Military Review

Budget atom of Russia

133
Rosatom is ready to build nuclear power plants everywhere. Ecologists? Seismologists? Economists? No no; today - projects, tomorrow - loans, the day after tomorrow - construction, and let all these comrades come later. The key word in the activities of Rosatom, which cannot be called a commercial or market language — it will not do much the same about praising the nano-successes of Mr. Kiubenko’s ideological associate — the term “credits”.


Rosatom boldly reports: 12 May 2010, during the visit of Dmitry Medvedev to Turkey An agreement was signed between Russia and Turkey on cooperation in the construction and operation of the Akkuyu nuclear power plant. The construction of the first Turkish NPP will be implemented under the “Build-own-operate” conditions. At the beginning, the project will be financed from Russian sources, according to the Rosatom website, and then it is planned to attract investors from both Turkey and third countries.

Investors can not see. Yes, and in Turkey are not very happy. The project has a lot of flaws, считает columnist for the newspaper Milliyet Mehves Evin.

A nuclear power plant will appear in southern Turkey, just 250 kilometers from the region where Kurdish separatist unrest occasionally occurs. The nuclear power plant will be located too close to Antalya, which may scare off tourists. The journalist also speaks about possible cancer.

According to Bulat Nigmatulin, the former Deputy Minister for Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation, the Akkuyu project is unprofitable for Russia. If only because Russia "is actually sponsoring the construction of the station from its budget."

As Andrei Ozharovsky writes (bellona.ru) during the visit to Vietnam 7 November 2012, Dmitry Medvedev met with Truong Tan Shang, President of Vietnam, and held talks with Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung. Mr. Medvedev talked in Vietnam about the construction of a nuclear power plant by Rosatom. Nguyen Tan Dung later confirmed to the press that the construction of a nuclear power plant would be implemented, and Dmitry Medvedev said: “We have very important basic areas of cooperation. I will mention, of course, the creation of the first nuclear power plant. We have discussed this issue and would also like to state that we will continue to be guided by the highest criteria of quality and safety of the relevant facility. ”

The type of nuclear power plant and the type of reactor in the Agreement between Russia and Vietnam on cooperation in the construction of a nuclear power plant, signed in Hanoi on October 31 on October 2010, is not reported, nor is there a time frame for construction. The most important thing here is this: financing the construction of nuclear power plants in Vietnam will be provided by Russia. Article 5 of the Agreement informs: “In order to implement the cooperation provided for by this Agreement, the Russian Party grants the Vietnamese Party a state loan to finance the construction of the Ninh Thuan 1 nuclear power plant, including the development of a feasibility study.”

Responding to questions from Russian journalists, Dmitry Medvedev confirmed that construction costs in the amount of up to 10 billions of dollars will be paid through a state loan: “If we talk about cooperation in the nuclear field, you probably mean first of all the creation of a nuclear power plant,” here it’s really very big, a flagship project like this, its cost is high - under 10 billion dollars ... In general, we are in a state of almost complete agreement, and we will work according to the schedule that we the Vietnamese side will offer it, because in the end it will be their nuclear power plant, and it was for this nuclear power plant that we gave them a state loan. This is good for us, because Rosatom's order book is increasing, this is extra money, this is an opportunity to roll in the most advanced nuclear technologies. ”

In January of this year, Sheikh Hasina, the Prime Minister, came to Moscow Bangladesh. She took Vladimir Putin. In the "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" wrote that Russia is very interested in in energy cooperation with Bangladesh, and among the priorities here is the construction of the first Ruppur nuclear power plant in Bangladesh. During the visit, Sheikh Hasina in the Kremlin, eleven documents were signed: an intergovernmental agreement on the settlement of Bangladesh’s financial obligations to the Russian Federation; agreement on granting Bangladesh a loan of 500 million dollars for the construction of Ruppur NPP; agreement on the construction of an atomic energy information center in the republic, etc.

The construction of nuclear power plants in Bangladesh will start in January 2014. The total cost of the project will exceed 2 billion. Head of Rosatom Sergey Kiriyenko сообщил: “1 January 2014 will begin real work on the site, in the 2015 year, the main phase of the works will begin, which will take about the 5 years, so we are talking about the launch of nuclear power plants at the beginning of 2020's.” Further, the country's chief nuclear scientist cheerfully noted that Bangladesh would also take a loan from Russia for the second stage of work. The amount will exceed 1,5 billion.

Bangladesh’s Russian nuclear choice was in favor of Russia, although negotiations were also held with other major players in this market. Former Deputy Minister of Russia for Atomic Energy, Viktor Sidorenko, employee of the Kurchatov Institute says: “This indicates that the attitude towards the Russian technology that has been formed in recent years gives rise to sufficient confidence so that, along with the technological advantages, we can also evaluate the financial and credit opportunities offered by the Russian side. The advantage that can be attributed to competitive - is that we have a sufficient set of projects implemented in other countries. That is, you can see what is called, touch it, be it China, India or working stations in other countries. This is a demonstration that the technology exists and works reliably. ”

In addition to the “sufficient trust” that Mr. Sidorenko said, it should be noted that the conditions offered by the government of Bangladesh to potential future partners did not look very tempting. You see, this state has almost no money, and we are talking about the construction of a nuclear power plant on credit. (Weaponthat Bangladesh is going to buy from Russia will also be supplied on credit, there is also a speech about billions). Therefore, it appears that the major players did not consider it possible to lend to Bangladesh, nor did they receive approval from their ministries of finance for budget billions. The big question is also whether Bangladesh will return a Russian loan at all. There is no question only that Rosatom, led to a bright future by Mr. Kirienko, will successfully master atomic billions.

NPPs are being built on Russian loan money in Belarus. Under the Agreement of 15 in March, 2011 of the NPP at the Ostrovets site in the Grodno region is being built on a turnkey basis by the Russian side. November 25 2011, the site says Rosatom, an Intergovernmental Agreement was signed on granting the Russian side to the Belarusian side a state loan for the construction of the station.

Construction of the Kudankulam NPP is the same Rosatom in India also not without credit. Wherever you look, everywhere credit.

And Deputy Director General of Rosatom State Corporation for Development and International Business, Kirill Komarov boasts successes: “At the end of the year they had ... 21 block abroad and nine that are built domestically. Only thirty units. This is an absolutely unique situation. Nobody in the world builds that much. Even China, which is now being set as an example for everyone as the most dynamically developing country. They, unlike Russia, have not one, but two state-owned nuclear companies. At the same time, Rosatom is building in China. So, two Chinese companies are building 25 reactors, and we are building thirty. In this sense, we are the champions. And we bypass competitors with whom we are in the same league - I mean the French and Americans. Only today they offer on a par with us nuclear reactors, which can be conventionally attributed to the “three plus” generation.

“Nobody in the world builds so much” ... Why is it so surprising? No one in the world is cut off such pieces from a budget cake.

“The aggregate volume of Rosatom contracts is 69,3 billion (+ 18.4 billion to the level of 2011 of the year),” writes Ivan Lizan ("But"). “It is even planned that the corporation will enter the Latin American market.”

Yes, with such a scale, in principle, it is possible to enter the market of Antarctica. And even Mars.

The leader of the Yabloko party, S. Mitrokhin, calls Rosatom activities nothing more than robbery. In the article "How Rosatom Robs Russia" he's writing:

“For any country after Chernobyl and Fukushima, it is not easy to decide on the development of atomic energy in their country, such a“ pill ”needs to be sweetened. How?

It's very simple: to build these foreign NPPs at the expense of the Russian budget! ”


Ecologists and seismologists, the author continues,

“... horrified by the plans to build the Akkuyu nuclear power plant in Turkey in a seismically dangerous territory.

But who will listen to seismologists if Rosatom intends to pump out $ 4 billion from the RF budget for this construction! <…>

Approximately the same amount ($ 4 billion) will be received from us by India, China, Belarus, Bangladesh and many more other countries, given the seductiveness of the offer.

The full payback period for each NPP is 25-30 years. <...> And who will guarantee that in 20 years the then regime of Bangladesh will not wipe its legs (or some other part of its powerful body) about the agreement with Rosatom?

But Rosatom has not its own money. Our good state is ready to allocate even more to it, taking money from retirees, state employees, infrastructure development projects in Russia. In domestic education and medicine, which are due to "lack of funds" must be commercialized. Imposing heavy tax and insurance yoke on their own small business and individual entrepreneurs. If only our dear Bangladesh would not have problems with power supply interruptions! ”


To this it must be added that the Russian government does not see any particular difficulties in writing off debts, and “international partners” are just as happy with the simplicity of the issue. In the newspaper Kommersant summed up debt write-offs for the last fifteen years.

During this time, Russia has written off debts on loans extended by the government of the USSR and the Russian Federation to various countries in the amount of about $ 80 billion. Here we have Ethiopia, Mongolia, Laos, Syria, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and the DPRK, and Vietnam (by the way, a potential customer of nuclear power plants). In 2000, he was written off 86% of debt from 11 billion dollars - 9,5 billion.

It is possible that this list will replenish Bangladesh.

Who is good to live in Russia?

Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
133 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. e-froloff
    e-froloff 4 May 2013 08: 09
    -8
    Well, can you say, Russia is a generous soul !!!
    1. Canep
      Canep 4 May 2013 08: 16
      18
      The Turkish nuclear power plant will belong to Russia and the profits from its work will also go to Russia. It's all about garlic, not any charity.
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 4 May 2013 09: 00
        22
        This is the same as the Gazprom pipes, if Russia is building a nuclear power station in another country, this country will become somewhat dependent on Russia. Who now in the world can carry out a full range of work on the design and construction of nuclear power plants ?, can be counted on the fingers. Perhaps this is such a strategic policy of Russia to put under its control resources and energy, and therefore indirectly the country. Money is just what we think it is, but gas, atom and oil are real things. In the end, as Minesweeper correctly says, a nuclear power plant, unlike a tank, gives a profit, including for a donated tank, i.e. the money spent can be returned for any.
        1. self-propelled
          self-propelled 4 May 2013 09: 04
          13
          Quote: SPACE
          It’s the same mine as Gazprom’s pipes, if Russia builds a nuclear power station in another country, this country becomes somewhat dependent on Russia

          business is business request the more there will be such addicts, the stronger the position of Russia good
          1. Shawnee
            Shawnee 4 May 2013 13: 18
            +4
            The big question is also whether Bangladesh will repay a Russian loan at all.

        2. Canep
          Canep 4 May 2013 10: 16
          +2
          It would not be bad if the territory of the nuclear power plant had the same status as the territory of the embassy.
          1. Suhov
            Suhov 4 May 2013 23: 56
            +2
            Quote: Canep
            It would not be bad if the territory of the nuclear power plant had the same status as the territory of the embassy

            The territory of nuclear power plants will be protected much better than the territory of the embassy and without any status.
            Moreover, the leadership of the country in whose territory the nuclear power plant is located is most interested in organizing the above protection of the above territory.
            How do you think why?
            wassat
          2. leon-iv
            leon-iv 5 May 2013 22: 07
            0
            in fact, without Russia, it cannot exist
        3. Andrey_K
          Andrey_K 4 May 2013 11: 08
          11
          Add uranium trading here.
          Who built the nuclear power plant - and supplies uranium for it - this is specifically specified in the contracts.
          Now no one except Russia is building nuclear plants (almost) - this is because uranium is ending in the world.
          In the world, but not in Russia.
          For some time, America was kept on Soviet uranium (which Russia supplied to it under the agreement on the squandering of weapons-grade Soviet plutonium), but in 2014 this freebie ends.
          Why doesn't Russia have a headache about uranium?
          Maybe there are secret rich deposits, maybe because the uranium purification technology allows it to be profitably obtained from French and American dumps (after they already got what they could from there), or maybe all hope for breeders is also a unique Russian technology for producing plutonium from uranium 238.
          1. Kaa
            Kaa 4 May 2013 15: 00
            +7
            Quote: Andrey_K
            Add uranium trading here.
            And to this you need to add what is being built for VIRTUAL dollar loans (a few cents - the cost of printing a 100-dollar bill), and as a result - MATERIAL objects are obtained, the cost of which will only grow, which cannot be said about the FRS products. "For example, as shown on the graph - for the period from 1900 to 2010 the purchasing power of the dollar decreased by 96,5%. In March 2012, we published an article by Warren Buffett, in which he also commented on the purchasing power of the dollar: ... Even in the United States, the desire to have a stable currency is strong enough. Since 1965, when I took over as head of Berkshire, the dollar has lost a crushing 86%. Thus, today you can buy for at least $ 7 what could be bought for $ 1 at that time. . "http://pfin.com.ua/poterya-stoimost-dollara-v-dolgosrochnom-periode/
          2. zennon
            zennon 4 May 2013 15: 29
            0
            Andrey_K
            for the production of plutonium from uranium 238.
            Well, is there such a technology? And is it economically viable?
            1. Andrey_K
              Andrey_K 4 May 2013 19: 28
              +2
              Google "Beloyarskaya NPP" - there is a fast neutron reactor.
              And a few more are under construction.
              This technology was developed over several decades, a coolant was selected, etc.
              The French and Japanese did not cope with difficulties and left the race.
              But in Russia the technology has been brought to mind and the mass construction of such stations can begin.
              True, they are still not being massively built (probably not everything has been completed yet) - but there is still uranium in the deposits and you can not rush it.
              But when uranium 235 ends, then you can go to 238, which will last for thousands of years.
              The funny thing is that Americans stupidly spend depleted uranium, scattering it in shells or tank armor.
              It was cheaper to make them out of gold - after all, each such projectile is potentially fuel for future power plants and it will still rise in price.
              As Mendeleev once said about oil: "You can also heat the stoves with banknotes"
              1. zennon
                zennon 4 May 2013 19: 37
                0
                But now, uranium-238 is cheap, almost junk metal, much cheaper than tungsten, and surpasses it in density. Using it in shells such as Vant 3BM-33, Lead 3BM-48 is justified.
                1. Andrey_K
                  Andrey_K 4 May 2013 23: 05
                  0
                  For the time being cheap.
                  Sooner or later, all uranium and other heavy elements will go into the furnace.
                  Unless they invent fusion ... but there is no hope for it yet - 50 years for sure.
                  Therefore, 238 will cost if not as much as 235 then in the region of that.
                  (1 kg - $ 20 million)
                  And how much can a battery cost, which a large city can supply with electricity for a year?

                  Platinum was once cheaper than lead and even drowned in the sea so that gold is not faked.
                2. wax
                  wax 5 May 2013 15: 49
                  -1
                  But now, uranium-238 is cheap, almost junk metal, much cheaper than tungsten, and surpasses it in density. Using it in shells such as Vant 3BM-33, Lead 3BM-48 is justified.

                  Unless, of course, neglect the effect of atomized uranium on the environment and public health.
                  You can see here in Iraq:
                  http://www.irak-2003.ru/publ/stati_vojny_v_irake/o_vojne_v_irake/obzor_grazhdans
                  kikh_posledstvij_i_razrushenij / 3-1-0-68
          3. fzr1000
            fzr1000 4 May 2013 18: 15
            +2
            Maybe this is the case?

            In June 2013, JSC Khiagda plans to launch the first phase of a uranium mining facility using borehole underground leaching. The enterprise is part of the ARMZ uranium holding company (Atomredmetzoloto), located in Buryatia and is developing the deposits of the Khiagda ore field, the press service of the holding reports. Currently, an active construction of social infrastructure is underway on the site - a new dining room and a dental office have been launched; in December 2012, the launch of a finished goods warehouse is expected.

            Note that uranium mining at the deposit has begun. So, in 2010, the company produced 135,1 tons of uranium, and in 2011 already 266,4 tons of uranium.
          4. ISO
            ISO 4 May 2013 18: 28
            +5
            We squandered weapons-grade uranium under the agreement: "Don't let the Russian atomic scientists die of hunger" named after Gor-Chernomyrdin. What's the use of warheads if the hard workers had nothing to pay with. I work in a plant that survived in the 90s thanks to, among other things, European dumps and HEU-LEU. You can breed a lot of demagoguery on this topic, but it is precisely such contracts that have made it possible to preserve the potential of Russian nuclear weapons
            1. Andrey_K
              Andrey_K 4 May 2013 19: 34
              +7
              This deal was designed to destroy Soviet plutonium reserves ... but it turned out to be a blessing.
              Firstly, they saved the nuclear industry.
              Secondly, they planted the American nuclear industry on cheap uranium - their own almost went bankrupt and could not invest a lot of money in their own development - only one uranium processing plant was built.
              And thirdly, the reserves of Soviet plutonium were slightly reduced - the reserves turned out to be huge and there is no evidence that the Americans did not slip freshly created fuel and not conversion.
              Well, in the farthest, Russian nuclear scientists also got European unenriched uranium under the guise - under the pretext: they say plutonium must be diluted with something.
              And from this uranium some more fuel was extracted.
        4. nakaz
          nakaz 4 May 2013 22: 43
          +1
          Building nuclear power plants in other countries:
          1. We have the opportunity to constantly improve the technology, being at the forefront of one of the most high-tech science - nuclear physics.
          2. The demand for electricity in all these countries is growing at a fairly high rate, as is the price of electricity. Moreover, in many countries there is already a shortage of electricity.
          3. We strengthen good-neighborly relations, of course, with a small pegging of countries to Russia - you simply cannot leave a nuclear power plant without operation. Even the preservation of nuclear power plants in order to forget and not think more about it requires a lot of unique resources and technologies.
          4. It makes you wonder why Western companies do not want to support emerging markets with very high margins. Whatever they say, but decent money in nuclear energy, the return on investment is very high. It seems that they have a team to simply slander many countries because they do not support the Anglo-Saxon policy on many issues. And do not say mastering nuclear capabilities is a tremendous contribution to a whole range of related industries - construction, production of modern materials, engineering, metallurgy, automation, industrial chemistry, atomic physics.
          1. wax
            wax 5 May 2013 15: 53
            0
            Americans saddled microelectronics and element base, taking advantage of the capabilities of pioneers. It’s a sin for us not to saddle nuclear energy.
        5. Suhov
          Suhov 4 May 2013 23: 37
          +1
          Quote: SPACE
          This is the same as the Gazprom pipes, if Russia is building a nuclear power station in another country, this country falls into some dependence on Russia.

