BN-800 reactor: Russia has given humanity an almost endless source of energy

81
BN-800 reactor: Russia has given humanity an almost endless source of energy

Last year, the Russian fast breeder nuclear reactor BN-800 was fully loaded with innovative MOX fuel for the first time. The unit worked in this mode for a year, confirming its efficiency and viability.

It is worth noting that this event is the most important and historical not only for our country, but for the whole world. After all, BN-800 is the first reactor operating on the above-mentioned technology. Consequently, Russia has essentially created the world's first virtually endless source of energy.



Why is this so? It is enough to understand what MOX fuel is.

Let us recall that thermal reactors operate on uranium-235, the content of which in natural uranium reaches less than 1 percent. The rest of the mass is uranium-238, which, after the process of enriching the extracted mineral, was considered waste and was not used in nuclear energy.

So, MOX is a mixture of uranium-238 with plutonium oxide. It is this fuel that the BN-800 operates on. But that's not all.

The fact is that by burning uranium-238, the innovative reactor produces plutonium, which is enough to supply its own operation and, if necessary, other reactors with new fuel. It turns out to be a kind of closed cycle.

Now that the BN-800 has proven its effectiveness, engineers began developing the more powerful BN-1200.

Tellingly, Russian fast neutron reactors are considered among the safest in the world. At the same time, in the future they will be able to solve not only the problem of providing humanity with almost eternal energy, but will also make it possible to recycle accumulated nuclear waste, which threatens the ecology of our planet and requires enormous funds for its storage.

81 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -12
    28 May 2024 12: 32
    MOX has been used in power reactors in Europe since the 80s. First (experimental) use - 1963.
    1. +2
      28 May 2024 12: 44
      I don’t know how it is in Europe, but I’m more concerned about the euphoria of the VO author about this:
      Tellingly, Russian fast neutron reactors are considered among the safest in the world. At the same time, in the future they will be able to solve not only the problem of providing humanity with almost eternal energy, but will also make it possible to recycle accumulated nuclear waste, which threatens the ecology of our planet and requires enormous funds for its storage.
      , regarding eternal energy.
      If this is true regarding eternal energy, then we should expect response from our “partners”, for whom this news will clearly be like a bone in the throat of their tinned throat. hi
      1. -7
        28 May 2024 12: 52
        response actions from our "partners"
        Partners have operated their breeder reactor at Donreagh (UK) since 1955. The euphoria of the article is inappropriate, and it sounds feigned.
        1. +4
          28 May 2024 14: 48
          Power unit No. 4 with the fast neutron reactor BN-800 of the Beloyarsk NPP was connected to the network and resumed electricity production upon completion of the next scheduled maintenance (PPR). As a result of the latest nuclear fuel reloading, the entire BN-800 core was completely converted to uranium-plutonium MOX fuel for the first time.MOX-FA, in contrast to enriched uranium, traditional for nuclear energy, the raw materials for the production of MOX fuel pellets are plutonium oxide obtained during the processing of spent fuel from traditional VVER reactors, and depleted uranium oxide (obtained by defluoridation of depleted uranium hexafluoride - DUHF, the so-called secondary " tailings" of the enrichment plant).For the first time, serial MOX-FAs were loaded into the BN-800 core in January 2020. The first complete refueling of the BN-800 with MOX fuel took place in January 2021, and then over the next two refuelings, all fuel assemblies were gradually replaced with innovative MOX fuel assemblies.
          “The completion of the conversion of BN-800 to MOX fuel is a long-awaited event for the nuclear industry. For the first time in the history of Russian nuclear energy, we will be able to test the operation of a fast neutron reactor with a full load of uranium-plutonium fuel and a closed nuclear fuel cycle. This is exactly the milestone for which the BN-800 was originally designed, a unique nuclear power unit and automated fuel production at the Mining and Chemical Combine were built. Advanced technologies for recycling nuclear materials will significantly expand the raw material base of nuclear energy, recycle irradiated fuel instead of storing it, and also reduce the generated volumes of waste,” emphasized Alexander Ugryumov, Senior Vice President for Scientific and Technical Activities of TVEL JSC.
        2. +9
          28 May 2024 14: 55
          In continuation of the post.
          You don’t understand that we are not talking about MOX as such, but about its new fuel, which allows us to solve the problem of raw materials for nuclear power plants.Closed nuclear fuel cycle obtained in practice.
          1. -14
            28 May 2024 15: 00
            For the first time in history Russian nuclear power
            Other countries also have these technologies, and have done so for quite some time. The breakthrough is cancelled.
            1. +8
              28 May 2024 15: 15
              No, well, if you cancel the breakthrough, then of course. (Sarcasm).
            2. +4
              28 May 2024 17: 11
              Yes, there are many things who were the first to show, invent, and so on. Where is the working product working in serial form?
              Who currently has the lion's share of spent nuclear fuel on the planet?

