Military Review

The first floating nuclear power plant to 2016 year

155
During the exhibition last week, the International Naval Salon 2013, officials of the Russian United Shipbuilding Corporation announced several Newsconcerning the latest industry achievements and ongoing projects. So, the management of the Baltic Shipyard (St. Petersburg) shared information on the progress of one of the most daring projects of recent times - the construction of the Akademik Lomonosov floating nuclear power plant (FNPP).




As the director of the Baltzavod, A. Voznesensky, said, the first domestic floating nuclear thermal power plant will be built by the 2016 year. At present, the ship’s structures are being installed and in three years Rosatom will receive the world's first floating nuclear power plant. The vessel will be able to provide electricity and heat to the city and enterprises in remote areas of the country, primarily in the Far North. Shortly after the construction of the first floating power plant is completed, it is planned to begin construction of the following vessels of this series.

The construction of the first vessel with nuclear power plant units on board is underway. Employees of the Baltic plant assemble metal structures and install equipment. Work has begun on the installation of some elements of the reactors. Thus, the construction project of the Akademik Lomonosov FNPP has finally got off the ground. Recall the construction of a ship with a nuclear energy module began in 2007, at the Severodvinsk plant Sevmash. However, a few months after the start of construction, all the assembled units of the future floating power plant were transferred to the Baltiysky Zavod, where it was supposed to continue work. However, such plans did not materialize and the construction was frozen for several years. The current work is carried out in accordance with the new agreement between Rosatom and Baltzavod, signed in December last year.

Ready floating nuclear power plant “Akademik Lomonosov” will be a non-self-propelled vessel with a displacement of more than 21 thousand tons. The absence of its own power plant due to the peculiarities of the operation of FNPP. It is assumed that the tugs will bring it to the place of work, after which the vessel in the port will connect to the communications of the supplied object and will provide it with heat and electricity for a specified period. The crew of FNPP from 69 man will control the operation of two nuclear reactors capable of generating up to 70 MW of electricity and 300 MW of heat. If necessary, the power plant will be able to work as a desalter of sea water. In this mode, the estimated maximum capacity of the Akademik Lomonosov floating nuclear power plant is 240 thousand cubic meters of fresh water per hour. According to official data from the project developers, such characteristics will allow one floating power plant to supply electricity and heat to a city with a population of up to 200 thousand people.




The stated life of one FAPP is 40 years. After this time, a vessel with a nuclear power plant is planned to be towed to the appropriate enterprise to replace the power unit that has spent its life. In its place is supposed to install a new unit, after which the floating power plant can be returned to the old duty station or transferred to a new one.

Developers and builders of the first floating nuclear power plant - Iceberg Central Design Bureau, OKBM them. I.I. Afrikantova and Baltiysky Zavod - emphasize that in the construction of the vessel and the nuclear power plant, groundwork has been used that has been tested in northern conditions for many decades. The project of the APEC “Akademik Lomonosov” laid a safety margin that far exceeds all possible threats, including tsunamis, collisions with other ships or coastal installations, etc. similar disasters. The safety level of nuclear power plants of new FAPES fully meets all international requirements for such equipment.

Due to the remoteness of such events, it is not yet known exactly where exactly the first Russian floating nuclear power plant will go. Earlier, during the start of construction of the lead ship, it was claimed that such power stations would serve in the Far East and the Far North. Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, Taimyr and Kamchatka were indicated as possible jobs. Perhaps in the future such a list of territories in need of supply with the help of floating power plants will undergo major changes. It is noteworthy that not only Russian officials and merchants were interested in the characteristics and capabilities of Russian floating nuclear power stations. Several foreign countries showed their interest in such vessels: Algeria, Argentina, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.

For obvious reasons, it is too early to talk about the supply of floating nuclear power plants to foreign countries. The lead ship of this class will be built only in the 2016 year, after which it will take some time to complete a series of floating power plants for domestic Russian needs. Therefore, the beginning of the construction of export analogues of the vessel “Akademik Lomonosov” should be expected no earlier than the end of this decade. At about the same time, it is possible to complete the construction of the next ship of the series for Rosatom.


On the materials of the sites:
http://russian.rt.com/
http://morvesti.ru/
http://okbm.nnov.ru/
Author:
155 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Denis
    Denis 10 July 2013 07: 23
    +3
    The FNPP crew of 69 people will control the operation of two nuclear reactors capable of generating up to 70 MW of electricity and 300 MW of heat. If necessary, the power plant can operate as a desalination plant for sea water.
    Many cities and towns of the Northern Sea Route would be happy for her. She is mobile, it’s not a TPP to build
    Here are just fresh water there is usually enough, but maybe some of the southern buyers desalination interested
    1. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 10 July 2013 09: 29
      +8
      Something tells me that the cities and towns of the Northern Sea Route do not pull 200t. population, even all together. These are cities of the level of Murmansk or Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.
      1. StolzSS
        StolzSS 10 July 2013 10: 05
        +4
        Well, why are you surprised. Who wants to live in the north. Here 9 out of 10 would like to move south. Although Turkmenistan stubbornly goes to us ((( what
        1. chunga-changa
          chunga-changa 10 July 2013 10: 42
          0
          You won’t go north from a good life, they have a pipe there.
          1. little man
            little man 10 July 2013 14: 06
            +3
            Outdated information. There was a pipe, now people have already stopped blaming. And salaries and supplies all went well. Look at what candy Abramovich made from Anadyr:

            http://images.yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%20%D0%90%D0%BD%
            D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8B%D1%80%D1%8F&stype=image&lr=213&noreask=1&source=wiz
          2. theadenter
            theadenter 10 July 2013 16: 27
            0
            He lived in Norilsk for 17 years. Glad I got out of there.
        2. viktorrymar
          viktorrymar 11 July 2013 09: 55
          -1
          Who are you calling lumps? Follow the language of the Nazis.
      2. Denis
        Denis 11 July 2013 04: 47
        0
        Quote: chunga-changa
        cities and towns of the Northern Sea Route do not pull on 200
        Yes, but still the boats need to be powered and maintained
    2. atalef
      atalef 10 July 2013 12: 02
      +1
      A 69-person FNPP crew will control the operation of two nuclear reactors capable of generating up to 70 MW of electricity and 300 MW of heat. If necessary, the power plant can operate as a desalination plant for sea water. In this mode, the estimated maximum capacity of the Academician Lomonosov FNPP is 240 thousand cubic meters of fresh water per hour

      How a thing is quite interesting. Only the declared parameters are not completely clear, like with 300mW of heat, and to desalinate 240t.cube of water per hour is just a fairy tale, per day it is real, and even more so per hour. In general, the emphasis is somehow placed on heat and desalination, while the extraction of electric energy is only 70 MW. Connection to thermal communications is initially problematic since It requires a huge amount of softened water, pipelines, etc., desalination is generally an extra device - it’s already where, and in the north there is enough fresh water. The production of such a quantity of heat and steam implies the use of nuclear power plants of the secondary cooling circuit for heating the housing stock, etc. 300 MW of heat is a huge amount. What will happen in the summer when the heat season ends? Where does the hot water go? Into the river? Then goodbye fish. In the event of an accident on the heating main? An emergency power drop? It is also not said whether it can use the turbine for cooling the second (or third) circuit (when it is not used for heating sea water) It has completely different characteristics and aggressiveness. On the barge, a priori, there are neither cooling towers nor cooling radiators - means cooling direct-flow seawater through heat exchangers. In general, in my understanding, the device is problematic from an environmental point of view, in terms of the size of the energy generator. systems and regulation of peak loads. This is neither a nuclear submarine, on a cruise it has no problems with cooling steam generators, and at the pier the boat stands with shut off reactors and connected to ground communications. here they want to do the opposite. I would not want to have a nuclear power plant near by, and even floating.
      There were gas in the north, Gas turbine stations are much cheaper, power up to 350mW, maintenance - 20-25 people, while much safer and able to work both on gas and diesel fuel (low sulfur content) .. That's it, thoughts in hearing.
      1. Uncle
        Uncle 10 July 2013 13: 38
        +8
        Quote: atalef
        240t.cube of water per hour - it's just a fairy tale

        Perhaps a typo.
        Quote: atalef
        Connection to thermal communications is initially problematic since requires a huge amount of softened water, pipelines, etc.

        This is done through a heat exchanger, this is how all heating systems work.
        Quote: atalef
        and in the north there is enough fresh water

        Desalinate will be sea water.
        Quote: atalef
        What will happen in the summer when the heat season ends?

        There are 2 reactors, in addition, the power is regulated.

        Quote: atalef
        means cooling direct-flow seawater through heat exchangers.

        Like on nuclear powered ships. What causes embarrassment?
        Quote: atalef
        I would not want to have a nuclear power plant near by, and even floating.

