobile

In the past, small-sized nuclear power plants on self-propelled or towed chassis were created in our country. Then not a single project of this kind reached mass production and use. Several years ago it became known about the resumption of this direction.

In September 2017, information about the start of work on two new small-sized nuclear power plants (MAEU) appeared in the domestic media. The development is carried out at the request of the Ministry of Defense and provides for the creation of power units with a capacity of 100 kW and 1 MW. They should be built on a towed chassis that provides the ability to quickly transfer and deploy to a new location.

Mobile NPP "Pamir-630D" - a project of the Soviet era. Figure

It was stated that the development of two MAEU would take approx. 6 years. The purpose of such products was not disclosed, but there were estimates of their possible use for power supply of remote military or civilian objects. In addition, suggestions were made about the possible use of the MAEU as part of promising weapon systems with high energy consumption. At the beginning of 2018, fundamentally new samples were announced - and mobile power plants could complement them.

Almost three years have passed since the first reports on the development of the IEAU for the Ministry of Defense, and new details have not yet appeared. Perhaps the following news will appear later, closer to the specified completion date. However, another scenario cannot be ruled out - the project could have been terminated, and therefore no news can be expected.

In all areas

Despite all the difficulties and ambiguous reputation, nuclear power is of great interest to military and civilian structures. One of the most important and promising areas is becoming small-sized and mobile power plants with various capabilities.

The Russian nuclear industry is actively involved in this area, and news about new successes, promising developments and ready-made samples is regularly received. This allows us to make optimistic forecasts for the future and wait for the next achievements - scientific, technical, practical and commercial.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Livonetc
    Livonetc 21 August 2020 07: 45
    A solid popular science article.
    It is briefly, interesting and accessible.
    Thank you.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 21 August 2020 08: 00
      Quote: Livonetc
      A solid popular science article.

      Support! yes
      For completeness and in chronological order, the title:
      "Mobile nuclear power: from batteries to floating nuclear power plants" should be:
      "Mobile nuclear power: from floating nuclear power plants to batteries"
      1. Snail N9
        Snail N9 21 August 2020 09: 40
        -16 qualifying.
        How many have built this unfortunate floating nuclear power plant, which then, dragged away from the eyes - "to the north", like "there is more needed", yeah. We have already written about this PR-"battery" and more than once, this is another "robot Fedor" only in the nuclear industry ... We will soon see it sold at Ali. But, is it an "overwhelming task" to build really necessary desalination plants to provide the Crimea and the South of Russia with water?
        1. Ryusey
          Ryusey 25 August 2020 15: 41
          Envy is not a good and counterproductive feeling, although it is possible to understand you, everything is hate and hate, and we build and build everything .. laughing
        2. Anika
          Anika 22 September 2020 07: 41
          It was specially built for Pevek, because the local nuclear power plant is already ushatnaya, in addition to the city, it will provide the mining industry, the quarry is being designed for the extraction of copper, as far as I remember, with unmanned equipment, and so foreign investors were lured by the promising floating nuclear power plant, Kazminerals company
  3. Boris55
    Boris55 21 August 2020 08: 02
    We can still not only "draw" but also make. We have both scientific and human potential, incl. look and envy all the envious people of Russia - we are the first!
    1. Ryaruav
      Ryaruav 21 August 2020 09: 44
      in this area, we definitely have the potential for great and the main thing is to raise new young cadres in this area, it's good that in the media it's a wild secret, it's not frigates and corvettes for you, and yes, the Yankees have lost the technology for the production of powerful nuclear warheads, but we are without extra pomp, quietly go forward and let it be so
  4. Maks1995
    Maks1995 21 August 2020 09: 07
    Thank you, reminded.
    However, the specifics are not enough .. And something is not said at all about the existing cores-batteries for satellites, automatic beacons, repeaters, buoys, etc.
    1. astepanov
      astepanov 21 August 2020 11: 20
      Quote: Max1995
      However, there is little specifics.