          Three methods of protection against radioactive radiation are known: time, quantity and distance.
          - time (the less time you work - the less you will receive a dose),
          - amount (the smaller the amount of radiation source with which you work - the less you get the dose) and finally
          - distance (the farther you are from the source of radiation - the less you get the dose).
          From abroad, it is also beneficial to place nuclear power plants in terms of safety:
          the farther from the borders of Russia (the greater the distance) - all the better!
          yes
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 5 May 2013 01: 56
            +1
            Quote: Sukhov
            - distance (the farther you are from the source of radiation - the less you get the dose).
            From abroad, it is also beneficial to place nuclear power plants in terms of safety:
            the farther from the borders of Russia (the greater the distance) - the better!

            ! There is a natural radiation background, nuclear power plants are not monopolists here, their contribution is very modest.
            1. Suhov
              Suhov 5 May 2013 19: 32
              0
              Quote: Setrac
              There is a natural radiation background, nuclear power plants are not monopolists here, their contribution is very modest.

              I'm talking about an unusual situation.
              Compare two options and choose which is better.
              1. A nuclear power plant is located on our territory, we sell the generated energy over a hill.
              2. The nuclear power plant is located behind the hill and we also sell the generated energy.
              And if God forbid that with nuclear power plants, (a situation like Chernobyl), which option is more preferable for us?
              In addition, if you bring the place of electricity generation closer to the place of consumption of the specified electricity, you will get a benefit by reducing losses during the transportation of this electricity.
              And at the expense of the natural background, nuclear power plants and biological protection of nuclear power plants, yes.
              The biological protection of the reactor should ensure that the ionizing radiation of the specified reactor is reduced to a level at which the ionizing radiation from the reactor outside the biological protection should be lower than the natural background.
              hi
              1. leon-iv
                leon-iv 5 May 2013 22: 12
                +1
                Well, do not escalate
                Chernobyl RBKM after VVER and BN current
                And the protection now at our nuclear power plants is the best in the world, like Russian nuclear power plants.
                1. Suhov
                  Suhov 5 May 2013 23: 25
                  +1
                  Quote: leon-iv
                  Well, do not escalate

                  Good. I agree.
                  Quote: leon-iv
                  And the protection now at our nuclear power plants is the best in the world, like Russian nuclear power plants.

                  That's for sure. In Soviet times, they didn’t save on safety ...
                  hi
                  1. leon-iv
                    leon-iv 6 May 2013 00: 03
                    0
                    In Soviet times, they didn’t save on safety ...

                    They did save a lot, therefore, they built RBKM and not VVER
                    + to this ignorance of many subtleties and poor preparation of nuclear scientists.
                    The result of Chernobyl.
        6. Rainger
          Rainger 14 May 2013 10: 28
          0
          Russia, France and Japan are actually all ...
      2. zart_arn
        zart_arn 4 May 2013 12: 01
        +3
        Such projects should have full financial openness - how much we will spend, how much we will gain, payback periods, etc. Otherwise, it will be an ideal field for cutting in conditions of secrecy (from whom, again, from yourself, from us and you?). And you should not forget about safe operation, constant tight control will be absolutely necessary.
    2. zvereok
      zvereok 4 May 2013 11: 43
      +4
      Loans must be given in rubles.
      1. Nick
        Nick 4 May 2013 22: 31
        0
        Quote: zvereok
        Loans must be given in rubles.

        Nobody will see live money. The loan will be commercial. And the goods (NPPs) will be created by Russian enterprises, naturally their work will be paid for in rubles IMHO. Why paper then drive here and there ...
      2. Suhov
        Suhov 5 May 2013 00: 06
        +3
        Quote: zvereok
        Loans must be given in rubles

        And to take away debts - in gold!
        laughing
    3. FC SKIF
      FC SKIF 4 May 2013 17: 29
      +3
      The NPP staff will learn from us - future agents of influence, or at least part of the foreign elites who are positive for Russia, + work for our specialists, + we have as an argument not only a nuclear club and Gazprom pipes, but also something technologically and useful at the same time.
  2. Canep
    Canep 4 May 2013 08: 14
    13
    With proper operation, a nuclear power plant is much safer than a conventional one. In terms of seismic resistance, our stations were tested "in battle" - the Armenian nuclear power plant was the only source of electricity after the earthquake in Stepanokert, thermal (conventional) ones all stopped. And in Chernobyl, the staff did everything to make the reactor explode. But the problem of nuclear waste disposal is still being solved "head-on".
    1. krasin
      krasin 4 May 2013 08: 20
      +1
      We live well! There are no words!
    2. xtur
      xtur 4 May 2013 23: 25
      +2
      earthquake was in Spitak. And the strength of the shocks at the ANPP site was 6 points. But it’s not only the ultimate scam, the matter is the right choice of the site, the right project that takes into account all the risks, and strict adherence to technical regulations.
  3. APASUS
    APASUS 4 May 2013 08: 26
    +4
    Budget is a strange thing, I’ll tell you. Raise your pension by 300 rubles. they immediately announce that it will require unthinkable billions !!! But giving Rosatom $ 69,3 billion for the construction of nuclear power plants abroad is not a problem at all !!
    Sometimes there is a feeling that the one who is closer to the "body" gets the money!
    1. zvereok
      zvereok 4 May 2013 11: 48
      +1
      Apparently, from 10 yards, 2 loans are returned in gratitude to the negotiators, 5 go to construction, 3 in gratitude to the negotiators on the other hand. And years through 15 the loan is forgiven, at the expense of a discount on the supply of bananas and the issuance of a new loan.
      1. Suhov
        Suhov 5 May 2013 00: 09
        0
        Quote: zvereok
        Apparently, from 10 yards, 2 loans are returned in gratitude to the negotiators, 5 go to construction, 3 in gratitude to the negotiators on the other hand. And years through 15 the loan is forgiven, at the expense of a discount on the supply of bananas and the issuance of a new loan.

        Many would like to receive credit under such conditions!
        wassat
    2. crambol
      crambol 4 May 2013 20: 18
      0
      You are not far from the truth!
  4. ATATA
    ATATA 4 May 2013 08: 37
    11
    Custom article. Customers, those to whom Russia has crossed the road by building their own nuclear power plants.
    1. El13
      El13 4 May 2013 15: 03
      +1
      Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin

      In general, somehow I can’t believe in the bad ... but minus slapped.
      1. Belogor
        Belogor 4 May 2013 20: 20
        +4
        Looking at whose materials he surveyed.
        Build and do it right, many want to build something like that, but not everyone can do it
        1. Suhov
          Suhov 5 May 2013 00: 12
          +1
          Quote: Belogor
          Build and do right many want to build like thatbut not everyone succeeds

          Wishlist did not come out ...
          laughing
    2. Nick
      Nick 4 May 2013 22: 37
      0
      Quote: ATATA
      Custom article. Customers, those to whom Russia has crossed the road by building their own nuclear power plants.

      You correctly noticed. I also came to this conclusion. There is a lot of populism ... there is no economy ...
      As Comrade Saakhov said, "... you argue apolitically ..." Comrade Chuvakin ...
    3. xtur
      xtur 4 May 2013 23: 29
      +1
      Yes, the article leaves a strange impression. The government is doing well that finances one of the few high-tech industries where Russians have a wealth of experience and advantage. Such an approach would be for the civilian aircraft industry, and everything would be completely different
  5. Zomanus
    Zomanus 4 May 2013 08: 48
    +3
    An interesting look ... Well, what is our benefit with such loans? To be with all the good ones at our expense? Or hope to get loot for maintenance and disposal?
    1. Suhov
      Suhov 5 May 2013 00: 15
      0
      Quote: Zomanus
      But what is our benefit with such a loan?

      Can make money?
      yes
  6. treskoed
    treskoed 4 May 2013 09: 06
    +2
    Or maybe this is a profitable investment? After all, NPPs will remain Russian and the owner of the NPP will receive income from their operation. Plus fuel supply, service. This is a long-term cooperation. Who is against it? "Former", "Yabloko", etc., for whom the worse the better.
  7. jcksmt
    jcksmt 4 May 2013 09: 07
    +5
    But is it not more profitable to build nuclear power plants in Russia. If you still spend your money. All income to us. Russia has so few nuclear power plants. You must understand that the currency of the future is energy. A country with a lot of energy has an advantage. In the end, electricity can also be sold abroad.
    1. gladysheff2010
      gladysheff2010 4 May 2013 13: 31
      +2
      They are being built.
    2. fatty
      fatty 4 May 2013 20: 03
      +1
      don’t worry, in Russia nuclear plants were being built, are being built and will be under construction. now they are building the world's first floating nuclear power plant for the far north, I assure you, it is the first and not the last.
      1. Suhov
        Suhov 5 May 2013 00: 25
        0
        Quote: fatty
        now building the world's first floating nuclear power plant

        Wait a minute ...
        Why the first?
        But ships, submarines with atomic engines - do not count?
        wassat
    3. 11Goor11
      11Goor11 4 May 2013 22: 51
      +1
      It was necessary in such a way to tie Turkey.
      There was a tender, and not only Russia wanted to win it.
      A similar thing happened not only in Turkey, in the Czech Republic too, Mrs. Clinton implored the Czechs with the forces of democracy and universal human values, to abandon the construction of a Russian nuclear power plant and to accept "virtuous" US assistance. But the Czechs judged more practical - Russian nuclear power plants are safer and cheaper than American ones, which was later proved by the events at Fukushima.
      Now the losers are trying to catch up on their favorite battlefield:
      "Psychological operations can become the dominant weapon at the strategic and operational levels, they can take place in the form of information intervention by the media. Opponents in fourth-generation wars will skillfully manipulate the media in order to change public opinion in the country and in the world to such an extent that the use of psychological operations could make the use of combat units redundant. The main goal will be to support the population of the enemy government. Television news can become a more powerful weapon than tank divisions ... "

      From an article by William Lind and four other US Army and ILC officers, “The Changing Face of War: The Fourth Generation.”
    4. Suhov
      Suhov 5 May 2013 00: 21
      0
      Quote: jcksmt
      But is it not more profitable to build nuclear power plants in Russia.