        Are you afraid of atomic energy? But what about nuclear weapons of Israel? Sasha, you just envy that such a thing does not stand in the Dead Sea, for example. smile
        1. atalef
          atalef 10 July 2013 16: 04
          0
          Quote: Uncle
          This is done through a heat exchanger, this is how all heating systems work.

          So I'm talking about networks, only in networks the water is not spring laughing but softened.

          Quote: Uncle
          There are 2 reactors, in addition, the power is regulated.

          Power, yes, only in this case it will be necessary to reduce the production of electric energy, and who said that in summer there is less electric power. energy is needed, but what about peak loads?

          Quote: Uncle
          Desalinate will be sea water.

          Why? In the north, there is nowhere to go, or will we lower the salinity of the oceans, but what about the wasted energy? Who will pay this loss?


          Quote: Uncle
          Like on nuclear powered ships. What causes embarrassment?

          The embarrassment is that the atomic walker goes across the ocean, and the nuclear power plant will stand on the river (since all the cities of the north (over 200 tons of inhabitants) are located on large rivers or rivers in general (not off the ocean), therefore, how will the discharge of a huge Warm water directly into the river? Think yourself.

          Quote: Uncle
          Are you afraid of atomic energy? But what about nuclear weapons of Israel? Sasha, you just envy that such a thing does not stand in the Dead Sea, for example.

          Come on, you don’t need to desalinate the Dead Sea, and our desalination plants operate on the basis of osmosis steam, like the main thermal gas turbines (I am very familiar with them) Therefore, I say 70 MW nuclear power plants is an empty waste of money. The infrastructure, the danger of radiation, the maintenance staff are more than 3, and the 70 MW output is 5 times smaller than a standard gas turbine unit. In addition, the gas turbine unit has the ability to air-cool, gain power for 20 minutes (250 mW) and 100 MW supplements after 4 hours.
          There is no sense in it. I just don’t see as an energetic. Cost kW / hour why not write? Ethio would clarify everything.
          1. doktor_alex
            doktor_alex 11 July 2013 01: 35
            +2
            Quote: atalef
            Power, yes, only in this case it will be necessary to reduce the production of electric energy, and who said that in summer there is less electric power. energy is needed, but what about peak loads?

            And who said that it is necessary to reduce power? Heat at any heat and power plant is a by-product of electricity production obtained by condensing the steam that has been exhausted from the turbines, and in this case the problem can be solved either by installing 2 condensers (1 for heating the city 1 for dumping excess heat) or installing an interesting condenser structures where the second circuit and the outboard third and heat carrier from the city’s heating networks will circulate. Actually do not need heat? He closed the city circuit, opened a more outboard third. That is the whole problem.
            Quote: atalef
            How will the discharge of a huge amount of warm water directly into the river affect?


            In no way will it affect, on the scale of ocean currents and large Siberian rivers (do you agree that no one will drive such a device into a "stream"?) This warm water is literally a drop in the sea.

            Quote: atalef
            In the event of an accident on the heating main? Emergency Power Off?

            See above, automatic transition to full cooling by the third circuit due to the side.

            Quote: atalef
            It is also not said whether she can use turbines for cooling the second (or third) circuit (when sea water is not used for heating). She has completely different characteristics and aggressiveness.


            The circuit operating on the turbine is usually the second, the outboard circuit is the third. Answer: It can. Again see above.

            Quote: atalef
            and at the pier the boat stands with drowned reactors and connected to ground communications.


            I may have forgotten something already, if they correct me, but in my opinion, for a reactor muffled on a combat nuclear submarine, you can put shoulder straps on the table. To "set fire" a zone, you need an external source of neutron radiation introduced into the zone, I doubt that it is dragged there every time. Power should be kept to a minimum, but not damped. Misantrop, correct or confirm.

            Quote: atalef
            This is neither a nuclear submarine; on a campaign, it has no problems with cooling steam generators


            And there is no problem, take water 100 meters upstream, discard 100 meters downstream.
            1. atalef
              atalef 11 July 2013 07: 01
              -2
              Quote: doktor_alex
              And who said that it is necessary to reduce power? Heat at any heat and power plant is a byproduct of electricity production.

              Only here is the problem, the amount of heat directly depends on the amount of electricity produced.

              Quote: doktor_alex
              and in this case, the problem is solved either by installing 2 condensers (1 for heating the city 1 for dumping excess heat) or installing a condenser of an interesting design where the second circuit and the outboard third and heat carrier from the city’s heating networks will circulate. Actually do not need heat? He closed the city circuit, opened a more outboard third. That is the whole problem.

              and another 60 circuits belay
              Only the boiler steam is cooled to a saturated state and the circuits will go to housing, into space or underground - this does not interest him. There is a unit of heat (directly dependent on the amount of power removed from the turbine by the generator) that must be removed. If in summer it’s not for heating houses, it means that there is no direct discharge of heat into the river (through heat exchangers). Cooling towers are not provided.
              Kulibin You are our laughing

              Quote: doktor_alex
              See above, automatic transition to full cooling by the third circuit due to the side.

              Cree - discharge of hot water into the river, with all the consequences, but what did I write about?

              Quote: doktor_alex
              I may have forgotten something already, if they correct me, but in my opinion, for a reactor muffled on a combat nuclear submarine, you can put shoulder straps on the table. To "set fire" a zone, you need an external source of neutron radiation introduced into the zone, I doubt that it is dragged there every time. Power should be kept to a minimum, but not damped. Misantrop, correct or confirm.

              It is hard to forget what I did not know. The reactor is elementarily suppressed by entering neutron absorbers (graphite, etc.) into the active zone. By the way, they are also controlled by power.
              The chain reaction in the reactor does not require the introduction of an extraneous source of neutrons; uranium in itself is their source. It is enough to pull the absorber rods out of the core and the reactor will start by itself.
              Quote: doktor_alex
              And there is no problem, take water 100 meters upstream, discard 100 meters downstream.

              You probably do not know how to read, that there is no problem cooling it is understandable, I wrote about the consequences for the rivers - such cooling. Because the bulk of the large northern cities of Siberia and the Far East are located on rivers.
              1. doktor_alex
                doktor_alex 11 July 2013 12: 20
                +2
                Quote: atalef
                Only here is the problem, the amount of heat directly depends on the amount of electricity produced.

                iiiii? Do you even read what I'm writing to you? In my opinion, he clearly wrote that in the summer period when there is no need for heating, the thermal power of the reactor will be the same as in winter, the amount of electricity generated by the PTH will be the same as in winter, excess heat will be discharged overboard through the condenser. You opened my eyes like that or what?

                Quote: atalef
                . If in summer it’s not for heating houses - it means directly the heat is released into the river


                Wow, this is brilliant, in other words they wrote the same thing as me, but you are a talent.

                Quote: atalef
                Cree - discharge of hot water into the river, with all the consequences, but what did I write about?


                Hmm .... what are the consequences? This is actually a transition to the normal summer mode, when all the excess heat through the condenser is discharged overboard!


                Quote: atalef
                Only the boiler steam cools to a saturated state


                Yeah, what the fuck are you saying? And the teachers fooled me for 2 years .... Everyone told me that there is condensate in the condenser, which is then pumped back through the water heater into the boiler water drum (if you started about steam boilers). And on the nuclear power plant steam generators, I also remember that it was a complete deception, like hanging a steam generator poster, and then it’s a disgrace, because water is at the entrance of the second circuit. With your knowledge, let us teach us .... It is a pity that I had all the professors that were foolish .... sorry ....

                And just do, even if you are right, even if the second circuit is cooled only to the state of saturated steam, what's the problem? heat exchange has long been seen "passed"? Tell me the reason why I cannot keep the coolant t of heating networks in the region of 310-320K?

                Quote: atalef
                It is hard to forget what I did not know. The reactor is elementarily suppressed by entering neutron absorbers (graphite, etc.) into the active zone. By the way, they are also controlled by power.
                The chain reaction in the reactor does not require the introduction of an extraneous source of neutrons; uranium in itself is their source. It is enough to pull the absorber rods out of the core and the reactor will start by itself.


                I have a diploma of a marine engineer, specialty Marine power plants, the main direction of the nuclear power plant. Further. Those. Now you want to tell me that, having loaded a fresh company, I will just take it, remove the control rods from the core and voila, the reactor started up? Ahahah, yes, you can even pull out the compensation grating, you don't have a self-sustaining chain reaction without an external source of neutron radiation. Sorry, but you are clearly not competent in this area. Reading Mr. "Misantrop" it is clear that he touched the nuclear power plant with his hands, but reading you it is clear that you do not have any deeper than Wikipedia in this area of ​​knowledge.