      Here's the specifics for the beta-voltaic element.
      Let's count.
      1 electronvolt is 1,6 * 10 ^ -19 J. The average energy of beta radiation during the decay of Ni-63 is 17000 eV, hence, one act of decay gives 2,7 * 10 ^ -15 J of energy. We multiply this value by Avogadro's number - 6,02 * 10 ^ 23, we get the energy in one gram - atom of the isotope: 1,6 * 10 ^ 9 J. Finally, we divide this value by the atomic mass of the isotope, 63 g, we get the energy, which contained in the isotope: 0,25 * 10 ^ 8 J / g.
      The half-life of the isotope is about 100 years, which means that for 100 years we get 0,13 * 10 ^ 8 J / g, or (on average) 0,13 * 10 ^ 6 J / year / g, which corresponds to a power of 4 mW / g.
      Judging by the above picture, the dimensions of the element are about 15x15 mm, from here it is easy to estimate the mass of the isotope in it (by the number of layers, their thickness and density): less than 0,8 g. True, pure Ni-63 is not available, its mixture with other inactive isotopes is used , so a more likely figure is 0,3 - 0,5 g with a theoretical power of 1,2 - 2 mW. This is 1200 - 2000 times more than real indicators. So there is room to move.
      True, there is a discrepancy here: the dimensions of the element are easy to estimate from a photograph, with a thickness of 3 - 4 mm, its volume should be 0,67 - 0,9 cm cube, and a mass of at least (or rather more) 1 g. Note: the density of nickel is more than 8 g / cm3, of diamond - more than 0,25, and there is also a case, current leads ... Someone is lying to us. Where did the XNUMX g numbers come from? I suspect that this is the mass of the active isotope.
      The extreme complexity of the design is alarming: 200 layers of 2 microns each is a lot, manufacturing is a very complex process with many epitaxy, alloying, etc., and almost certainly a large fraction of defects. The reasons are clear: beta radiation is well absorbed by the metal and will simply get stuck in thick layers of nickel, completely turning into heat.
      One thing is clear: this thing will be very expensive for a long time. A hard worker will not earn a pacemaker with such an element and will manage with a lithium-iodine cell with a service life of 15 years. However, rarely does anyone live longer with such a contraption inside. Therefore, they will be used not in medicine, but in feeding sensors in aviation, space technology, special construction (for example, sensors of mechanical stresses in the body of a hydroelectric dam).
      However, all sorts of turns are possible - the development of technology is almost unpredictable.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 21 August 2020 12: 54
        In satellites, it’s hidden. Even a small solar panel + battery is more profitable, cheaper and more powerful. In pacemakers, you rightly noticed. The last thing about the cat. I read for cardio it cost about 7 million rubles and, probably, it took more than one.
        I suppose that such an element would be of interest to the creators of ultra-compact autonomous underwater vehicles and underwater sensors - most likely for military needs.
        1. evgen1221
          evgen1221 21 August 2020 19: 50
          Well, why will the solar panel be more effective? -In my opinion, in the first approximation, it should come out even better - the solars are voluminous, weight, plus deployment mechanisms, again weight, plus meteorites and debris knock out at once. the minimum weight that you need to throw more.
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 21 August 2020 20: 37
            I think that such a battery in a small-scale, near-war production will cost VERY decent money, especially a few such batteries. With their service life even more than 10 years - casting by weight of a solar panel with a multiple of the power will be cheaper. The spacecraft area, taking into account the fuel reserve for maintaining the orbit and the weight / volume of the payload, makes it possible to muddy a pair of suns on its sides. elements without serious weight loss. What they actually do ..
            But under water, this problem cannot be solved otherwise when it comes to long-term autonomy.
      2. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 21 August 2020 12: 54
        Z. Well fumble in physics, I see?
        1. astepanov
          astepanov 21 August 2020 13: 03
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          fumble in physics, I'll see?

          No, insofar as, on top. I am an applied chemist, dealing with chemical sources of electricity.
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          In satellites, it’s hidden. Even a small solar panel + battery is more profitable, cheaper and more powerful.

          Not always. The battery needs to be insulated and thermoregulated, which is not always convenient in space. And on distant devices it is completely problematic. Although - RTG is suitable everywhere. But here's the mass ... And each kilogram of mass on a spacecraft costs millions, and not rubles.
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 21 August 2020 13: 42
            Oh professional, that's good. And the type of activity is right in the bull's eye of my question - now it is difficult to find a more or less rummaging person on the Internet and ask him a couple of boiling questions) If it's not difficult, answer.

            1) I have long been interested in the theoretical appearance of the more or less near future, in my opinion now our civilization is constrained by a number of factors - one of which is the issue of compact, powerful, moderate in price, capacious and safe batteries. And the appearance of much of what we observe around will drastically change if such a source is found.
            In this regard, the question is - what does chemistry say about the theoretical capacity of storage batteries in principle (by analogy with the limiting values ​​of the parameters of explosives, chemical fuels, etc.)? How far is the theoretical depth of the possibility that you see as far from the available Li-Ion batteries today?