      From a security point of view, no!
      The farther from the borders of Russia, the better!
      yes
    5. leon-iv
      leon-iv 5 May 2013 22: 13
      0
      Lol and loss of delivery of course we forget it
  8. Bombowoz
    Bombowoz 4 May 2013 09: 22
    +3
    Clever! Quiet colonization, so to speak. An attempt to regain former influence in the regions through Minatom. Then we will develop the infrastructure around the stations and further on the points. And of course, in a separate document, everything between the lines.
    1. the polar
      the polar 4 May 2013 13: 20
      +5
      Infrastructure needs to be developed in Russia, not in Bangladesh and not in Turkey with India
      1. Tverichanka
        Tverichanka 4 May 2013 17: 30
        +1
        Quote: Polar
        not in Bangladesh and not in Turkey with India

        Do we no longer need allies? Are our zones of influence not relevant?
      2. Suhov
        Suhov 5 May 2013 00: 30
        +2
        Quote: Polar
        Infrastructure needs to be developed in Russia, not in Bangladesh and not in Turkey with India

        And in Russia infrastructure needs to be developed, not only in Bangladesh and Turkey with India ...
        yes
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 5 May 2013 22: 16
          0
          And here the infrastructure
          NPPs are built where they are needed. Now there is a process of replacement of Thermal stations.
  9. LOKY
    LOKY 4 May 2013 09: 39
    +5
    If the article is based on the opinion of liberals, then the sign of its promise can be safely changed to the opposite! ;)
    1. SPACE
      SPACE 4 May 2013 10: 08
      +6
      Earlier, money was tied to gold, the gold standard, and so when they refused it, some, I remember, offered to tie money to energy! eventually tied to the dollar, as the most inexhaustible supply of wood laughing
  10. djon3volta
    djon3volta 4 May 2013 10: 24
    +4
    A nuclear power plant in Belarus is also being built on credit Russian money.


    Lukashenko: Opposing construction of nuclear power plants in Belarus - people paid by the West
    Read more: http://news.tut.by/economics/346562.html

    read the comments to the article on tyt.by and pay attention to the pluses and minus signatures to the comments. I tell you, all these + и - in order to manipulate public opinion. if I'm wrong, why do people then click on + or - ??? tyt.by is a campaign analogue of our rambler or echo of Moscow, rain. yes? am I right?
    By the way, I consider the same as Lukashenko. those who are against the construction of nuclear power plants, they are paid. as well as those who are against the construction of a road through the Khimki forest, or against the Sochi 2014 Olympics. All protests have a customer, organizer and sponsor, I love that. and these three doctors (I forgot where) are also paid from some kind of NGO for the protection of mushrooms or birds.
    1. SergBrNord
      SergBrNord 4 May 2013 12: 57
      0
      It’s not so simple with the opinion of the nuclear power plant in Belarus. Now I’ll try to paint it all.

      1) Chernobyl. A very strong factor - this is understandable to everyone and without complicated argumentation. It is enough to mention only that ~ 66% of the territory of the Republic of Belarus was polluted.

      2) Increased dependence on Russia. After the construction of the station, Belarus will pay money for quite a long time, and fuel in general will have to be purchased only from Russia. This factor is aggravated by the sale of "family silver". They do not like oligarchs in Belarus, because everyone knows who they are and what they are.

      3) Increase in cost of kW / h. Many believe that after construction, the cost of electricity will increase by including the costs of nuclear power plants and others like it; it will be cheaper if purchases abroad continue. I will say even more - many people reasonably believe that the cost of kW / in Belarus is significantly overstated for everyone.
      http://news.tut.by/economics/336506.html
      http://news.tut.by/economics/346427.html

      4) The imposition of Lukashenko’s personality on all this. No one experiences enthusiasm in his attitude. There is generally a separate conversation. Negativity is mixed up with a lot - from speeches with elements of expressions ala Chernomyrdin (google to help), propaganda of the Security Council (compulsory subscription, aha) / BT (aka Goebbels-TV / Batskabachanne) to politics (hi PPP, Chizhu and KO).
      1. SergBrNord
        SergBrNord 4 May 2013 13: 37
        0
        I forgot to add - there is no trust in officials either. "If Lukashenka says that there will be no devaluation, you have to run to the exchange office" ©
        And they will not be restored at all - the situation with Xavier is an example to that (in Belarus - Javier (significant, yes)).
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 5 May 2013 02: 04
          0
          Quote: SergBrNord
          it will be cheaper if purchases abroad continue.

          Specify, from abroad this is where?
  11. Ram chandra
    Ram chandra 4 May 2013 10: 32
    +1
    In Kazakhstan, they still want nuclear power plants, everyone can’t solve something ..
  12. Suhov
    Suhov 4 May 2013 10: 36
    0
    Interestingly, and under what conditions in terms of credit are the "partners" building?
    In the article about this - not a word ...
    Or did I not read it carefully?
  13. fatty
    fatty 4 May 2013 10: 50
    13
    U. Chuvakin, the decision to build a nuclear power plant is not taken on a gangway under heavy libations, but construction is not carried out by Tajik guest workers. Both the economic benefit and the environmental component and safety are calculated by specialists. for you, an employee of the Kurchatov Institute Sidorenko is not an authority, but Mr. Mitrokhin, well, where do we need an apple without a party, the truth is the last resort. Your point of view is, in principle, clear. Article-bullshit.
    1. Belogor
      Belogor 4 May 2013 20: 23
      +1
      100% hit
  14. SlavaS
    SlavaS 4 May 2013 12: 05
    0
    I read that uranium is enough for reactors for 25 years, then what then to heat?
    1. fzr1000
      fzr1000 4 May 2013 18: 29
      +1
      Well, 2 times increase the period. And if we are friends with Kazakhstan, then add another 40-50 years.
  15. Volkhov
    Volkhov 4 May 2013 12: 18
    11 th
    There would be no problem if these NPPs were underground, but they are superficial. In a disaster, they explode and provide genocide. Countries with prudent leadership (Germany, Japan) shut down nuclear power plants and curtail work in the industry, and Kinder Surprise offers Russian-made blerovia to everyone around on credit with kickbacks.
    1. Kodiak
      Kodiak 4 May 2013 13: 17
      11
      No genocide from the accident at the nuclear power plant was and is not expected.
      There will be no catastrophe, if properly designed and operated.

      Germans and Japanese adiyos - refuse cheap and environmentally friendly energy.
      We are developing a high-tech industry, subsidizing it indirectly by the state.
      1. Volkhov
        Volkhov 4 May 2013 13: 41
        -7
        Quote: Kodiak
        We are developing a high-tech industry, subsidizing it indirectly by the state.

        Develop it at a depth of 600 meters and this will be your business, and when you pull it into fertile populated areas, then be honest - there will be cancer, mutations, alienation of territories - we are going to you ...
        In Germany, already at 42, there was an authorized (minister) for nuclear energy, but the installations were in mines, and in the USSR they saved money and installed direct-flow reactors on Siberian rivers. They save on the population, and they installed underground reactors in the Kremlin, because they could have blinded the block in the Old Square, since it is so good.
        1. Kodiak
          Kodiak 4 May 2013 13: 54
          +4
          Do not see the argument about the genocide from explosions at nuclear facilities.

          Watt WHO in the newsletter Health Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident: A Review "writes that" among the three groups of people most exposed to radiation ... additional cancer deaths from exposure to radiation represent a 3-4 percent higher than the usual incidence of cancer caused by for all the reasons. "
          Where is this genocide during the largest disaster at a nuclear power plant in history - it is decidedly not clear.

          About the alienation of territories, a quote from the same:

          “People who currently live in lightly infected areas (37 kBq / m2) continue to receive small doses above natural background levels, but these levels are in the normal range of background doses received worldwide. In comparison, the high dose of radiation that is usually the patient receives as a result of computed tomography of the whole body, approximately equivalent to the total dose accumulated over 20 years by residents of slightly infected areas after the Chernobyl accident. "

          But shouting about banduputin support is sacred.
          1. Volkhov
            Volkhov 4 May 2013 14: 33
            -4
            Quote: Kodiak
            Do not see the argument about the genocide from explosions at nuclear facilities.