                Quote: atalef
                You probably can't read


                I revered you and realized that you also don’t know much and don’t know how. And probably you can hardly imagine the amount of warm water diverted and the scale of a large Siberian river. Apparently your imagination draws waterfalls like boiling waterfalls at hydroelectric power stations.
          2. zardoz
            zardoz 12 July 2013 05: 34
            0
            I’m wondering. Can you imagine what summer is in the North? For example, in Salekhard it may not be at all. In terms of temperatures above zero, it may not rise for the whole year, a rarity, but it can. Then there is such a thing as fuel storage from summer to winter. This fuel with such a station can be saved and used only in emergency cases and possibly in warm periods of time when it is not practical to generate so much energy. Or by reducing the capacity of the reactor to produce the missing electricity in other ways. This is to reduce thermal pollution, if such a problem exists. Regarding your statement about softened water, it’s not even clear. What is the problem? Do you know the water hardness in the vehicle in the north? and even if it is very hard, what is the problem with the heat exchanger?
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 10 July 2013 16: 45
        +6
        Quote: atalef
        I would not want to have a nuclear power plant near by, and even floating.

        Well, they didn’t offer you wink
        Quote: atalef
        at the pier, the boat stands with muffled reactors and connected to ground communications

        Not always. In March 93, after an accident at a razdatka of the Kola NPP, they brought one side of an old 667A and threw food to the shore. Despite the fact that the nuclear submarines have not too powerful coastal connectors (6 pieces of 1000A each at a voltage of 380 V), the village, headquarters + all the flotilla ships located in the base with the retrieved installations, SRB, RTB, TTB, PRZ, etc., were quite enough. Those. to all consumers of this branch. And with a decent margin.
        Well, with regards to power adjustment, this is done with a light movement of two fingers of the watch operator and takes really seconds. Synchronizing power with shore power is generally ridiculous. This operation was done in passing by any duty officer on the power plant before turning on the dampening pumps. wink

        IMHO it is not necessary to seek out global problems where they have not been found, ALL of the above problems are successfully solved and verified by the experience of operating hundreds of ship nuclear power plants decades ago wink
        1. atalef
          atalef 10 July 2013 21: 49
          -5
          Quote: Misantrop
          Not always. In March 93, after an accident at a razdatka of the Kola NPP, they brought one side of an old 667A and threw food to the shore. Despite the fact that the nuclear submarines have not too powerful coastal connectors (6 pieces of 1000A each at a voltage of 380 V), the village, headquarters + all the flotilla ships located in the base with the retrieved installations, SRB, RTB, TTB, PRZ, etc., were quite enough. Those. to all consumers of this branch. And with a decent margin.

          At cham, there are accidents and regular work. We also have a mobile turbine (from Hercules) that mates with the generator through an air clutch. (40 mW by the way, for emergencies) only electricity is almost gold (because it works on diesel fuel) and the efficiency (due to heat loss and air connection) is very low.
      3. Seraph
        Seraph 10 July 2013 18: 25
        0
        But to put such a boat on a joke in Hadera: you don’t need to depend on coal either, and air to be contaminated, and it will be easier for technical maintenance. What is not an option for the promised land?
        But all the technical nuances are not disclosed, because after all, know-how, after all!
      4. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 10 July 2013 21: 03
        +2
        Quote: atalef
        In general, in my understanding, the device is problematic from an environmental point of view, in terms of the size of the energy generator. systems and regulation of peak loads.


        From your point of view, everyone should drown with coal and take water in the well. It's good that your opinion does not affect the final result.
        1. atalef
          atalef 10 July 2013 21: 50
          -3
          Quote: Geisenberg
          From your point of view, everyone should drown with coal and take water in the well. It's good that your opinion does not affect the final result.

          No, in the case of the north, gas is much cheaper and more practical.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 10 July 2013 22: 20
            +4
            Quote: atalef
            gas is much cheaper and more practical.
            Yeah, especially - to deliver it in the required volumes to where there is NO not only gas pipelines, but also normal roads, except for winter roads. Can you bring gas in dog-carts there? Moreover, in general, this installation is planned not for cities, but to ensure the development of mineral deposits, drilling complexes, etc., i.e. areas where there is NO infrastructure at all. NO, not just a gas pipeline. And which are not being mastered now for the only reason - NO ENERGY ... request
            1. atalef
              atalef 10 July 2013 22: 23
              -3
              Quote: Misantrop
              Yeah, especially - deliver it in the required volumes to where there is NO not only gas pipelines, but also normal roads, except for winter roads

              Well, if a nuclear power plant of 20 tons can be brought up, then somehow there is also liquefied gas.
              laughing
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 10 July 2013 22: 33
                +2
                Quote: atalef
                Well, if a nuclear power plant of 20 tons can be brought up, then somehow there is also liquefied gas.

                Yeah, regularly drive there a gas carrier-icebreaker, having previously designed and built it laughing
                1. atalef
                  atalef 11 July 2013 00: 01
                  -1
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  Yeah, regularly drive there a gas carrier-icebreaker, having previously designed and built it

                  A nuclear power plant is already icebreaking? Or did someone cancel the navigation? By the way, icebreaking type tankers have long existed / How is it?
                  1. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 11 July 2013 00: 35
                    0
                    Quote: atalef
                    By the way, icebreaking type tankers have long existed / How about this?

                    And where to pump into the Nenets plague? Or put it there for the winter as a source of gas?
                    Quote: atalef
                    Is the nuclear power plant already icebreaking?
                    But what, every week you need to move? And, judging by the shape of the hull, ice-crushing doesn’t threaten him, he will squeeze it up (and break the edge of the field due to weight, i.e. the ice-breaking principle)
    3. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 10 July 2013 14: 17
      0
      In the north there are not many cities with a population of more than 200 thousand people, so this is a promising business ...
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 10 July 2013 17: 05
        0
        That’s why it’s better interesting for a small gas station? Is it local fuel?
        And how is it that cities are not increasing the prospects of the project?
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 10 July 2013 17: 18
          +4
          Quote: cdrt
          gas small station? Is it local fuel?

          At the local? Well, yes, to throw a thousand kilometers of the gas pipeline through permafrost - a couple of trifles wink
    4. Scoun
      Scoun 10 July 2013 15: 47
      +3
      Quote: Denis
      Many cities and towns of the Northern Sea Route would be happy for her

      I am sure this is only the first sign .. and soon there will be a shaft of orders .. there are all the developments for this .. TVELs are our cheapest ... the cost of electricity and water is several times lower than that of other reactor manufacturers .. we also have reactor technology no one can compete with us today, I don’t think the future is near when such stations simply with less power will appear on the Northern Sea Route ..
      damn it turned out straight like something very optimistic)))
      1. Scoun
        Scoun 10 July 2013 16: 33
        +1
        um forgot to add .... that fresh water rises in price so to speak ...
    5. cdrt
      cdrt 10 July 2013 17: 04
      -4
      It is clear that they really wanted to do something in the early 90s. They came up with a floating nuclear power plant. Let's see, of course - at least someone will voluntarily buy them himself ... Otherwise they will forcibly foist on "our property" ...
    6. lelikas
      lelikas 10 July 2013 18: 20
      +5
      It has long been found in Pevek under it, since the year 07.
  2. Ivan79
    Ivan79 10 July 2013 07: 36
    +2
    Well, that's great. Cheap energy and heat.
    1. baltika-18
      baltika-18 10 July 2013 09: 39
      +1
      Quote: Ivan79
      Well, that's great. Cheap energy and heat.

      Floating nuclear power plant, capacity 70 MW, cost of 1 kW installed capacity of 7200 dollars.
      For comparison, the most modern Baltic nuclear power plant, with a capacity of 4600 MW, the cost of 1 kW of installed capacity of $ 1000, a payback period of 20 years.
      Using simple arithmetic calculations, we get the payback period of floating nuclear power plants about 150 years. It will not last as long, that is, it will never pay off. Either the price for its services must be set very high.
      1. strange and pretty meaningless
        strange and pretty meaningless 10 July 2013 11: 10
        +1
        It's sad. I remembered how the SSV-33 "Ural" BRZK SSV-XNUMX, which was not in demand for its intended purpose, had disappeared ineptly. Just rotted on barrels in Tihasa. But they offered to use it as a floating nuclear power plant - although no ... And nothing had to be built. It was then that Vladivostok was plunged into energetic "darkness". Non-ninada is non-effective ...
        But the new build is very "effective"
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 10 July 2013 16: 49
          0
          Quote: abyrvalg
          BRZK SSV-33 "Ural"

          Honestly, he succeeded in a nuclear power plant (I don’t know exactly why) a very problematic one. So maybe for the better ... what
      2. Seraph
        Seraph 10 July 2013 18: 32
        +2
        If we consider the payback period at the price of supplying heat and electricity to the consumer - yes, 150 years. This is so now "effective managers" think. And if we consider the development of the infrastructure of the Northern Sea Route, the redirection of trade turnover from the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean to the Antarctic Ocean - then much less
      3. aviator_IAS
        aviator_IAS 22 July 2013 00: 01
        0
        Quote: baltika-18
        Quote: Ivan79
        Well, that's great. Cheap energy and heat.