              This is how you answer these questions, this is how you will throw out your remarks here. In the meantime, please don't pollute the airwaves.
              1. -11
                28 May 2024 17: 13
                Where is the working product working in serial form?
                It turned out to be insufficiently cost-effective.
                don't pollute the airwaves.
                An offended patriot is scary laughing .
                1. +7
                  28 May 2024 17: 18
                  It turned out to be insufficiently cost-effective.

                  Exactly. And the BN-800 works for the general network. The same ones you had in your head 20 years ago, when Elon Musk released the first Tesla. Now what? Not so funny anymore?

                  The USSR also invented a lot of things, but Western countries reaped the laurels. Go tell them what was invented in the USSR. They will laugh in your face.

                  An offended patriot is scary laughing.

                  No offense. There is a misunderstanding - what are you forgetting here? I don’t like Russia and its successes. Take your suitcase to the station and head to hell.
                  1. -15
                    28 May 2024 17: 21
                    Suitcase station and head to hell
                    Yes, I am already a citizen of two NATO countries laughing .
                    what was invented in the USSR
                    The Pentium was invented by Pentkovsky, everyone knows that Yes .
                    Now what?
                    If you remove tax benefits, no one will buy it.
                    1. +1
                      29 May 2024 10: 33
                      Quote: Bolt Cutter
                      Yes, I am already a citizen of two NATO countries

                      Well, the Cossack exile has finally split. laughing
                      1. -8
                        29 May 2024 10: 36
                        I never hid it tongue .Born in the USSR, lived in Latvia after its collapse, now I live in England.
                2. -3
                  28 May 2024 19: 00
                  Quote: Bolt Cutter
                  It turned out to be insufficiently cost-effective.

                  That is, it had no practical application. We have. The conclusion is a breakthrough.
                  Quote: Bolt Cutter
                  An offended patriot is scary

                  That is, there will be no answers to questions.
                  1. -11
                    28 May 2024 19: 05
                    That is, it had no practical application.
                    Until the 90s, energy in Britain was so cheap that even the walls were not insulated - it was cheaper to heat. And now we are focusing on renewable sources. But there are no breakthroughs; all nuclear countries have these technologies.
                    there will be no answers to questions.
                    Any questions? There were fountains of kvass from the patriots.
                    1. +3
                      28 May 2024 19: 07
                      Quote: Bolt Cutter
                      Up until the 90s, energy in Britain was so cheap that even the walls were not insulated.

                      Blah blah blah... Was it practical or not?
                      Quote: Bolt Cutter
                      Any questions? There were fountains of kvass from the patriots.

                      That is, there is nothing to say.
                      1. -11
                        28 May 2024 19: 11
                        Was it practical or not?
                        The energy was supplied to the network and sold, so that was it. But developing this direction was not profitable in the conditions of the market at that time. And now, give everyone green energy.
                        Blah blah blah
                        Intellectual Yes What class did you finish?
                      2. +3
                        28 May 2024 20: 14
                        Quote: Bolt Cutter
                        The energy was supplied to the network and sold, so that was it. But developing this direction was not profitable in the conditions of the market at that time.
                        That is, everything worked great, but it didn’t work as it should. In terms of practical application, it had no practical use.
                        Quote: Bolt Cutter
                        Intellectual yes What class did you finish?
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        That is, there is nothing to say.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        That is, there will be no answers to questions.
                3. -1
                  13 July 2024 11: 32
                  The bolt that you have turned out to be not cost-effective enough? More? )
            3. 0
              29 May 2024 07: 00
              In which countries exactly? Where can I watch this?
            4. +3
              29 May 2024 09: 03
              For the first time in the history of Russian nuclear energy
              Other countries also have these technologies, and have done so for quite some time. The breakthrough is cancelled.