            2) Is the concept of a fuel cell more advantageous (in relation to batteries) in terms of providing energy to a conditional consumer (for example, a dog from Boston Dinamix in terms of approximate size and functionality)? I mean, many hours of autonomous use - is there a benefit from fuel cells in terms of power-compactness-autonomy in + - devices of this format?

            Thanks in advance if you answer! And I apologize in advance for the clumsy question if this is the case.
            1. astepanov
              astepanov 21 August 2020 15: 34
              Quote: Knell Wardenheart
              In this regard, the question is - what does chemistry say about the theoretical capacity of storage batteries in principle (by analogy with the limiting values ​​of the parameters of explosives, chemical fuels, etc.)?

              There is no fundamental difference between the internal combustion engine and accumulators - both there and there the fuel "burns", but in the internal combustion engine the energy is converted into heat, and heat - into work, and therefore the limiting parameters are determined by the Carnot cycle and the efficiency is relatively low. In batteries, chemical energy is directly converted into electrical energy with an efficiency close to unity. Another difference between batteries is that many of them work reversibly, and gasoline will not flow from the internal combustion engine if you turn it in the opposite direction.
              The limiting characteristics of batteries (or rather, electrochemical systems) are easily calculated, thermodynamics allows. Open any reference book, there are the values ​​of the standard Gibbs energies - this is what it is, if you add to the mass of reagents. And you will immediately see: the best energy is in the hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell. Then there are fuel cells based on hydrocarbons (methane, gasoline, etc.), borohydrides, light metals (lithium, sodium, magnesium) with oxygen as an oxidizer. It can be compared: the energy of a fuel cell (FC) with hydrogen has a theoretical ceiling of 30 kWh / kg, gasoline - 10 kWh / kg (and in an internal combustion engine - 4 kWh / kg due to heat losses), lithium-ion - in the region of 1 kWh / kg. In reality, in lithium-ion, 0,3 kWh / kg is reached.
              And this is where technical problems come up: if we count on pure hydrogen, the fuel cell looks great, but in reality, you need to take into account the mass of cylinders (or other means of storing hydrogen), you need to take into account the mass of electrolyte, catalysts, separators, pumps, and other structural elements. In addition, in fuel cells, for a number of reasons, the efficiency is relatively low - from 80 to 40%, depending on the load. And as a result, there is little, God forbid, 5 - 15 percent of the theoretical limit. The fuel cell also has power limitations. This can be mitigated by using a hybrid, for example with a supercapacitor, which will handle the peak loads. TE is environmentally friendly - this is another advantage. But the price, the complexity of the design and a number of other problems do not yet allow the fuel cell to "go to the masses".
              If we talk about other systems, then they can be compared to a rocket engine: they contain both fuel and an oxidizer inside, while the internal combustion engine carries only fuel. For example, a manganese-zinc cell contains fuel (zinc) and an oxidizer (manganese dioxide), a lithium-ion cell intercalates lithium in carbon (fuel) and metal compounds (oxidizer), and the mass of the oxidizer is greater than the mass of the fuel. Because of this, the batteries will never reach the energy performance of the internal combustion engine. True, with batteries you can save by recuperating braking energy, but this only makes sense in the urban driving cycle. Therefore, a "long-range" battery-powered truck is nonsense, and a city electric car makes a certain sense.
              It should be understood that the huge number of different types of batteries does not mean that they compete with each other: often a system with very low energy is irreplaceable. An example is thermal batteries with molten electrolyte: the operating time is a few minutes, the specific energy is small, they are used only once, but they are absolutely irreplaceable, because they can be stored for decades without the slightest loss of energy, they can withstand frantic mechanical loads ... What else can be supplied into a projectile, into a missile warhead?
              And what about lithium-iodine sources, with their microscopic power? But they fit perfectly with pacemakers. What about lead-acid batteries? They have a lot of shortcomings, but there is nothing cheaper yet. Therefore, talking about the "very" battery does not make much sense: everything is determined by the scope.
              1. Knell wardenheart
                Knell wardenheart 21 August 2020 18: 21
                Thank you! A lot of valuable information for my research!
                As far as I understand, probably in the next 20 years there will not be a battery two to three times more efficient than lithium-ion? I understand my question may sound naive, but this is a vector on which the real technological appearance of the near future is strung, what may be in it and what will not be. As far as I understand now, the research is mostly going in the direction of reducing the price, increasing the cycle life, reducing the fire hazard and using scarce elements - rather than some radical increases in capacity / power?
                1. astepanov
                  astepanov 21 August 2020 19: 27
                  You understand everything absolutely correctly. There is no need to expect any serious breakthroughs in the field of batteries for electric vehicles in terms of increasing energy intensity, the emphasis is on price, reliability, safety, and the ability to quickly charge. But the energy will also grow a little.
      3. Maks1995
        Maks1995 21 August 2020 13: 48
        Thank you so much. The bottom line is agree.
        Calculations naturally strongly explained this part of the process.
      4. ycuce234-san
        ycuce234-san 23 August 2020 15: 08
        beta radiation is well absorbed by metal