        Floating nuclear power plant, capacity 70 MW, cost of 1 kW installed capacity of 7200 dollars.
        For comparison, the most modern Baltic nuclear power plant, with a capacity of 4600 MW, the cost of 1 kW of installed capacity of $ 1000, a payback period of 20 years.
        Using simple arithmetic calculations, we get the payback period of floating nuclear power plants about 150 years. It will not last as long, that is, it will never pay off. Either the price for its services must be set very high.


        Yes, and the description is somehow muddy.

        In view of the remoteness of such events, it is still not known exactly where the first Russian FNPP will go. Earlier, during the start of the construction of the lead vessel, it was claimed that such power plants would serve in the Far East and the Far North. Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, Taimyr and Kamchatka were indicated as possible work places.


        In theory, such serious projects are made for specific tasks. And here "it is not known for sure", "possibly".
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 10 July 2013 17: 07
      -2
      It seems like at ordinary nuclear power plants, energy was never cheap ... Rather, the most expensive (well, before the appearance of all kinds of windmills and solar panels). Well ... in the reactor, the acceleration / deceleration cycle is quite long. How will they control the frequency-power?
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 10 July 2013 17: 35
        +2
        Quote: cdrt
        It seems that even ordinary nuclear power plants have never had cheap energy ...
        Just always, she was one of the cheapest. The only minus of the nuclear power plants is that they don’t like sudden changes in load, so they are combined with some kind of electricity producer or put in storage (I don’t remember what they are called: two water pools at different levels with a hydroelectric power station between them).
        1. Seraph
          Seraph 10 July 2013 18: 35
          +1
          Hydroaccumulative power station. In our suburbs, we recently built one in the Sergiev Posad district to even out the peak loads of the Moscow energy center
      2. atalef
        atalef 10 July 2013 22: 12
        0
        Quote: cdrt
        How will they control the frequency-power?

        speed of rotation of the generator, depending on the load.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 10 July 2013 22: 37
          +2
          Quote: atalef
          speed of rotation of the generator, depending on the load.
          In truth, the first time I hear about such industrial generators.
          Our speed is always the same, at least at the minimum load, at least at the maximum, since the frequency is tied to the speed.
          1. atalef
            atalef 11 July 2013 00: 05
            0
            Quote: Bad_gr
            Our speed is always the same, at least at the minimum load, at least at the maximum, since the frequency is tied to the speed.

            Of course, the same speed as frequency directly depends on this. Maintaining the required speed is achieved by supplying the right amount of steam to the turbine, therefore, due to the high reactivity of the TPP boilers, they are kept at as constant a load as possible.
  3. Ivan79
    Ivan79 10 July 2013 07: 36
    +2
    Well, that's great. Cheap energy and heat. Only at first for yourself, then for export.
    1. viruskvartirus
      viruskvartirus 10 July 2013 09: 32
      +2
      ))) The Chinese became interested in this project and made Rosatom an offer "which is difficult to refuse", like together we will fill up the world with these stations, and there will be demand. If you look deeper, the stations themselves are small-scale nuclear fuel, components, utilization of radioactive waste and the units themselves, that's where the main money is.
    2. atalef
      atalef 10 July 2013 12: 03
      -4
      Quote: Ivan79
      Well, that's great. Cheap energy and heat. Only at first for yourself, then for export

      Neither cheap, but how to export? Buckets or barrels?
      1. Uncle
        Uncle 10 July 2013 14: 25
        +1
        Quote: atalef
        Neither cheap, but how to export?

        Up the Yellow River and the Yangtze.
      2. nov_tech.vrn
        nov_tech.vrn 10 July 2013 16: 35
        0
        pieces, because the goods are piece-wise, more precisely in sets, with further - THEN and fuel supplies
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 10 July 2013 17: 08
      -1
      For yourself - see above for payback - in FIG. This is only for export, if someone buys - the UAE is the same ...
  4. Canep
    Canep 10 July 2013 07: 40
    0
    In essence, this is a new class of ship. In the north, and not only, the thing is useful.
    1. baltika-18
      baltika-18 10 July 2013 09: 20
      -3
      Quote: Canep
      In essence, this is a new class of ship. In the north, and not only, the thing is useful.

      But in addition, it’s quite dangerous. It’s essentially a float. You can’t put it in earthquake-prone areas. Kamchatka is no longer there. It’s also a dubious undertaking. Moreover, a special vessel is needed to collect spent nuclear fuel.
      Given all these nuances, the cost of electricity will be much higher.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 10 July 2013 10: 02
        0
        Quote: baltika-18
        Moreover, a special vessel is also needed to collect spent nuclear fuel.
        It’s not necessary to take anything there. When the time is right (40 years is indicated in the article), the power plant is completely towed to a special enterprise and the power unit is replaced with a new one. After which the station returns to its place.
        1. baltika-18
          baltika-18 10 July 2013 10: 27
          +1
          Quote: Bad_gr
          When the time is right (the article says 40 years)

          40 years is the declared service life of this entire structure. And according to the rules for operating nuclear reactors, once every 1 years, a complete reboot of the fuel is performed, with a complete shutdown of the reactor.
          1. atalef
            atalef 10 July 2013 12: 16
            -4
            Quote: baltika-18
            And according to the rules for operating nuclear reactors, once every 1 years, a complete reboot of the fuel is performed, with a complete shutdown of the reactor.

            If the reactor is not on plutonium, then they can do it on plutonium. I already saw titanium shovels in the 90s. An expensive unreasonable project designed exclusively for expansion. There are systems much cheaper and more reliable. And 40 years old, it's just a miser. Email Stations are designed for up to 70 years, in the states there are stations that have been operating for 80 years.
            1. biznaw
              biznaw 10 July 2013 14: 53
              +3
              [quote = atalef] [quote = baltika-18] Email stations are designed for up to 70 years, in the states there are stations operating for 80 years. [/ quote]
              What is this station, what are you writing about? The first atomic bomb exploded 68 years ago, and at. The power station was the first in the world in the USSR 60 years ago.
              You are probably talking about water mills so in those years 2800 will be but not a single one operating.
              1. atalef
                atalef 10 July 2013 16: 07
                -2
                [quote = biznaw] Email stations are designed for up to 70 years, in the states there are stations operating for 80 years. [/ quote]
                What is this station, what are you writing about? The first atomic bomb exploded 68 years ago, and at. The power station was the first in the world in the USSR 60 years ago.
                You probably talk about water mills so that 2800 years will be but not a single one. [/ Quote]
                Atomic email The station is no different from any thermal. (at least on coal, gas or fuel oil)
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 10 July 2013 16: 52
                  +2
                  Quote: atalef
                  Atomic email The station is no different from any thermal. (at least on coal, gas or fuel oil)

                  That is exactly what was reasoned at the time in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, appointing their protégés to the leadership of the brand new 4th Chernobyl nuclear power plant under construction then. NOT ONE atomic scientist for the whole composition (!). What ended up, recall? wink
                  1. atalef
                    atalef 10 July 2013 17: 00
                    0
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    That is exactly what was reasoned at the time in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, appointing their protégés to the leadership of the then-built new 4th Chernobyl unit

                    All these stations belong to TPPs. And it makes no difference what steam (from the point of view of turbine control) produces gas, coal or uranium.
                    1. Misantrop
                      Misantrop 10 July 2013 17: 13
                      +1
                      Quote: atalef
                      it makes no difference what produces steam

                      Right? But only with this approach, the level of education like a regular turbinist is already considered almost the limit of dreams. What difference does it make than steam, right? This teapot can (through the nose). But the beloved offspring is attached to a warm place, a respected person will be ... As a result - the accident on the Triple Island, Chernobyl NPP, Fukushima. Critical illiteracy of the crew in an emergency. But on the preparation of savings ...
                      1. atalef
                        atalef 10 July 2013 21: 44
                        -1
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        Right? But only with this approach, the level of education like a regular turbinist is already considered almost the limit of dreams. What difference does it make than steam, right?

                        From the point of view of the electrical system - no, as well as the operating mode of the station. Do not scare me with a reactor.

                        Quote: Misantrop
                        As a result, there were accidents at Trimile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima.