            It is absolutely impossible to argue in a commentary on a physics course. It is necessary to study the issue for 10-20 years, inquire about the biographies of the "liquidators", changes in nature.
            When talking about the disaster, I meant the synchronous explosion of a nuclear power plant, because of which normal governments shut down most of the stations. In this case, the infection zones merge and the survivors will not be able to have a future in the form of offspring.
            The average levels from WHO's lullabies are a lottery in which everything depends on one active speck of dust in the lungs or stomach, which will create a high level at the point of origin of cancer. In nature, there are no such uranium dust particles; they appear during bombings and reactors.
            1. Kodiak
              Kodiak 4 May 2013 15: 38
              +4
              Of course, you need to be interested and find out.
              Then it will become clear that the stories about the "terrible atom" are just stories, and the emissions from thermal power plants are more radioactive than nuclear power plants.
              That the probability of a synchronous explosion of nuclear power plants (normally designed and operated) is striving for the possibility of a synchronous explosion of the gas tanks of all cars.
              That populist politicians in countries that refuse to use the atom do not care about the interests of their constituents, but use an informational occasion to raise their ratings.

              Well, to complain about nuclear tests is generally strange - if we hadn’t done them, now the level of radiation in our country would have been much higher.

              Threat Uranium, thorium and their decay products in emissions of thermal power plants how, for health are very useful?
              Radon?
              1. Volkhov
                Volkhov 4 May 2013 16: 24
                -1
                Of the natural, there is only radon - radon sources are quite useful, I checked, and it's not in vain that there is a resort. Uranium and thorium are scanty impurities in the emissions of thermal power plants, there are none at all in gas, there is very little in fuel oil, only in coal from some deposits, it is treated with smoke cleaning - under the tsar they installed electrostatic filters, under socialism they began to save money and paint pictures "The pipes smoke. This is because socialism was built by American capital through the mediation of Trotsky - either the bankers squeezed, or Trotsky stole the money.
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 4 May 2013 23: 27
                  +3
                  Quote: Volkhov
                  radon sources are quite useful, checked, and it’s not for nothing that the resort is there.

                  Do you not know that even in the days of the USSR 90% of Kamchatka conscripts had a "white ticket" for cardiovascular? Precisely because they often went to Paratunka. Have you been there, swam? I - yes, and in a military sanatorium. And I talked with the medical staff. 1 - 2 baths PER YEAR, not more often, then it is really useful. And coal-fired thermal power plants produce SUCH a bunch of isotopes that a nuclear power plant will give out in case of not every accident. Moreover - constantly and in very serious quantities.

                  By the way, about "studying the question for 10-20 years", I first started working with AI sources just 35 years ago. Will this time be enough to form a more or less competent opinion? wink
                  1. Suhov
                    Suhov 5 May 2013 01: 12
                    0
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    By the way, about "studying the question for 10-20 years", I first started working with AI sources just 35 years ago. Will this time be enough to form a more or less competent opinion?

                    Answer: yes and no ...
                    But seriously, then 35 years is more than enough.
                    But I'm talking about something else:
                    The effect of ionizing radiation on offspring is poorly understood. There may be surprises.
                    If only because not enough time has passed since they understood what ionizing radiation is and began to study its effect on humans and their offspring.
                    1. Misantrop
                      Misantrop 5 May 2013 10: 20
                      0
                      Quote: Sukhov
                      not enough time has passed since they understood what ionizing radiation is and began to study its effect on humans and their offspring.
                      In fact, it has already been proved that for terrestrial organisms the complete absence of AI is no better than constant over-irradiation. The optimal range is from 4 to 12 microroentgen. On Kola there is a constant background of 15 micro-roentgen. And not at all from nuclear power plants and the nuclear fleet. Fonite bedrock (granites and basalts) that are there on the surface
                      1. Suhov
                        Suhov 5 May 2013 20: 30
                        0
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        In fact, it has already been proved that for terrestrial organisms the complete absence of AI is no better than constant over-irradiation.

                        I mind!
                        How the effect of ionizing radiation sources on the offspring (in the second, third, Nth generation) will be reflected has not been studied, if only because little time has passed.
                        It is known that the lens of the eye and cerebellum, the organ involved in blood formation, are the most sensitive to the effects of AI.
                        To study how the effect of AI on human genes manifests itself, what negative it can be - it takes time to collect statistics. For the fifth generation - 100 years (5 * 20 = 100)
                        All existing statements are nothing more than guesses ...
                      2. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 6 May 2013 11: 16
                        0
                        Quote: Sukhov
                        How the effect of ionizing radiation sources on the offspring (in the second, third, Nth generation) will be reflected has not been studied, if only because little time has passed.
                        It is known that the lens of the eye and cerebellum, the organ involved in blood formation, are the most sensitive to the effects of AI.
                        To study how the effect of AI on human genes manifests itself, what negative it can be - it takes time to collect statistics.

                        Do not remember how many generations of northern peoples live for centuries on the basalt and granite shores of the North? And already there these breeds fonut ... Especially - in places. If you do not want to go into such a wilderness, you can take a closer look at ... the indigenous Petersburgers. The granite embankments of the Neva in other places are no less loud. A summer day stay on the beach or in the field? Do you think the total dose received will be very different from the working day of an III specialist? wink

                        Much more important for the body is not general exposure, but its type and localization. For example, the active isotopes of strontium or iodine are no more active than other isotopes. BUT strontium tends to accumulate in the bones, and iodine - in the thyroid gland (here it is in the biochemistry of the body). And to irradiate already from within, constantly and locally. That is why specifically to these elements so much attention
                2. Volkhov
                  Volkhov 5 May 2013 01: 18
                  0
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  Do you not know that even in the days of the USSR 90% of Kamchatka conscripts had a "white ticket" for cardiovascular?

                  These are your fantasies - he lived in Kamchatka and there were very few "white tickets" - normal people, albeit different. Paratunka was not considered a radon source, ordinary hydrogen sulfide, radon in the Nalychevoy Valley, but there it was mainly along the trail. We swam there more often, the local huntsman cured the disability, although foolishly it is possible ...
                  As for coal-fired thermal power plants, it’s mainly propaganda, in practice, steam engine locomotives had a longer life expectancy than electric locomotives, it would be harmful coal ... but no one bothers to put smoke cleaning, because the isotopes are not so much that the ash in the bunker gives a nuclear explosion.
                  1. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 5 May 2013 09: 47
                    +2
                    Quote: Volkhov
                    Paratunka was not considered a radon source, ordinary hydrogen sulfide

                    Have you heard about engineering radiation monitoring instruments? Just a glimpse? And what about the types of ionizing radiation?
                    Quote: Volkhov
                    because the isotopes are not so much that the ash in the bunker gives a nuclear explosion.

                    laughing A masterpiece, damn it ... The spent reactor rods are not capable of it. that to an explosion, but even to maintain a chain reaction. Do they become safer from this? wassat Are the concepts "radiation" and "nuclear" synonymous for you? Yes, the level of knowledge is just the right one to reasonably discuss this topic wassat
          2. xtur
            xtur 4 May 2013 23: 34
            +1
            and what is a synchronous explosion of a nuclear power plant? I am familiar with the concept reactor thermal explosion
            1. Volkhov
              Volkhov 5 May 2013 01: 30
              -1
              Synchronous means simultaneous. An explosion occurs as a thermal explosion, but the reason is a temporary jump during an outbreak in the center of the Earth. For 3 days, the expected displacement of up to 200 years and, accordingly, increased heat generation in the reactors and storage facilities of the Republic of Moldova. For stable materials, the jump is invisible, and PM overheat.
              Because of this, water will be scarce (clean) and the skin will peel off, in general, they mined themselves.
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 5 May 2013 09: 49
                +2
                Quote: Volkhov
                Because of this, water will be scarce (clean) and the skin will peel off
                And sneakers will go bad and the batteries in the iPad will sit down wassat
              2. xtur
                xtur 8 May 2013 23: 33
                +1
                I didn’t understand what was going on, but I know for sure that at a nuclear power plant such a risk factor as time jump during a flash in the center of the earth, absent, it is not taken into account when building the station
      2. Tverichanka
        Tverichanka 4 May 2013 17: 38
        +1
        Quote: Volkhov
        underground reactors were placed in the Kremlin

        On the map of the Kremlin do not indicate the location? Well, very interesting !!!!!!
  16. El13
    El13 4 May 2013 15: 09
    0
    Fewer phobias, and from other "firewood" for other stations it is possible and more likely to be.
  17. zennon
    zennon 4 May 2013 15: 52
    0
    Volkhov
    You have a wrong idea about the concept of "Genocide".
    1. Volkhov
      Volkhov 4 May 2013 16: 30
      -2
      Quote: zennon
      You have a wrong idea about the concept of "Genocide".