              The reactors you are writing about are not energy reactors, but for the production of weapons-grade plutonium! Energy, and for burning isotopes - so far only ours. As well as working out a closed fuel cycle.
            5. +3
              1 June 2024 14: 14
              Other countries do not have operating industrial reactors.
            6. -1
              13 July 2024 11: 32
              Bolt cutter, weirdo. Point your finger at who has the technology for serial production of fast neutron reactors?
        3. +7
          28 May 2024 17: 08
          This reactor is now operating. What is the power of the NAGLOSAKS on the island at the moment and how much is on fast neutrons?
          1. +2
            29 May 2024 07: 06
            Most likely they didn’t succeed, otherwise they wouldn’t have tried to dump the poisonous spent fuel in other countries.
            1. -1
              29 May 2024 16: 51
              It’s so difficult to look on Google to see how many countries have built, are building and are operating/operating fast neutron reactors. Especially when you don't want to think.
        4. -1
          13 July 2024 11: 29
          Bolt, so what? An experimental reactor and a large serial one are two very different things. We are 30 years ahead of everyone here.
      2. +1
        29 May 2024 11: 49
        Firstly, they will declare that all this is fake, because Russian barbarians are incapable of such a thing.
        Secondly, they will be banned from selling them to all Western countries and countries that are afraid of sanctions.
    2. 13+
      28 May 2024 13: 02
      Quote: Bolt Cutter
      MOX has been used in power reactors in Europe since the 80s. First (experimental) use - 1963.

      The point of the note is not that someone invented and made MOX fuel, but that a commercial fast neutron reactor has been created and launched, which is included in a closed nuclear cycle. Neither the Shatovites, nor the Europeans, nor the Japanese could do this. Moreover, no one has really been able to launch an industrial fast neutron reactor. At least we tried everything once. Now the Indians are playing witchcraft, the Chinese have taken the path of least resistance - they are working with Rosatom.
      1. -11
        28 May 2024 13: 12
        no one has really been able to launch an industrial fast neutron reactor.
        On October 14, 1962, the British light bulbs lit up, including from the energy of the DFR, which supplied energy to the National Grid commercial network until March 1977.
        1. 12+
          28 May 2024 13: 27
          Well, maybe the light bulbs. :)
          Is Russian not your native language? I clearly wrote an INDUSTRIAL reactor. And not an experimental installation in the center of nuclear energy development.

          An installation with a THERMAL power of 60 MW and an electrical power of as much as 14 MW, do you think this is an industrial reactor? For reference, the first fast sodium reactor of the USSR had a capacity of 350 megawatts of ELECTRICAL power.
          1. -14
            28 May 2024 13: 30
            This does not change the fact that the technology has already been fully mastered.
          2. +5
            28 May 2024 13: 44
            Quote: abc_alex
            Is Russian not your native language? I clearly wrote an INDUSTRIAL reactor. And not an experimental installation in the center of nuclear energy development.

            French Phoenix, and then the next Super Phoenix. Industrial fast neutron reactors and all that stuff. Both are now completely outdated and out of service.
            1. -1
              13 July 2024 11: 43
              Mokona, if you are not smart enough to understand the text on the Internet: the superphoenix did not get out of accidents and stops. It only worked for about 5 years and produced full power well for several months. The rest of the time I worked at a reduced rate. The French shit themselves badly. Yes, they couldn’t even figure out the experimental phoenix.

              No one in the world has BN reactor technology except Russia.
          3. 0
            29 May 2024 17: 10
            There's no need to lie.
            We didn’t have 350 electric power in those years and we don’t have it now.
            Name the model exactly
        2. -1
          13 July 2024 11: 34
          Bolt dfr is an experimental reactor. No one except Russia has the technology to build large serial reactors.
    3. +3
      28 May 2024 13: 23
      In the USSR, the first industrial fast neutron reactor BN-350 was initially planned to run on MOX fuel; it began operation in 1973 in Aktau and operated successfully until 1999. Source: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX fuel
    4. 0
      28 May 2024 14: 30
      Which ones exactly? Don't post a link. Experimental doesn't count.
      1. -4
        28 May 2024 14: 32
        https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/mixed-oxide-fuel-mox#:~:text=MOX%20fuel%20was%20first%20used,(mostly%20PWR)%20in%20Europe.
        Read it.
    5. 0
      29 May 2024 08: 57
      Quote: Bolt Cutter
      First (experimental) use - 1963.