                        Do not confuse 2 different things. Although I wrote about it. What is the point of creating a floating nuclear power plant if there are solutions that are much cheaper and safer.
                      2. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 10 July 2013 22: 08
                        +4
                        Quote: atalef
                        From the point of view of the electrical system - no
                        From the point of view of the cleaning lady - all the more laughing
                        Quote: atalef
                        Do not scare me with a reactor.
                        Am i scaring It seemed to me that the half-educated operators were doing this, which only matters in which window to get paid. American know-how, by the way: the operator of a nuclear power plant is generally without a specialized education. All that he cramps when applying for a job is a technology instruction request
                        Quote: atalef
                        What is the point of creating a floating nuclear power plant if there are solutions that are much cheaper and safer.

                        Do you consider yourself MUCH smarter than ALL residents of the North and the Far East? Including the power engineers there? In your opinion, they have not seen anything more complicated than a bug-bug in life? If for years and decades in those territories the eternal problem of energy shortages hangs, and the entire coast is littered with mountains of empty barrels from under the fuel brought there, then all this is only because of which NOBODY did not guess look in the directory manufacturing company? wassat The topic of a floating nuclear power plant has been raised for more than a decade, only in the USSR all the slipways suitable for this were occupied by the fleet rearmament program, so they postponed "for later", continuing to carry thousands of tons of diesel fuel there to the "northern delivery" ... Or you think that in the USSR they did not know gas turbines, and was it an unimaginable task for the engineering building to hang a generator on it? wink
        2. Misantrop
          Misantrop 10 July 2013 15: 11
          +6
          Quote: baltika-18
          And according to the rules for operating nuclear reactors, once every 1 years, a complete reboot of the fuel is performed, with a complete shutdown of the reactor.

          This is where SUCH requirements come from? belay Do not confuse the stationary installation with the transport, to that ALL other requirements are presented wink
          Quote: baltika-18
          Another special vessel is needed for the collection of spent nuclear fuel.
          Such ships have long existed. On the SF this is PM-12, made at one time in Nikolaev
          Quote: baltika-18
          This is essentially a float. You can’t put it in earthquake-prone zones. Kamchatka disappears.
          On the contrary, it is for this reason. ALL the necessary AED systems are mounted on this "float" and cannot be flooded by definition. The only thing that is required is to determine a parking place with protection from a possible tsunami wave run-up (which is not difficult with an indented coastline)
        3. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 10 July 2013 17: 02
          +1
          Quote: baltika-18
          0 years is the declared service life of this entire structure. And according to the rules for operating nuclear reactors, once every 1 years, a complete reboot of the fuel is performed, with a complete shutdown of the reactor.

          "..... The time between reloading of the core of a nuclear reactor grows from generation to generation.

          The reactors of the first American boats rebooted every 3 years.

          The modern American multi-purpose submarine of the Los Angeles type has a core life of about 20 years, which corresponds to the life of this submarine. Those. During the entire service life, the core is never overloaded.

          Nuclear submarines with Ohio ballistic missiles have the same core life. With a service life of 40 years, the reactor is overloaded 1 time.

          American Virginia type boats that replace Los Angeles have a core life of 30 years, which corresponds to the life of the boats.

          For American aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type, the core serves 25 years with an aircraft carrier service life of 50 years.

          In the near future it is planned to increase the service life of the reactor core for aircraft carriers to 50 years, for boats - to 40 years ... "

          Submarines of project 885 Ash
          "..... The use of a new generation nuclear reactor will increase the reliability of the ship's power system. The reactor service life without recharging is about 25-30 years, which is comparable to the service life of a submarine ....."

          If this is the case in submarines, why shouldn't it be at nuclear power plants, where the same reactors may be located.
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 10 July 2013 17: 10
        -3
        We study textbooks ... materials science there, we teach about the radiation resistance of metals, etc. bullshit. We also think about why the whole world of nuclear submarines does not change reactors, but cuts them as quickly as possible after failure ...
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 10 July 2013 18: 17
          +2
          Quote: cdrt
          We study textbooks ... materials science there, we teach about the radiation resistance of metals, etc. bullshit.

          Dear, I wanted to say something (apart from what I need to learn)?
    2. StolzSS
      StolzSS 10 July 2013 10: 08
      +2
      And why is it necessary to install it in a seismically dangerous zone, then suddenly this same barge will not swing anything on the waves and that’s all. Another thing is that energy will not be cheap, well, so for yourself it is quite tolerable, while others let go of it completely ... hi
      1. baltika-18
        baltika-18 10 July 2013 10: 45
        -2
        Quote: StolzSS
        the same barge will not swing anything on the waves and only

        And if a small tsunami?
        Or a storm of 9-11 points.
        1. little man
          little man 10 July 2013 14: 13
          -3
          I agree! Dangerously however.
          This is - non-self-propelled vessel . How to manage it? Stupidly with his nose on a wave to deploy. A tow is still that whistle!
        2. Misantrop
          Misantrop 10 July 2013 16: 30
          +4
          Quote: baltika-18
          storm 9-11 points.
          In the floodplain of the river? Or in the bay? Russia Is Still Not Indonesia request lol
      2. Garrin
        Garrin 10 July 2013 10: 49
        -1
        Quote: StolzSS
        And why is it necessary to install it in a seismically dangerous zone, then suddenly this same barge will not swing anything on the waves and that’s all.

        It depends on how it shakes. And if the Tsunami? And carry this "barge" ...
    3. nov_tech.vrn
      nov_tech.vrn 10 July 2013 11: 29
      +4
      everything is written in the text, read carefully, thanks to the shipbuilders for the good news, about the payback time, there is a maximum service life, so they considered the payback, and what is the cost of electricity and heat in the north due to delivery, and in the central regions, these are two big differences
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 10 July 2013 17: 15
        -2
        That you proceed from the fact that intelligent people started the project ...
        But there is no evidence for this ...
        With love for the nuclear fleet - they could build anything.

        PS And how much will small-sized gas turbine stations in the North cost? And how much will their kWh cost in comparison with the kWh cost of this barge?
    4. atalef
      atalef 10 July 2013 12: 12
      -3
      Quote: baltika-18
      But in addition, it’s quite dangerous.

      I understand . there are not many energy specialists. So offhand. Output voltage? 70mW - at least a boost of up to 110 kV is necessary. Distribution device, synchronization with local network, heat? A heat distribution point, duplication in the event of an accident (or all 300mW of heat will go into the river, or turn off the reactors and turn off the electric power. All this should be brought to the pier. This is not a boat you drove and an extension cord with a hose was thrown. As a result, instead of a mobile one you get a constant A nuclear power plant on a barge (or is it necessary to build infrastructure near every town?). Only with expensive kW / hour, security flaws and all the associated problems. I repeat gas turbines are simpler, cheaper and after working out their deadlines you can simply forget and close them. 1 Gas turbine block a station with an additional boiler and an output power of 350mW - 60 mil. bucks. A penny compared to a nuclear power plant. - which is only 70 MW, the capacity of a steam turbine J. electric 1936 release.
      1. GHG
        GHG 10 July 2013 13: 30
        +3
        70 megawatts or 70000 kW THIS IS THE POWER rated power of generators. Moreover, these capacities are not needed for ports and cities ... here for completely different purposes. For the development of new deposits on the shelf, it’s like drinking to give everything clear. The question is different ... it would be possible to re-equip, for example, the Typhoon nuclear submarine.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 10 July 2013 13: 43
          +1
          it would be possible to convert, for example, the Typhoon nuclear submarine.

          Typhoons will write off. There will be only one for testing. And to re-equip - no matter how expensive it would be, a new barge with a reactor.
          1. biznaw
            biznaw 10 July 2013 14: 57
            -1
            Alteration can not be more expensive than a new product, under no circumstances, even if everything is done with one single file.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 10 July 2013 15: 04
              +1
              Alteration can not be more expensive than a new product, under no circumstances, even if everything is done with one single file.