      There are just different forms - fast and delayed.
      1. zennon
        zennon 4 May 2013 18: 37
        0
        Volkhov
        Genocide is a planned depopulation of a population in a particular territory, according to a certain sign / signs. For example: racial, ethnic, religious, exile
        Sheep, property, even age-beating babies for example. Under this definition, an act that meets three conditions falls under:
        1) The existence of a destruction plan.
        2) Documented orders, orders for destruction.
        3) Documented destruction reports.
        The reports are not necessarily from the performers, but they are necessarily documented. One can quickly call genocide in our country the destruction of the Cossacks at the beginning of the 20s of the last century. Probably the extermination of the Indians in North America in the 19th century falls under this definition, but this is necessary to study.
        1. Volkhov
          Volkhov 4 May 2013 23: 08
          0
          And if there is death, but the injured party does not have documents, is everything normal?
      2. Raven1972
        Raven1972 4 May 2013 21: 19
        +1
        As I see you, well, just a specialist in nuclear power, I was especially touched by the "once-through reactors on Siberian rivers" You read the school physics course again and do not carry such nonsense ... I have the world's first nuclear power plant in the region (Obninsk) and for all the time of its operation there was NOT a SINGLE excess !!!!!!!!!! And it was built in 1954, so there is no need to talk about nuclear energy ... And Europe is not going to give up its nuclear power plants - neither Germany nor France ...
        Do not tell tales about a white bull ....
        1. Volkhov
          Volkhov 4 May 2013 23: 14
          -2
          Quote: Raven1972
          for all the time of its operation there was not a single excess !!!!!!!!!

          In 2010 there was a yellow outburst, partly the planting was damaged in the Balabanovo district.
          The ideal would be to collect all the reactors and their supporters on an "energy island" and not let them out - in 2-3 generations words will not be needed.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 4 May 2013 23: 19
            +5
            Quote: Volkhov
            The ideal would be to collect all the reactors and their supporters on an "energy island" and not let them out - in 2-3 generations words will not be needed.
            And during this time, all opponents of the nuclear power plant will finally get used to living at a torch and going to bed at sunset
            1. xtur
              xtur 4 May 2013 23: 38
              +4
              it doesn’t hurt - in Armenia they closed their NPP right after the Spitak earthquake, then there were 3 years of the blockade, when there was no gas at all in the country, and it became obvious that if you choose between a quick death from a reactor explosion and a slow death from lack of electricity, then The choice is definitely in favor of death from a reactor explosion - and the ANPP was launched again.
              And with proper operation of the NPP and a normal design, no explosions need to be expected, everything will be in order
            2. Suhov
              Suhov 5 May 2013 01: 37
              +1
              Quote: Misantrop
              And during this time, all opponents of the nuclear power plant will finally get used to living at a torch and going to bed at sunset

              But everything will be more than environmentally friendly ...
              yes
            3. Raven1972
              Raven1972 5 May 2013 09: 38
              +1
              Because of such "ecologists" they almost destroyed our nuclear energy completely and not only it ... At least they took the trouble to ask normal specialists and not hawala Western misinformation for that and calculated ... hi
            4. Volkhov
              Volkhov 5 May 2013 17: 32
              0
              Quote: Misantrop
              And during this time, all opponents of the nuclear power plant will finally get used to living at a torch and going to bed at sunset

              This is a juggling of facts - Japan turned off the nuclear power plant and not at a torch, like Germany, in addition, new technologies come:
              http://atnews.org/news/revoljucija_v_ehnergetike_naznachena_na_leto/2013-05-05-8
              046
              it is not a matter of atomic reactions per se, a person himself consists of reactors, only synthesis, and if the troll is not paid, it will start to generate electricity, it is a safe selection of technologies.
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 6 May 2013 11: 27
                +1
                Quote: Volkhov
                Japan turned off the nuclear power plant and not at a splinter, like Germany
                Germany does not have an autonomous power supply, but is included in the general network. Stopping his own, picks up from the neighbors. And in Japan, everything is far from so simple. Most of its now shutdown nuclear power plants were not tied to the country's energy system as much as ANYTHING. That is why the shutdown on the power supply of the cities didn’t have any effect. For example, the infamous Fukushima-1. Google the space photos themselves of this nuclear power plant before the accident. You will not find on it a transformer substation, or powerful outgoing power lines. Only relatively low-power inter-block power lines for power supply (including emergency)
                1. Volkhov
                  Volkhov 6 May 2013 12: 07
                  0
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  . Most of its now shutdown nuclear power plants were not tied to the country's energy system as much as NIKAK. Why and the stop on the energy supply of the cities did not affect.

                  That is, the station was built just like that? To please the eye ...
                  For some reason, it seems that this was not the case and it primarily supplied the enterprises and housing next to her, and after the accident and the resettlement of the 20 km zone there is no station or consumers - only the infection zone.

                  You systematically advocate precisely the dangerous option of energy, although you cannot but know about safe underground reactors - what is the interest?
                  1. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 7 May 2013 10: 35
                    +1
                    Quote: Volkhov
                    For some reason, it seems that this is not so and she supplied primarily enterprises and housing near her
                    Yeah, petricarity in string bags was worn and laid out in mailboxes wassat There are neither serious enterprises, nor a large amount of housing that would need so much energy. At least in appearance. It was not in vain that I advised google photos. There are no distribution lines for consumers. The energy of 6 rather powerful blocks was consumed in situ. But WHO was a consumer, WHAT was there for underground factories (all this part of the relief is artificial, it can be clearly seen) - this is another matter. At the same time, it allows one to answer WHY the liquidators from other countries were not allowed to come close to the emergency station ...
                    Can't Know About Safe Underground Reactors
                    There are NO safe reactors. There are successful and unsuccessful design decisions. But to a much greater extent it all depends on the level of training of staff. Currently, there are only two approaches to this on the planet - Soviet and American. If the Soviet version provides for many years of training a specialist in basic and all related issues, then the Americans believe that it is enough to memorize the instruction, without knowing anything about the installation, nor about the principles of its operation.
          2. Raven1972
            Raven1972 5 May 2013 09: 25
            +3
            In fact, I live nearby and there is no "yellow emission" in 2010. did not observe ... It is high time to know that since April 29, 2002. the reactor of the Obninsk nuclear power plant was COMPLETELY shut down without an accident after having worked for 48 years !!!! I worked at the Center for Environmental Monitoring for over 17 years, and my friends stayed there, so there is someone to ask ...
            1. Volkhov
              Volkhov 5 May 2013 17: 39
              0
              The release was, and harmful for the vegetation, at first there was a message to Kommersant, then it was hushed up, but in the garden in Balabanovo (20 km from the nuclear power plant) the tops suffered. Maybe it's not the reactor, but some other installation or settling tank.
              1. Raven1972
                Raven1972 6 May 2013 10: 16
                0
                Comrade, I’m living nearby, that you hang noodles from Kommersant on my ears? The reactor is off, the station is down - what are the emissions? What are the working installations? At 20 km from the nuclear power plant (which has been idle since 2002 !!!!!!!!!), the tops of someone in the garden suffered - but didn’t try to hand over the analysis? No ? Well, do not carry nonsense then .... bully
                1. Volkhov
                  Volkhov 6 May 2013 12: 14
                  0
                  That is, the whole district saw the cloud, in Kommersant the article is nonsense, and your opinion is the truth ... well, live with it.
                  1. Raven1972
                    Raven1972 6 May 2013 14: 07
                    0
                    Ogh, I live like that))) In addition to the article and someone’s fabrications, you don’t have anything, that the whole city is blind to us then according to you ??? bully
                    I repeat:
                    At 20 km from the nuclear power plant (which has been idle since 2002 !!!!!!!!!), the tops of someone in the garden suffered - but didn’t try to hand over the analysis?

                    Results in a pzhallst studio))) And if they are not there is nothing to talk about .....
            2. T-73
              T-73 11 May 2013 16: 31
              +1
              Do not mark the beads in front of the pigs, dear. Once driven into their obviously free head, they will remain alone with their described pants. They nod at Fukushima - but there the dibilism of operational personnel has exceeded all limits. I know what I'm talking about.
  18. Gray-haired
    Gray-haired 4 May 2013 16: 32
    +2
    I would read something on this subject. Although with this approach, reading the mind will not add.
    1. Tverichanka
      Tverichanka 4 May 2013 17: 49
      -1
      Quote: Gray
      W. Although with this approach, reading the mind will not add.

      And how many such "specialists" are there in all matters without exception ...
  19. Tverichanka
    Tverichanka 4 May 2013 17: 35
    +1
    Quote: Volkhov
    provide genocide.

    Google the word "genocide", otherwise you are talking nonsense.
  • Mirth
    Mirth 4 May 2013 12: 38
    +1
    Are you sure that the money for these loans is taken from the budget, and not from, say, a "money box" in the Central Bank, to which there is no other way to get access?
    Well, in Fukushima there is also a surface station - what, did it provide for genocide?
    1. Volkhov
      Volkhov 4 May 2013 13: 18
      -2
      It is - 20 km radius of forced relocation, further - recommended at its own expense, and this is in Japan with their population density.
      Major losses later due to cancer and the dangers of local fish.
      A simple example is that children’s oncology clinics are now being built and even advertised, they are not enough, and in the 70s, cancer was considered almost impossible until 35. Chernobyl and trials did the trick.
      1. Tverichanka
        Tverichanka 4 May 2013 17: 56
        +3
        Quote: Volkhov
        and in the 70s, cancer up to 35 was considered almost impossible.

        What are you saying? I have worked in medicine all my life, I have never heard such a thing. You may be surprised, but a 1971-year-old boy who died of cancer was buried next to my dad (he died in 10), and there weren’t any such cases in the country ... You should ask a question before saying anything. Or do not write on topics in which you are not sure that you know what is at stake.
        1. Volkhov
          Volkhov 4 May 2013 23: 28
          0
          In the 70s there were no pediatric oncology hospitals, but now they are trying to build in every region. This is a general trend that is visible to everyone, and whether the boy was a special case.