      How can I explain the phrase from Wikipedia - “MOXINE fuel appeared in the 1960s in research centers and was tested in the USA, but they rejected it because it was dangerous and unprofitable.” it's at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MOX_fuel
    6. +4
      29 May 2024 09: 32
      Before labeling people as leavened patriots, you would have sorted out the issue yourself. Here we are not talking about the fast neutron reactor itself (which is not new) and not in the technology of MOX fuel, but in the connection of a WORKING plant for the production of MOX fuel FROM WASTE, in the technology of assembling rods from this MOX fuel and in connection of all this with the fast reactor neutrons - AS A RESULT OF WHICH FOR THE FIRST TIME in the history of mankind, an INDUSTRIAL reactor is operating on waste, producing fuel for other nuclear power plants of different types. And all this, in addition, has been worked out and tested, which YES, only RosAtom could achieve. And yes - in SyShyA now they don’t engage in enrichment at all - competencies have been lost, because “it’s not economically profitable”
      1. -2
        29 May 2024 17: 55
        They are already engaged and already enriching themselves again. Update the manual.
        1. +1
          30 May 2024 11: 30
          Fresh from the legend.... Biden solemnly reported there that with the allocated several billion dollars, the new enterprise produced as many as 90 kg of enriched uranium, and by the end of the year it plans (!!!) to produce as much as a ton.... PS - only in Russia did SyShyA purchase 416 tons of enriched uranium.
          And yes, two small subtleties - even before its disappearance in the 90s, the enrichment industry of SyShyA (like all Western ones) was fundamentally behind the Soviet (Russian) in all respects, in terms of energy intensity, purity, % yield, etc. ...... uranium reserves 235, at the current rate of consumption, remain for several decades......
        2. 0
          3 June 2024 20: 14
          Nuclear power plants use low enriched uranium, enriched up to 5%. The United States produced a batch of 20% enriched uranium. This uranium is applicable only to nuclear power plants of the future, the first of which should appear in 2030. In the meantime, work at the warehouse.
      2. 0
        13 July 2024 11: 44
        Correction. Not Rosatom, but Minsredmash. )
    7. +1
      29 May 2024 17: 04
      Bolt cutter.

      And where in this Western Europe, the EU, is there at least ONE fast neutron reactor??? No for some reason. And the first use was in 1963, but you forgot to specify the Bolt Cutter. and what did they use there then?
      1. -5
        29 May 2024 17: 06
        No for some reason
        After Chernobyl, nuclear energy is not in favor here. But if it needs to appear, there was no restructuring with the renting out of scientific centers for offices.
        1. -1
          13 July 2024 11: 46
          The bolt cutter will no longer appear. Many people need it: China, India and others. But there is only a fart.
  2. +1
    28 May 2024 12: 33
    Work brothers!
    This is the future of all humanity.
    These are new discoveries and exploration of the universe!
    1. +7
      28 May 2024 13: 02
      Work brothers!
      This is the future of all humanity.
      These are new discoveries and exploration of the universe!

      For some reason, when we fight for “the future of all humanity,” this very “humanity” fights against us or only for itself.
      So is it really worth worrying about it, maybe first make the life of your country and its population stable, predictable and happy. Yes
      1. +1
        29 May 2024 07: 10
        And this is the highest quality comment on the topic. hi Set everything up for yourself first, then for others.
  3. +2
    28 May 2024 12: 35
    Service life 45 years! Maybe 60! Forever is good, but not realistic!
  4. +3
    28 May 2024 12: 41
    So, MOX is a mixture of uranium-238 with plutonium oxide.
    And it should So, MOX is a mixture of uranium-238 oxide with plutonium oxide. And nothing new, everyone already knows this.
    1. 13+
      28 May 2024 13: 11
      And how did we manage to create a reliable sodium circulation system in the cooling circuits, too, “everyone knows”? "BN" is not "fast neutrons" it is "fast sodium". Unlike BREST which is lead-based. How we managed to create an automated line for “opening” spent fuel rods. There they have crazy pressure and radiation. The US people have been poking around for more than 10 years - they broke down and couldn’t do it.
      What kind of strange habit do we sometimes have - to belittle the achievements of domestic science and technology? They will be running around with the new iPhone and singing hymns. But the real breakthrough achievements in the energy sector are “everyone knows this” and “in Europe since 1963” :)
      1. +6
        28 May 2024 16: 27
        Quote: abc_alex
        habit - to belittle the achievements of domestic science