        Beta radiation can still cause chemical reactions. Therefore, the battery can be made simpler - to regenerate by radiation a chemical component that is consumed during galvanic chemical reaction or one or several intermediate substances, and the operation of the cell is ensured by a difference in the concentration of regenerated and spent chemical components across the battery. The manufacturing technology is simpler - no semiconductors and doping etching - maximum, semi-permeable partition layers for diffusion separation of chemistry, which can be done with a conventional punching press.
  5. Alexander X
    Alexander X 21 August 2020 09: 31
    Install such a floating installation near the Crimean coast and desalinate water as a temporary measure until a radical solution to the issue of water supply
    1. Ryaruav
      Ryaruav 21 August 2020 10: 16
      you know, in terms of desalination, this in large quantities has always been very expensive for any method of obtaining energy
  6. Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 21 August 2020 09: 35
    Today, nuclear power is second only to hydropower, every fifth light bulb in Russia is lit by nuclear power plants, and in this area, despite the events of the last 35 years, we are ahead of the rest of the planet and let everyone in the west scream, let this premature heat be described, while nuclear energy is the future and it is unlikely that in the near future, despite the progress in ai technologies, something will change dramatically, and if it does, thanks to nuclear physics, agree that nothing in the world works without power, even the supposed winner of nature (here nature was wrong) a person needs food
    1. Wwk7260
      Wwk7260 21 August 2020 12: 35
      First place for thermal power plants! hydropower engineering is essential only in the east of the country, in the European and most populated part of the Russian Federation its contribution is insignificant, but the damage to nature is enormous. the state of the Volga in the Russian Federation and the Dnieper in the UA is an example of how it is impossible to develop energy.
      1. Ryaruav
        Ryaruav 21 August 2020 12: 43
        you know that Norway has 100% hydropower and has no environmental problems
        1. Wwk7260
          Wwk7260 22 August 2020 15: 16
          you know that in Norway they do not build hydroelectric power plants on the plain, with reservoirs the size of some not the smallest states, and the rivers of Norway are not transport arteries like the Volga or the Dnieper, in the valleys of the Norwegian rivers there are not as many people as on the Volga and Dnieper, and the population of the whole of Norway is 5,3 million.
          P.S. hydropower in the Russian Federation is 17% and is inferior in its volume not only to thermal, by a large margin, but also to nuclear. what is the first place you talked about? off the tail?
  7. VicktorVR
    VicktorVR 21 August 2020 10: 40
    It would be nice to get a 100 kW "generator" at the output in a standard 40 (45) foot container.
    Moreover, it fits in terms of weight in the requirements for containers.
    Relatively cheap and mass-produced.
  8. DrEng527
    DrEng527 21 August 2020 12: 02
    It looks like the Chernobyl Syndrome is passing and nuclear technologies are starting to be introduced ... bully
  9. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 21 August 2020 12: 32
    Good article, it is a pity of course that you did not consider Kilopower, our project of a comic nuclear installation of a megawatt class and modern RTGs within its framework.
    In general, long-term current sources based on nuclear decay is a very interesting topic at the forefront of modern research, the progress in autonomy-power over the past two decades is interesting.
  10. 1536
    1536 21 August 2020 13: 58
    Space guys, space! A breakthrough in Space is needed like air. We need spaceships that could go from a near-earth orbit to the Moon, Mars, explore the distant Cosmos, maybe even the Sun. And this requires a new power plant, an engine of a new class, built on different physical principles than a jet, electric or conventional internal combustion engine. And, of course, the very "Star of the CEC" is needed, so well described in the novel of our science fiction writer Alexander Belyaev. Perhaps something cooler.
    1. VicktorVR
      VicktorVR 21 August 2020 17: 49
      Payback and feasibility. If this is not the case, then under capitalism it is deceiving investors, and under socialism it is even worse.