              You are very deeply mistaken. Alteration of an old product that was not originally intended to perform the functions of a completely new one is an enormous cost. These are "crutches" in the most unexpected places, this is a decrease in characteristics, the introduction of a number of restrictions on operation, etc.
              And how much money can be cut on such a rework, referring to the suddenly arisen difficulties ... oooh ...
              Each product should serve for what it was designed and built for.
              1. biznaw
                biznaw 10 July 2013 19: 07
                0
                "I haven't eaten oysters, but I know for sure that it's not tasty"
                What alterations to the nuclear-powered ship are needed to use it as a power plant? Paint and write what is a floating nuclear power plant? Officials will get tired of sawing. Therefore, the superiors decided to cut the boats into scrap metal, while cutting it, you can still cut something into your pocket "referring to the sudden difficulties ... ooh ..."
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 10 July 2013 20: 19
                  +2
                  Quote: biznaw
                  What alterations on the nuclear-powered ship are needed to use it as a power plant? To paint and write that this is a floating nuclear power plant?
                  Not certainly in that way. The turbogenerators available as part of the shipboard nuclear power plant can take on no more than 15% of the reactor power. Everything else is used by main turbines, refrigerators, evaporators, etc. It turns out that efficiency is too small if used normally as a nuclear power plant. And to hang a generator on the main turbine of the appropriate power ... is also not easy. He himself is not small in size, requires cooling, lubrication, etc. And power cables are needed more powerful. Not so simple ...
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 10 July 2013 17: 22
        -1
        And additionally.
        I repeat - in a single electrical network, the supplied power should be equal to the consumed. Otherwise, all sorts of troubles there begin with a frequency, well, and as a result, with the operability of all the electric motors connected there. And so that this does not happen, automation disconnects the necessary network segments - in fact, this is called a fan shutdown.
        Therefore, in the UES of the Russian Federation there are stations that provide a stable "basic" power - hydroelectric power plants, nuclear power plants, most of thermal power plants. They are economical, but the power changes for a very long time - hours, days, or even weeks :-)
        But there are stations that must respond to commands from the network manager - i.e. respond in minutes, ten, fifteen minutes.
        It is clear that on them and the units are small, i.e. less economical, but they accelerate / slow down quickly, which is necessary in order to adjust the frequency-power.
        AEU anyway - slow. It is unclear how they will regulate the 200 thousand grid. Apparently the presence in the same network of small "fast" thermal power plants. At the same time, there will be a curious situation when the energy on the regulator will be cheaper than on the base wink
        Something like this ...
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 10 July 2013 20: 25
          +2
          Quote: cdrt
          AEU is slow anyway.
          Well, do not confuse STATIONARY NPP with TRANSPORT. There TOTALLY different reaction rates, principles and possibilities of regulation, the mass of the installation, the materials used, etc. The reaction rate to a change in power in tenths of a second (if within small limits) and several minutes, if you are satisfied with a large number of powerful consumers? By the way, transport units are designed with a negative temperature coefficient, i.e. have the property of self-regulation of power in the entire temperature range. That in stationary installations does not work due to the characteristics of the fuel used. Since stationary plants, in addition to generating electricity, also burn plutonium-239 during the campaign. 2 kg of 239 plutonium per 1 kg of burnt 235 uranium
        2. atalef
          atalef 10 July 2013 22: 16
          -1
          Quote: cdrt
          AEU anyway - slow. It is unclear how they will regulate the 200 thousand grid. Apparently the presence in the same network of small "fast" thermal power plants. At the same time, there will be a curious situation when the energy on the regulator will be cheaper than on the base

          The nuclear submarine is neither slow, it has a large reserve of power at the reactor, but in such modes of the nuclear power plant (civilian drive) - will this electricity be gold, did anyone make a feasibility study?
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 10 July 2013 22: 30
            +1
            Quote: atalef
            electricity will be golden, in general, did someone do a feasibility study?

            I repeat, a floating nuclear power plant is designed to provide autonomous temporary enclaves, where it makes no sense pull fixed networks, roads and pipelines. It is because of the wild distances, the most difficult climate and the temporality of these habitats
            1. atalef
              atalef 11 July 2013 00: 08
              +1
              Quote: Misantrop
              I repeat, a floating nuclear power plant is designed to provide OFFLINE TIME enclaves where it makes no sense to pull stationary networks, roads and pipelines.

              strange, but it says the city under 200t. inhabitants. It doesn’t matter if the consumer needs 70MW of electricity and 300mW of heat - this is not a village of reindeer herders and will not be relocated in a year, therefore the floating nuclear power plant will turn into a hospital with all the shortcomings I described above and expensive kW / hour
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 11 July 2013 00: 38
                +2
                Quote: atalef
                strange, and it says the city under 200t. inhabitants
                Written, yes. That's just IMHO it was written not by professionals, but by journalists. And purely to popularize the idea (like most of the figures given in the article "from the lantern") request
  • NOMADE
    NOMADE 10 July 2013 07: 47
    12
    Quote: Ivan79
    Well, that's great. Cheap energy and heat. Only at first for yourself, then for export.


    The news is good, but I have to upset you that with such a policy in relation to energy tariffs in the Russian Federation, there will be no "cheap energy" ((As examples: - 1 kW / hour - Vladivostok (for individuals), about 2.08 rubles. (I can be wrong, for a long time he himself did not fill out receipts, his wife does this))), sale to China - 1 kW / hour - 0.91 rubles! How can I understand...?
    Also, the recent scandal, when in Kamchatka, at a geothermal power plant, the price was raised by 15 or 18% for consumers ... Consumers asked the company's management, on what basis? Like, have you started to "bill" geysers? To which, there was no clear answer, but in the end they answered that this growth does not contradict the adopted law on tariff increases.
    1. afire
      afire 10 July 2013 08: 49
      +6
      yes good to complain, in the Moscow region tariff 4.01 hi , but lately there has been an active gasification of the eastern part, so soon heating can be converted to gas - more economical, and everyone is switching to energy-saving technologies - there are simply no options and no one wants to pay a lot. Do you have such ridiculous prices because of the Bilibino NPP? a lot of extra energy? it’s just that you voiced one-sidedly, your complaints about prices are not entirely clear.
      Yes, we have normal prices, you just need to save money on learning, and not burn the light for nothing.
      1. baltika-18
        baltika-18 10 July 2013 10: 53
        +2
        Quote: afire
        yes it’s good to complain, in the Moscow region the tariff is 4.01, but recently there has been active gasification of the eastern part, so soon heating can be converted to gas - more economical

        How to say "gas is more economical".
        We have in the field of tariffs: electricity -3,2 r / kW
        Gas -4,54r / cu
    2. buzuke
      buzuke 10 July 2013 09: 28
      +2
      if you were to buy as much as china, and without various intermediaries, then I think the price would be the same
    3. w.ebdo.g
      w.ebdo.g 10 July 2013 09: 40
      +3
      As examples: - 1 kW / hour - Vladivostok (for individuals), about 2.08 rubles. (I can be a little mistaken, I haven’t filled out receipts for a long time, my wife is doing this))), sale to China - 1 kW / hour - 0.91 rubles! How to understand it...?

      Do you have any idea?
      for comparison, you quoted the final prices as a consumer (2.08 p.) and in China they sell wholesale for a mega-regulator, which then sells to individual energy companies, and they, in turn, wind up their profits and sell to end users ...

      reference:
      "Let's compare prices !!! The cost of light in Russia is slightly different from the Chinese.
      We used the currency converter on our website and got the following layout:

      in China
      at home - from 3.04 to 3.80 rubles (in the south) and in the region of 2.54 rubles (0.5 rmb in the north, in Beijing)
      in production (in the South) - 7.61 rubles (1,5 rmb);

      in Russia:
      at home - 2.50 rubles (0.49 rmb);
      in production - 6 rubles (1.18 rmb);

      In northern China, electricity prices are slightly lower. Why is it so? Most likely, this was done in order to reduce the flow of people who want to move from north to south. "

      1. GHG
        GHG 10 July 2013 09: 48
        +1
        The reason is that there are areas with a deficit and surplus of electricity.
      2. NOMADE
        NOMADE 10 July 2013 10: 29
        +1
        As it were, everything is correct, but by what methods this is achieved, see below.
    4. GHG
      GHG 10 July 2013 09: 43
      +3
      Do you know what constitutes an electricity tariff? The initial cost is the selling price per kW, goes to the owner of the power plant of TGK, OGK, etc., then it (electricity) is distributed by regions, oblasts, districts, cities. This is done by IDGC, FGC. Further, there is a mark-up for all kinds of grid companies. But it is necessary to maintain the lines, substations in proper condition, because so much was lost in 90-2000. Physically and morally the equipment is outdated and worn out. We overpay for updating the equipment, the Chinese have a shorter "food chain" and have signed a long-term contract. This system is complex, but I understood this issue as it should be.
    5. Sol_jah
      Sol_jah 10 July 2013 10: 33
      -1
      here I am about the same. Under the USSR, energy resources were saved (electricity in particular). Now everything is in the hands of the capitalists. More sold, more profits. Medvedev canceled daylight saving time. And this was done just to reduce the cost of electricity nationwide.
      1. atalef
        atalef 10 July 2013 12: 25
        -3
        Quote: Sol_Jah
        Under the USSR, energy resources were saved (electricity in particular).