        There is such a profession - “don’t care about the country.” Don't pay attention to them, they will never die out anyway.
  5. +7
    28 May 2024 12: 46
    Russia has given humanity an almost endless source of energy

    There is no need to give anything to “humanity”, let them buy it! stop
    1. +4
      28 May 2024 13: 45
      Quote: mark1
      There is no need to give anything to “humanity”, let them buy it!

      So no one gives it. It’s only in the author’s head that it’s a gift. wassat
  6. +9
    28 May 2024 12: 49
    There is no need to crucify for humanity here, much less give it free gifts at the expense of our people.
    Humanity in the person of the Anglo-Saxons makes demons out of us in the person of other nations, and at the conference in Geneva we see what such humanity is worth.
  7. +3
    28 May 2024 13: 15
    Fast neutron reactor BN-800
    https://strana-rosatom.ru/2022/09/09/reaktor-bn-800-polnostju-pereshel-na-moks/
  8. +6
    28 May 2024 13: 15
    Nothing pleases us, because socialism is not in the yard and “free” electricity at 2 kopecks per kW/h is not in sight. In the USSR there were projects for the complete electrification of cities (especially in Siberia).
    Lenin well understood the importance of electrification.
    It turns out that all achievements, all scientific developments are not for the benefit of the people, but to increase the profits of the bourgeoisie... That is why, observing such a situation, the population of Russia is in no hurry to be fruitful and multiply.
    1. +3
      28 May 2024 14: 51
      Why "free"? Then bread was 20 kopecks, 2 kopecks was a tenth of a loaf of bread.
      A loaf of white in our store is now 50 rubles, so electricity should be
      our prices are 5 rubles per kW/h. In the Irkutsk region, I now pay five times less.
      1. +1
        29 May 2024 05: 09
        The monthly rent for a three-ruble rent of 45 square meters was 20 rubles, so today it should be 5 thousand, but it is twice as much....
  9. +1
    28 May 2024 13: 18
    Gave it to humanity?
    Russian smell your soul (Zhirinovsky)
  10. -3
    28 May 2024 13: 21
    Quote: ROSS 42
    It turns out that all achievements, all scientific developments are not for the benefit of the people, but to increase the profits of the bourgeoisie...That is why, observing such a situation, the population of Russia is in no hurry to be fruitful and multiply.