          Glad discipline on the forum - virtual defense of the invented world.
          Only with whom is the slender phalanx fighting?
          1. Raven1972
            Raven1972 6 May 2013 10: 33
            -2
            Quote: Volkhov
            Glad discipline on the forum - virtual defense of the invented world.

            It’s you who live in a fictional world, in the one that is being inspired to you from the outside ... Everything that you’re trying to “convey” so to speak, I already heard in the late 80s, and believe me I gave myself the trouble to deal with the so-called. facts ... And on nuclear power plants, and on nuclear tests, and on many, many other things that were actively criticized then and now ... And long ago I learned how to remove noodles from my ears ... Which I wish you too ... soldier
            Py.Sy. So, for information - treatment facilities at enterprises belonged to facilities of the first stage ... My plant was not launched until the Recycling Facility was launched ... hi
            1. Volkhov
              Volkhov 7 May 2013 01: 58
              0
              So you admitted your interest in the question - you own a radiochemical plant and a rabbi by the nickname - here both profit and faith require a certain position.
              Don’t worry, the Red Cow has long been bored.
              1. Raven1972
                Raven1972 7 May 2013 10: 37
                -2
                Mdya (((A Aglitsky is weak)))) Try to translate my Nick from English - you will be VERY amazed at what it means ... Yeah, I have an education at a very high level, LLC ...
                Py.Sy. My factory is not because my personal, but because I worked at it, like that, comrade and factory not MinAtom, but MinElectronprom, for reference ... You don’t understand, you have nothing to do with the USSR, one your blatant illiteracy in Elementary !!!! it already shows questions ... There is nothing to say - are you hooked on a nickname? bully
                Would Vasya learn something? laughing
  • individual
    individual 4 May 2013 12: 43
    +4
    Anyway, good. Advancing Russia's interests, even in the nuclear business. The development and rooting of Russian science, thought abroad. The suppression of Anglo-Saxon influence in the world. Armaments, space and the nuclear industry - this is not much that can become a locomotive for the development of Russian industry.
  • a jacket
    a jacket 4 May 2013 13: 06
    +2
    Quote: fatty
    bullshit article.

    Right.
  • a jacket
    a jacket 4 May 2013 13: 10
    +4
    It is not just easy to find experts in nuclear energy in Moscow and its environs with world authority, but very easy. One could ask the opinion of scientists from the Kurchatov Institute, for example. They would have told a lot more, and competently.
  • gladysheff2010
    gladysheff2010 4 May 2013 13: 40
    +2
    The one who translates everything and everything into money, does not know how or does not want to think strategically. We are a leading world power exporting high-tech turnkey projects, and if someone does not like it, then the country is moving in the right direction. it is necessary, not to blame the achievements of diplomacy and business!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Pancho
    Pancho 4 May 2013 14: 26
    -4
    Quote: Andrey_K
    Who built the nuclear power plant - and supplies uranium for it - this is specifically specified in the contracts.

    And also to dispose of the waste. As these geeks have already gotten, they’re no longer strong. They give the country left and right, forgive debts. And I, for example, were billed for 1998 on insurance premiums. Nobody ever forgave kopecks.
    1. fatty
      fatty 4 May 2013 20: 28
      0
      and I was stuffed with a snout, to a strange wife got into bed. Putin is obviously to blame, let Putin’s gang put a handful of teeth in me!
      1. Pancho
        Pancho 5 May 2013 20: 00
        0
        Quote: fatty
        and I was stuffed with a snout, to a strange wife got into bed

        The snout is strong, however, with a pig analogies come to mind. Well, for those who are in the tank:
        Quote: fatty
        of course Putin is to blame

        -Yes, it's my fault that I built a vertical where nothing depends on the people. And the fact that they make me some kind of non-payment is okay, but there will be something for the Papuans to build another nuclear power plant.
  • smart ass
    smart ass 4 May 2013 14: 40
    +3
    I’m totally for atomic energy! I don’t understand these ecologists, what is the best thermal power station?))
    1. YuDDP
      YuDDP 5 May 2013 00: 13
      0
      Quote: Clever man
      I don’t understand these ecologists, what is the best thermal power station?))

      CHP is definitely better.
      The cheapness of atomic energy is far-fetched. It is necessary to take into account the cost of safety, the cost of storing spent fuel. And, most importantly, what to do with this spent fuel?
  • uzer 13
    uzer 13 4 May 2013 15: 03
    -4
    Before giving out loans (which, as usual, no one is going to repay) it would be nice to think about domestic debt and return it to the population. I mean the deposits of the population in Sberbank. This topic was somehow wiped out, in the hope that these old investors they’ll put on wooden suits and don’t have to give them anything. Money from the pension fund was also stolen, presumably, for the election of the next Fuhrer. Or for building Rublevsky highway. Loans exist only because someone gets their margin from them.
    1. fatty
      fatty 4 May 2013 19: 47
      +1
      verbose user13, please express your thoughts more clearly, or smoke less nasty things less. Remember the topic of the discussion, and what are you talking about?
      1. uzer 13
        uzer 13 4 May 2013 21: 48
        -2
        It seems to be clearly written that before you throw money away, you have to pay off debts; this is incomprehensible to you, because in those companies with which you communicate, it is customary to throw someone, put on shoes or breed for money. Another mentality, so to speak.
  • Thomas A. Anderson
    Thomas A. Anderson 4 May 2013 15: 22
    -4
    Rosatom, Rusnano, etc. organizations of corruption and the mafia, pumping money, and did not tear off anything new .. Putin personally roofs ....
  • evil hamster
    evil hamster 4 May 2013 16: 21
    +9
    Yeah. Like building a nuclear power plant is bad, you need to store the cut green paper under your booty. Then "Environmentalists? Seismologists? Economists?" will be satisfied.
    And why is it interesting and Wensengaus and Areva work intelligently as well? Probably fools.
    1. As soon as a certain bananostan takes a loan from us for nuclear power plants, he immediately gives half of it back to Russia for the purchase of basic equipment, then he pays for the project, all kinds of approvals with his own inspection bodies, etc. Gene. the contractor, as a rule, is again the Russian company Atomenergoexport, and the gene contractor steers money and the main profit is always with him. Of course, in terms of the general construction part, something will fall into the local soups, but how much depends solely on the development of the bananaostan. That is, in fact, at the time the station was commissioned, most of the loan was already returned to us, through our enterprises, firms and the salaries of our specialists. A bananostan us due with interest
    2. It needs to be replaced every 1,5-2 years, and where will the bananostan take fuel? Suddenly, he will buy in Russia for money, not in the United States, not in France, but with us it will be characteristic to do this for another 50 years.
    3. The station staff should be trained and where will the banana station train and train its nuclear scientists? Suddenly, it is characteristic of us for money.
    4. The equipment must undergo regular scheduled repairs, and where will the bananostan take spare parts and installation repair specialists. Suddenly .... well, you understand, and again, not in vain.
    5. For a long life, the unit will undergo modernization at least once, and who the bananostans will go for the project and equipment to is most likely to us
    6. Well, the most interesting question is, everybody took a loan from the bank, and as a rule, you took the money and then you begin to give back taking into account interest, if you calculate it, especially if for a long period, you still have to give and give, and the bank then he repulsed his own a long time ago.

    The main thing is that everyone works this way, because while you are sitting and waiting for a client with a bunch of dough to fall from the sky, others will take over the market, and even if they don’t get all the money that they could, they will still be profitable in volume, but they will preserve and increase their production capacities, work out technologies, preserve old ones and educate new specialists, but you’ll all be ... well, but ecolooks, seismic flies and economists will be happy.
    1. Tverichanka
      Tverichanka 4 May 2013 18: 08
      +1
      Quote: evil hamster
      yes to sit and wait

      Great comment. Every word on the case. Well done. Fat plus.
    2. uzer 13
      uzer 13 4 May 2013 18: 09
      -1
      More recently, they wrote off $ 10 billion of these loans. Do you have a bad memory, buddy? Or did you still attend kindergarten?
      1. fatty
        fatty 4 May 2013 21: 02
        +1
        user13 quite recently is when? wrote off who and to whom? the background, the fact of cancellation and the reason. reference, please, otherwise your chatter is a lie, .. clothing and provocation.
        1. uzer 13
          uzer 13 4 May 2013 21: 42
          +1
          And when in France they made claims on the debts of tsarist Russia as successors. And joining the European community of creditors cost such a small amount.
  • fzr1000
    fzr1000 4 May 2013 18: 19
    0
    Well, Vietnam can be built on credit and nuclear power plants. If they begin to dynamite with a return, we will exchange it for Camran. Also in other countries, we’ll give you a nuclear power plant, you will execute a polites, a land plot under the base for 50 years for free.
  • pooop
    pooop 4 May 2013 19: 15
    0
    What is the meaning of the article? in that they say, we squander state. budget and build everything for free?
    __
    building a nuclear power plant is almost the same as buying a car on credit

    there is no money right away to "buy a nuclear power plant", take a loan, build it, and then have another 50 years serviced by an "authorized dealer"!
    __