      Nowhere have I seen the economic justification of a flight to Mars, and even to the Moon.
      What for?
      And what is the benefit?
  11. anzar
    anzar 21 August 2020 14: 59
    At the same time, several foreign countries have already become interested in Russian floating nuclear power plants, and real orders may appear in the near future.

    Ha ha, "real". Too expensive energy (even at $ 100 / barrel), no one will even take it for nothing, i.e. "export credit" (non-refundable)) Russia will no longer be there either)) they finished building it because they started back ...
  12. 1536
    1536 21 August 2020 19: 28
    [quote = VicktorVR] Payback and feasibility. If this is not the case, then under capitalism it is deceiving investors, and under socialism it is even worse.

    Nowhere have I seen the economic justification of a flight to Mars, and even to the Moon.
    What for?
    And what is the benefit from this? [/

    Expediency - progress, new engines, new materials, the country's defense, the development of science, education, the operation of technology and technology in extreme conditions, which will be useful both on land and in the ocean. The interest of young people in the new, unknown. Few?
    Do you know how a boar or a pig is different from other animals? The boar cannot raise his eyes to the sky, and therefore does not see the prospects, but at the same time he feels great until someone hits him in the head, well, or jumps on the scruff of the neck.
  13. alsoclean
    alsoclean 22 August 2020 17: 57
    Come on! There are more than 1000 (!!) RTGs in Russia. At work and in landfills! Northern Sea Route, Caucasus, Kamchatka, Chukotka, Sakhalin, etc. So what are we talking about then? Here with recycling for 50 years ...
  14. 72jora72
    72jora72 22 August 2020 22: 20
    The maximum thermal power is 145 Gcal / h. It is argued that such characteristics are sufficient to provide a settlement per 100 thousand inhabitants. It is curious that the entire population of the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug is half as small, and there is a serious reserve in terms of capacity.
    After this heresy I did not read further.
    For the information of the author, "Lomonosov" can provide heat only the city of Pevek (population of 4 thousand people), then this as you called thermal power, nowhere to use. Nowhere, from the word at all, nowhere, never. Just as the Bilibino power plant (BiNPP) heats the city of Bilibino (5500 people) and only it

    Pi Xi. By the way, the power transmission line that was supposed to connect "Lomonosov" and BiNPP (Bilibino) has not yet been built .......
    1. ycuce234-san
      ycuce234-san 23 August 2020 15: 24
      Power engineers fully adjust the NPP to the needs in the absence of a maneuverable mode - that is, they will screw a wick on it, leaving a small excess for peak consumption, which will be discharged into greenhouses, fish ponds or steam into the atmosphere. But the resource will be significantly extended. For details, you can look at the post "A short post on the operation of a nuclear power plant in maneuverable mode".
      1. 72jora72
        72jora72 23 August 2020 16: 37
        leaving a small surplus for peak consumption, which will be discharged to greenhouses, fish ponds or steam into the atmosphere. But the resource will be significantly extended. For details, you can look at the post "A short post on the operation of a nuclear power plant in maneuverable mode".
        I got acquainted with the working documentation, I even visited the Lomonosov. There are no greenhouses, like fish ponds in Pevek, and never will be, so only discharge. The whole problem of the "floating" is that in addition to scientific interest (trial operation), this station does not solve any of the energy and economic problems of the region. For example, only the Peschanka porphyry copper deposit (Baimsky Gok) will require approximately 210 MW.
        1. ycuce234-san
          ycuce234-san 23 August 2020 18: 58
          Well, let it not solve but solve the problems of a particular village - ITER - an experimental thermonuclear reactor will generally dump its electrical power to the boilers and this is the norm for experimental equipment. The next generations of stations will already be industrial and much more powerful - it is not for nothing that they have laid down as much as 100 thousand in the city and 4 thousand in the village: the wick will have to be screwed all the way, before the cutoff ...
        2. ycuce234-san
          ycuce234-san 23 August 2020 19: 01
          By the way, when preparing the article, they forgot about the projects of nuclear diesel locomotives - atomic locomotives ... That's who can go next to the series and not at all nuclear power plants on tank tracks.