    Did the ENTIRE population of Russia tell you this, or are you just blaming yourself?
  11. +7
    28 May 2024 13: 22
    No need to give to “humanity”! Give cheap electricity to the RUSSIANS.
  12. -3
    28 May 2024 13: 28
    and even in this case, when carrying out the process, new uranium is required ... so the process cannot be a completely infinite source of energy ... and for some reason other countries with nuclear technologies did not develop this process further ....
    1. -1
      13 July 2024 11: 52
      Igorevich, there is enough uranium in the dumps for 300 years. Next we’ll come up with thermonuclear fusion.
  13. 0
    28 May 2024 13: 32
    All uranium/plutonium breeders failed in terms of economics. It is too expensive to reprocess high-level fuel to extract uranium and plutonium isotopes, as well as to dispose of fission products. If the burnup were 250 - 300 GW/t, then perhaps processing would be justified, despite the above problems. And with a burnup depth of about 100 - 120 GW.day/t, the economy does not export it.
    And yes, there was the BN-600 and the Super-Phoenix, the science was interesting, the economics not so much.
    1. +1
      28 May 2024 15: 26
      There is another opinion: "...At the same time, the fast neutron power unit also had good economic indicators - the cost of the electricity it produced was 30% lower than the average tariff in the region... "
      This is just about the BN-600.
      Source: https://www.biblioatom.ru/core-systems/nuclear-power-plants/beloyarskaya-aes/
      1. 0
        28 May 2024 16: 43
        Well, if the rest of the energy was produced from cologne vapors...
        Highly enriched fast reactor fuel is extremely expensive;
        Operating a three-circuit system with sodium coolant is very expensive;
        Conversion plutonium is extremely contaminated with highly active isotopes, which makes reprocessing such fuel and producing new ones a daunting task.
        This does not mean that the idea of ​​fast reactors is buried, but they have not yet grown to a significant share in the fuel and energy balance.
        1. +2
          29 May 2024 05: 17
          Maybe the main message is the possibility of processing nuclear waste into clean energy?!
          1. +3
            29 May 2024 06: 40
            The whole point of fast breeder reactors is to involve a larger share of U238 in the energy production balance. In this case (theoretically!), not only energy is produced due to the fission of the main isotope, but also the production of fissile Pu isotopes. This leads to the fact that the number of fissile Pu isotopes at the end of the campaign is greater than at the beginning. But for this it is necessary to ensure a deep burnup regime, otherwise reprocessing for the purpose of fabricating new fuel will have to be done too often, which is not economically justified in the absence of a shortage of natural uranium.
            To speed up the reproduction of nuclear fuel, it was necessary to force the energy release, which led to the choice of liquid sodium as a coolant with all the costs of this technology.
            But a fast reactor is not particularly clean. Its only advantage is the burning of actinides in the high-energy neutron spectrum. The remaining fission products, just like in thermal neutron reactors, have to be buried.
            1. +1
              11 June 2024 08: 53
              Any technology has positive and negative aspects. By emphasizing some and smoothing out the consequences of others (or vice versa), supporters and opponents obtain means of their own existence (grants, budget tranches, etc., etc.). Nothing personal. However, quite authoritative opinions of both supporters and opponents agree on one thing - this is a promising direction, the benefits of which significantly outweigh the negative consequences.
              Как то так - http://nuclphys.sinp.msu.ru/ne/ne6.htm#:~:text=%D0%A8%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%B1%D1%8B%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D1%8B%D1%85,(%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%20%D0%B2%2060%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7).
    2. -1
      13 July 2024 11: 54
      Victor, the whole system has already been calculated. Everything is cost effective. And the more expensive uranium is on the market, the higher the efficiency will be
      1. 0
        13 July 2024 18: 28
        When I was a student half a century ago, I already heard this phrase about economic efficiency, which has been proven for the BN-350.
        1. -1
          14 July 2024 19: 24
          Victor, again you are talking nonsense or just arguing for the sake of arguing, substituting concepts and so on. The 350 was experimental. And it couldn't be cost effective. The power is too low. Effectively it is 1000 and above.
          1. 0
            15 July 2024 06: 54
            Yes, you really match Nick.
            Don’t get excited, in my time the threshold of efficiency was considered to be 800 MW(e). And the BN-1600 was considered the flagship project.
            Everyone was talking nonsense then, because Chernobyl was ahead. And everyone tried to push their topic to get funding. Security issues and environmental aspects like the “green lawn” buried most of the topics, and only those that had a lobby of appropriate power survived.
            I was then working on gas-cooled reactors, and the same songs were sung about them, and in terms of neutron balance (and this is the basis for the efficiency of nuclear energy), heavy-water gas-cooled reactors have no equal at all. But today we can only master what we mastered during the USSR period with appropriate improvements (the industrial base does not allow it).
            And calculations of their effectiveness are made in the interests of justifying decisions made. And as the chicks of Beri’s era liked to repeat, “a decision carried through to the end is always the right one.”
            1. -1
              15 July 2024 17: 14
              Victor, why this is all said is unclear. Happily.
              1. -2
                15 July 2024 19: 09
                And good luck to you, if you live to be 70, you will laugh at the past.
  14. +1
    29 May 2024 15: 40
    Wasn’t it the Americans who burned our weapons-grade plutonium in MOX fuel (Mixed-Oxide fuel) under the Gore-Chernomyrdin deal? That deal that we tried to stop so many times and couldn’t
  15. +1
    1 June 2024 15: 10
    I think it was only for the sake of appropriating this technology that war could be declared on Russia...