        There wasn’t enough electricity in the USSR, so every day at 12 o’clock the electricity consumption mode was reported on the radio, according to this order (it sounded like 2 dashes 2 or 1 dash three) the main energetics of the enterprise according to the map of energy consumption and special. daily plan produced a limitation (or rather stupidly extinguished) power pr-va


        Quote: Sol_Jah
        Now everything is in the hands of the capitalists. More sold, more profits

        it is not possible to produce more electricity than consumption per second, or the frequency characteristics change, threatening the collapse of the entire energy system and the failure of equipment (mainly engines and drives)
        1. GHG
          GHG 10 July 2013 13: 14
          +2
          By the way, there was enough electricity in the USSR. With a decrease in generation, the frequency drops. Which is unacceptable for equipment. You probably had the fact that you can operate power plants in different modes. In the summer, no one will run the CHP at full capacity, since excess heat will have to be thrown into the atmosphere through the grating. Is it more profitable to run it at full capacity in winter, and let the condensate into heat exchangers? Here you just need to know the expected load, for a month, day, hour and enter the estimated required power by the required time. And the automatics dealing with "primary regulation" of frequency and voltage will cope with small power drops.
          A power plant can give more power ... but there is definitely no frequency more than 50 Hz ... the automation will not give it, it will give it a load of exactly 50, if it will be much less ... for example 49,5, then system automation will disconnect some of the non-responsible consumers of the third categories. The system will definitely not fall apart just like that, the part with its generation and consumers will separate. It just seems like the case of which ... the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station failed and why? Some consumers simply turned off, other stations gained load in seconds ... in short everything redistributed and EVERYTHING.
          1. strange and pretty meaningless
            strange and pretty meaningless 10 July 2013 15: 10
            +1
            Quote: GES
            ... Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station failed and why?

            ... think ... "Our country is ... so ... strong" (D.A. Medvedev - technical president)
            1. GHG
              GHG 10 July 2013 16: 30
              +2
              You understand what I mean ... about the reliability of the power system. Nothing like the collapse and collapse of the power system did not happen. The USSR laid down a margin of safety and stability. At least we haven’t produced anything better and more reliable.
              On August 14, 2003, between 15:45 p.m. and 16:15 p.m. EST (23:45 p.m. and 0:15 p.m. Moscow time), observers in Cleveland, Toledo, New York City, Albany, Detroit and parts of New Jersey reported power outages. Subsequently, problems followed in initially unaffected areas, including all 5 districts of New York City and parts of Long Island, Westchester County, New Jersey, Vermont and Connecticut, and most of southern Ontario, including Toronto.

              About 10 million people in Canada (about a third of the population) and 40 million in the United States were left without electricity. However, most vital services continued to operate.
              A chain shutdown of about 100 other power plants occurred.
              1. atalef
                atalef 10 July 2013 16: 41
                0
                Quote: GES
                You understand what I mean ... about the reliability of the power system. Nothing like the collapse and collapse of the power system did not happen. The USSR laid the margin of safety and stability

                Well, twenty-five again. The USSR produced exactly half the electric power from the USA, then the reserve of any power system should be no less than the capacity of the largest generator of this system, but there were blackouts. remember SayanoShush. hydroelectric power station - what happened in Krasnoyarsk? There were Lockouts in the USSR and Russia too. Entire cities were left without light. And in general, according to GOST, consumers of the 3rd category (zhyl.rayony, shops, etc.) could be turned off without warning for up to 24 hours. Or do you not remember that?
          2. atalef
            atalef 10 July 2013 16: 25
            -1
            Quote: GES
            By the way, there was enough electricity in the USSR

            Not enough (in the European part) do not tell me as the former chief power engineer.

            Quote: GES
            You probably had to operate power plants in various modes

            In general, you understand that there were at least 5 stations in terms of operating modes - TPPs and Thermal and NPPs - that are required to operate at 90-100% of capacity since thermal coefficients during power drop and, as a result, expansion or contraction of equipment due to temperature differences leads to rapid wear of both turbine blades and the entire steam-powered equipment, so they tried not to touch the peak ones (mainly Hydroelectric Power Station, Hydroelectric Power Station and Gaes) 60% of turbines are running smoothly with the start-up and almost instantaneous output of capacities at peak loads. The latter (PSP) simply worked as pumps during the failure of consumption and pumped water from the lower pool to the upper one (this loaded fuel cells and giving a load), and transformed into minute maximum turbine and taking water from the upper pool to the lower peak loads quenched.


            Quote: GES
            . In short, everything was just redistributed and EVERYTHING.

            Of course, with a decrease in generation and as a result of a drop in frequency (while maintaining constant consumption), there is no other way but to discard consumers in importance, only you do not take into account the electrical system and (the ring as a whole) as the reactivity of the system, the reverse connection of consumers (with a peak inclusion) and of course phasing. I hope you never had to participate in the return to work of the electrical system (In my case with 400 kW lines), which was divided into 3 enclaves, with excess generation in the South, lack in the North and a separate ring in the center, When a part of the power plants had to be extinguished , part disconnected in frequency (and dropped consumers) ---- and then synchronize the rings (and this is half the country) and all because of the fire, when insulators on 4 lines (161 kV) burst from the heat, and the remaining 6 (communication with the center and the south) disconnected from the sharp overload. Only 18 hours took to recover.
            And you say to redistribute EVERYTHING.
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 10 July 2013 16: 58
              +3
              Quote: atalef
              NPPs - are obliged to operate at 90-100% of capacity since thermal coefficients during power drop and, as a result, expansion or contraction of equipment due to temperature differences leads to rapid wear of both turbine blades and the entire steam-powered equipment

              Who told you this nonsense? There are completely different layouts, and all this concerns STATIONARY atomic installations with an ALL different type, both nuclear reactors and nuclear power plants as a whole. You should also fasten your "Requirements for making fires in a forest-park zone" here, too, after all, heat and power engineering is somehow sideways lol
              1. atalef
                atalef 10 July 2013 21: 53
                +1
                Quote: Misantrop
                Who told you this nonsense? There are completely different layouts, and all this concerns STATIONARY atomic installations with an ALL different type, both nuclear reactors and nuclear power plants as a whole. You should also fasten your "Requirements for making fires in a forest-park zone" here, too, after all, heat and power engineering is somehow sideways

                Do not tell me tales, unlike you, I’ve been doing this business for 25 years
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 10 July 2013 22: 39
                  +1
                  Quote: atalef
                  unlike you, I’ve been doing this business for 25 years
                  It is noticeable ... lol
                  Quote: atalef
                  are required to work at 90-100% of capacity since thermal coefficients during power drop and, as a result, expansion or contraction of equipment due to temperature difference leads to rapid wear like turbine blades ...
                  After 30 years of continuous operation, all this is in excellent condition. For the sole reason that the above applies to GAS turbines, by no means steam. I, too, not yesterday from a branch of tears wink
                  1. atalef
                    atalef 11 July 2013 00: 11
                    0
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    what concerns the above GAS turbines

                    Two-member, the advantage of gas turbines is precisely in the fast recruitment and discharge of power, steam does not apply a priori (once again due to the reactivity of the coolant) Hang Yungam pasta on caps negative
                    1. Misantrop
                      Misantrop 11 July 2013 00: 46
                      +2
                      Quote: atalef
                      The advantage of gas turbines is precisely in the quick recruitment and discharge of power, steam does not apply a priori
                      Damn, but we didn’t even know, twice in 5 minutes transferring speed from full forward to full reverse (maneuvering in narrow places in a storm) ... At the same time, not only the screws were turned, but the cruiser was also dispersed ... Personally, at the right-hand power plant he was sitting on board at that time, so that he did not only see the turbine revolutions with his own eyes, but also exhibited it. So gas turbines can, from maximum to maximum through zero in such a time?

                      Here are just the TEMPERATURE of the steam at the same time as it was 320 degrees, it remained, so what are the thermal cycles with extensions there? ... what
            2. GHG
              GHG 10 July 2013 19: 01
              +4
              Responsible for e-farm is in the zoo and collective farm, this is just in case.
              If you even worked in the energy sector of Russia (USSR), then you would know the standard range of stresses.
              YOU SPECIFIED WHICH IS NOT VALID. And they never have been and never will be. And even in organizations related to the energy sector there is no post of chief energetics. Borrowing from forums and directories is certainly informative ... but only for self-development and general interest, and not for a dispute with a person who really it works there. And ... about phasing ... can I ask a question? I ask ... how to phase an still unconnected generator? Maybe it does not need to be phased?
              1. atalef
                atalef 10 July 2013 21: 57
                +2
                Quote: GES
                YOU HAVE SPECIFIED WHICH IS NOT IN THE GUEST.

                Yes ? And who told you that it was in Russia? Or didn’t they understand from the text? Israel - 96 years old, a fire knocked out 4 lines of 161 kV. (By the way, the standard voltage line is 24,33,110 (almost none) 161, 400 kV).
                Much has already changed and this cannot happen again, but such cases were everywhere, including in the USSR / Russia.
                1. GHG
                  GHG 11 July 2013 08: 42
                  +1
                  So immediately write to US, otherwise you started for health, but you finish the devil knows how. Specify where, how and how, otherwise you’re misleading yourself. I can also say: Nenya had a case at work, and what work and where you think for yourself. I didn’t understand, so you used the western voltage line with us at 400 kV only in Vyborg and then DC.
              2. atalef
                atalef 11 July 2013 00: 17
                +1
                Quote: GES
                And even in organizations associated with the energy sector there is no post of chief energetics.