    quite normal partnerships.
    __
    the only thing that bothers me is that he was the head of all this "kinder surprise" before and where he visited, nothing good happened ...
    1. fatty
      fatty 4 May 2013 19: 55
      0
      Yes, it’s kind of not stupid, and there are no complaints about him ..
  • Averias
    Averias 4 May 2013 19: 27
    0
    The presence of our stations in other countries is a big plus. Service and so on will be provided by ours and ours alone. This is both profit and leverage in big politics. There is a queue behind our reactors on the Fast Neutrons (they are building in Seversk). But we are not building them for anyone yet, since they will have to reach this for a long time. It is foolish to talk about such construction sites in a negative way. What we give loans, and what, then we will return with high interest. After all, fuel, specialists are all ours. For some reason, the same Boeing, as such, does not sell aircraft. He "rents" engines for a long time, with the appropriate service. It is not profitable for them to just take and sell a plane. But in this form, the money is secured for many years. And nothing, the whole world flies. The same story repeated itself with the F-35, despite the fact that many countries participated in the development of this project (financially). Under the contract, the United States was supposed to supply these aircraft to partner countries with a small caveat - only THEIR specialists will carry out maintenance. They will not teach someone. For example, takeoff and landing (without a weapon kit) - about $ 30 thousand Plus the work of specialists and so on. Oh, how profitable. And about environmentalists and others, yes. Again with Chernobyl and Fukushima. Although ours directly said about Fukushima - if our reactors were standing, this would not have happened. Only our reactors have a "trap" for fuel (in case of an accident, when the rods are sintered and the temperature is prohibitive). And according to statistics, our reactors are the most reliable. The building itself with the reactor is capable of withstanding such loads that it looks fantastic. It is clear that the Western nuclear lobby will be against the spread of our "atom" around the world.
    1. Suhov
      Suhov 4 May 2013 23: 01
      0
      Quote: Averias
      Only our reactors have a "trap" for fuel (in case of an accident, when the rods are sintered and the temperature is prohibitive). And according to statistics, our reactors are the most reliable. The building with the reactor itself can withstand such loads that it looks fantastic. It is clear that the Western nuclear lobby will be against the spread of our "atom" around the world.

      Because they developed under the Soviet Union in the absence of the very concept of "effective manager", in other words: - they didn’t save on safety.
  • Clueless
    Clueless 4 May 2013 19: 57
    +1
    “But Rosatom doesn’t have its own money. Our good state is ready to allocate it even more, taking away funds from pensioners, state employees, infrastructure development projects in Russia.” - what kind of nonsense is this?

    We should be glad that we are the first in the world in the construction of nuclear power plants, and the state is providing loans, but do not forget that the construction of such a nuclear power plant gives us good threads for "controversial issues" in these states, provides employment for Russian citizens, etc.

    Reading such articles, I want to say one thing - you don’t know how, don’t write, because if we don’t build, then we will slide to the bottom and in our place will be the USA and other countries.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • crambol
    crambol 4 May 2013 20: 34
    +1
    Quote: Volkhov
    Of the natural here, only radon - radon sources are quite useful,

    Only in very small doses. I know several cases when in the construction of solid (rich) houses, the backfill of their granite chips had to be accidentally removed due to an unacceptable concentration of radon. Colleagues, keep in mind that using granite in construction is VERY DANGEROUS FOR HEALTH!
    1. crambol
      crambol 4 May 2013 20: 42
      0
      Found in some site:
      What is the danger of radon? Being a gas, it enters the human body when breathing and can cause harmful effects on health, especially lung cancer. According to the US Public Health service, radon is the second most serious cause of lung cancer in people after smoking.
      1. 120352
        120352 4 May 2013 21: 09
        +1
        He breathed radon and bathed and drank radon water (there was no other) for 16 years. And I'm not alone, but one subpolar village in Chukotka, with a population of about 6 thousand people. I don’t know who how, but I got rid of a number of my chronic sores and did not get sick with anything. Arsenic is an obvious poison, but is still used in dentistry today. It's all about quantity and scope.
  • 120352
    120352 4 May 2013 21: 05
    +1
    Our modern nuclear power plants are the most fast-built, economical and safe in the world, and most importantly, the richest experience in their construction has been gained.
  • T-73
    T-73 4 May 2013 21: 06
    +1
    So far there is no problem with uranium in the world, just as there is no plutonium, heavy water and other specific half-life products. There is a problem of their industrial manufacture and application: units of countries produce fuel elements, i.e. have appropriate technologists and our main competitor is the USA. Next are the principles of generating electrical energy from nuclear energy. Fear of Fukushima for knowledgeable people is nothing more than a bursting sewer. The mass of constructive, and what is strange, not modernized problems is surprising. Hydrogen recombinants (which even our old stations are now equipped with) would have given them a head start a few days before the blocks exploded, maybe they wouldn’t have reached the leakage of the melt, although hardly with their nonsense (the samurai didn’t have something when they needed about their people worry. There is a lack of professionalism.). Built in Iran, yes, there are plans in other countries - go ahead. The market here is harsh. Well, the AED seemed to get on the right skis
  • T-73
    T-73 4 May 2013 21: 38
    +1
    Quote: Averias
    There is a queue behind our reactors on - "Fast neutrons" (in Seversk)

    A moot point. The safety of WWR reactors is beyond doubt, plus less downtime. Power is now, given the pros, comparable
  • tomich
    tomich 4 May 2013 23: 08
    -3
    how much you can rob your own people by writing off loans, Putin and Medvedev are such good ones, they wrote off this, they wrote off, maybe it’s time to learn how to count the money of your people and not smile at the leaders of countries in which people still eat
    1. wax
      wax 5 May 2013 16: 00
      0
      Tomich,
      But what, is there still little savings from the conversion of the defense industry that Gorbi and EBN have turned?
    2. T-73
      T-73 11 May 2013 16: 39
      +1
      when did people count money in Russia? just a question. On the other hand, tax collection is going up; bribe collection is also striving for 100%. IMHO: the longer they will not plant, the faster we grab the shovels. And then the words of the classic will be read in every pig’s eyes, since they still believe that the Russian rebellion is meaningless. No...
  • and she
    and she 4 May 2013 23: 47
    0
    If environmentalists from Bellona are against nuclear power plants, then I am for it. Mitrokhin, of course, is gloomy, but I probably missed the moment when he managed to become an expert in the field of nuclear energy. To this day, I revered him as a hollow bream. And from now on I will consider it as such.
  • valerei
    valerei 5 May 2013 00: 03
    -1
    I do not know which is more: the usual idiocy of industry leaders or the usual theft from such a piece of money. Why not build these nuclear power plants in Russia for this money? Energy can be sold in the same China. However, everything is explained simply: not your own - do not mind. If they paid out of their own pockets, they would have calculated everything many times over and do not care about Russia. This is how we live, and "kindersurprise", by the way, was put in this post by the President at one time, like many other thieves.
    1. wax
      wax 5 May 2013 16: 05
      0
      NPPs abroad have been contributions for centuries, as there designs, including TVELs, will be ours. Ukraine tried to switch to American TVELs, and what came of it? Energy is a condition for the existence of any modern economy, so you need to quickly conquer foreign markets, even to the detriment (which, however, is not present) of the moment.
  • piksel
    piksel 5 May 2013 01: 06
    0
    This topic is very closed, and therefore a lot of speculation. And the little article about how Russia feeds the whole world and gets rather strange for nothing, the USSR fed yes (trying to buy loyalty) and everyone betrayed him, well, almost everything. The modern foreign policy of Russia is absolutely pragmatic.

    And also about the topic of writing off debts by Russia to other countries. Debts were written off where the probability of getting them back was minimal, and in return Russian companies received preferences.
    After writing off the debts of Libya, Russia received the right to oil production, the construction of railways, the supply of weapons, etc. In general, politics is a delicate and disgusting thing ...
  • piksel
    piksel 5 May 2013 01: 07
    0
    Custom theme!
    1. wax
      wax 5 May 2013 16: 08
      0
      I do not believe in the order, but that Oleg has blundered, I completely agree. It is impossible to write on stencils on complex topics related to high technology and far-reaching consequences.
  • leon-iv
    leon-iv 5 May 2013 22: 25
    +1
    The article is slag for the author -> author -> the author understands little in nuclear energy and its role in the global world.
    ROSATOM is now a market leader.
    + There will be a division of the Chinese market, which is now planning to build 42 nuclear power plants to replace coal-fired power plants.
    This market will be divided by three Westinghouse ROSATOM and Areva firms.
    But the most interesting is the supply of URANIUM and only THEY. For uranium is less and less and only BREEDERS have the technology of BREEDERS. As well as the reserves of Uranus 238 as well as a full production cycle with a maximum efficiency for centrifuges that already operate in supercritical modes. Unerco, having launched the first enrichment plant, lagged behind RUSSIA by 20–25 years. So that the author is studying material on a topic not from pedagogy.
  • Jrvin
    Jrvin 7 May 2013 07: 35
    0
    Yes, let them take off what they want and say what they want, WINNERS ARE NOT JUDGED!
  • T-73
    T-73 11 May 2013 16: 50
    0
    Quote: Canep
    Turkish NPP will belong to Russia

    Now. And forever. Ours will again supply TVELs for this NPP - and NOT MORE. Turkey debts with debts and we will again receive beggars - like Cyprus