                And where did I write that I was the main power engineer in networks or something. He was the chief power engineer at a wood processing plant and was automatically connected to networks as well as to substations. (I hope such a position existed there) And you constantly confuse electric and power systems. It agree not one and the same.
                Now (for more than 20 years) I have been working in the Israeli Electric Company (such as RAO EU). Department of substations and load distribution (this can be translated)
                1. GHG
                  GHG 11 July 2013 08: 48
                  0
                  Indeed, in Russia there is neither at the stations nor in the networks of power engineers. The head of the power industry is called in some other way (in the regulatory documentation) as the person responsible for the electric power industry.
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 10 July 2013 17: 44
        0
        The USSR saved energy - don’t tell me. You look at statistics on energy efficiency, the USSR has always been, and the Russian Federation is one of the most energy-inefficient economies among developed ones ...
    6. stroporez
      stroporez 10 July 2013 11: 28
      -1
      this is such a manifestation of "patriotism" ---- to tear from their own beyond measure. so that everyone would feel sho the government loves them ... ugh, ----- has ..........
    7. cdrt
      cdrt 10 July 2013 17: 34
      -1
      And it's easy to understand. They sell to the Chinese how much they take, they will offer more - they will refuse.
      Well, the residents of the Russian Federation have nowhere to go. They will pay ANY price.
      Actually, the growth of tariffs of all state monopolies is limited only by how many percent per year the increase in prices the population of the Russian Federation can tolerate ...
      Nothing more.
      Moreover, in recent years, the state has vigorously created monopolies wherever it could reach. What is the action, such is the result. And gas will be more expensive, and railway tickets, and energy.
      I remembered a good example. I flew remember in Naberezhnye Chelny. since 2005 weekly. Only Ak Tatarstan flew. In my experience as a passenger, this is the worst airline I know in the world (I’ve traveled not a tourist, I’ve traveled to 39 countries today). So - in May 2008, Msk-N. Chelny tickets cost 19200 rubles round-trip. for 1h50m flight on the half-dead Yak-42, feeding - tea and waffle.
      In May 2008 he flew to New York. Ak Delta (also not the best in the world by the way wink ) Moscow-New York round-trip 18300 rub. For 8 hours on a very so-so comfortable plane, 2 times per flight normal feeding.
      The most miracles began further. I bought the airport in the low-frequency KAMAZ. Well, I immediately agreed on flights with 2 more airlines. Those tickets were made for 2000-3000r. There and back again wink
      This is a good visual explanation of the influence of monopoly on prices. wink
  • rugor
    rugor 10 July 2013 08: 10
    +1
    The economy of this project is interesting. Cheap nuclear energy in remote latitudes will be in demand, the question is how cheap?
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 10 July 2013 08: 46
      +4
      Quote: rugor
      the question is how cheap?
      It will depend on the number of "effective managers" who decide to feed themselves from this. wink
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 10 July 2013 17: 46
        -1
        Hmm ... we take an enterprise economics textbook and teach ... at the same time and see how much administrative expenses are involved in such projects ... The project will most likely be unprofitable even at direct costs ... not to mention the full ones.
        1. biznaw
          biznaw 10 July 2013 19: 30
          +1
          The total costs are all together, and what you mean by calling them full are called conditionally constant, since they do not directly depend on the volume of production. The salary of effective managers, in contrast to welders, locksmiths, and other workers "on a deal", is precisely taken into account in the conditionally fixed costs. The death of most of the "collective farms" is directly related to the availability of effective managers' salaries in the UPZ, or as they used to be called "red directors".
          Hmm ... it is really very useful to re-read textbooks ... any.
    2. buzuke
      buzuke 10 July 2013 09: 30
      +2
      yeah, it’s in every way cheaper than fuel oil and dt to go there on barges in the summer, and then by air the batteries and heating pipes in the winter
  • Dejavu
    Dejavu 10 July 2013 08: 18
    +3
    In Africa, they will not be priced. And some water and light.
    1. atalef
      atalef 10 July 2013 12: 26
      +1
      Quote: dejavu
      In Africa, they will not be priced. And some water and light

      AND HEAT laughing
      1. Dejavu
        Dejavu 11 July 2013 03: 38
        0
        Hehehe yeah fellow
  • scientist
    scientist 10 July 2013 08: 28
    +1
    I am sure that after testing a floating nuclear power plant, the next one will be built for export. It will be interesting to hear the conclusion of the IAEA experts and environmentalists.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 10 July 2013 08: 50
      +8
      Quote: scientist
      hear the conclusion of IAEA experts and environmentalists.

      Judging by the declared capacity of the installations and the hull displacement, the reliability there will be even higher than the ship's. But it is better not to let the IAEA "experts" and environmentalists go there, the level of their "professionalism" simply goes off scale ... lol
      1. viruskvartirus
        viruskvartirus 10 July 2013 09: 43
        +2
        Well, as for the IAEA experts, it’s in vain, and in vain ... The IAEA attracts very experienced and intelligent specialists, including Russians. And environmentalists))) their answer is always the same, we are against it because we are against it. For example, the same Belonna (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellona_(organization))fights against any projects in the nuclear field.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 10 July 2013 14: 49
          +3
          Quote: viruskvartirus
          it's you in vain, and in vain ... The IAEA attracts very experienced and sensible specialists including Russians
          Just a week ago I talked with the guys from Rosatom, Spetsstroy, etc. (former co-workers), once again heard the confirmation of his own not from scratch the prevailing opinion lol At least the fact that one of their basic requirements (priority provision of heat removal from the nuclear reactor core), which is still in force, was canceled at the USSR Navy more than 30 years ago ... winked
          Quote: viruskvartirus
          the same Belonna

          Some of their activist Nikitin, a former captain of the 1st rank of the Navy of the USSR, had the misfortune to know PERSONALLY. Rare scum and dumbness is simply phenomenal. He then still in the commission on nuclear warfare of the USSR Navy
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 10 July 2013 17: 48
        +1
        Well, actually, the IAEA experts are selected including and the best employees from MEPhI, MIPT, Kurchatnik, i.e. as if profile on the topic ...
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 10 July 2013 20: 42
          0
          Quote: cdrt
          Well, actually, the IAEA experts are selected including and the best employees from MEPhI, MIPT, Kurchatnik,

          To remind, according to WHAT criteria in our blessed country the BEST are chosen? And how these "best" learn (and then work) ... wink
  • kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 10 July 2013 08: 31
    0
    For the remote regions of the Far North and Siberia, the news is wonderful! The experience of using the Lenin atomic icebreaker as a floating nuclear power plant speaks of the effectiveness of this area of ​​energy. Go ahead shipbuilders and energy experts are a real contribution to strengthening the power of our Motherland. Just do not rush to sell abroad, build first for yourself!
  • LM66
    LM66 10 July 2013 08: 45
    +1
    Quote: NOMADE
    ((As examples: - 1 kW / hour - Vladivostok (for individuals), about 2.08 rubles

    It is interesting in Moscow 4,02 why such a difference
    1. Edward
      Edward 10 July 2013 09: 14
      +2
      the difference in the price of tickets to Moscow)))
  • Edward
    Edward 10 July 2013 08: 57
    +3
    it is still not known exactly where the first Russian FNPP will go.
    the first in New York, the second closer to Washington, the third in London, etc. .. and for all to set the clock mechanism triggered by the rating of all kinds of media against Russia :)

    and put upgraded Sharks to our shores with full ammunition and on the go, stretch wires to them ... - and let yourself track the migration of white and brown bears along with populations of sea crabs - for reporting to NATO ecologists!
    sorry for the joke ...

    seriously, skepticism is higher than I would like.
    this energy does not shine for our northern cities and ordinary people. all this in the framework of offshore oil and gas production, which will go abroad where all the revenues from the sold raw materials will remain.
  • AK-47
    AK-47 10 July 2013 08: 57
    +8
    Not so simple.
    A floating nuclear power plant is the brainchild of a shipyard, which means that it is much more technologically advanced than the modern process of erecting nuclear units, in which concrete construction is continuously interspersed with installation operations. Such a pontoon can be towed by water to almost any area, and then it becomes at the mooring wall. However, the requirements of the Maritime Register poured here, as if from a cornucopia: provide an ice-resistant pontoon hull, provide ballast tanks, roll and trim systems, anchor winches, spiers and windlass, food warehouses and galleys, cabins and cockpits, rescue and navigation equipment and a lot of elements of the ship's nomenclature, which many times increase the weight load and the cost of the project. A floating pontoon is not a safe solution for storing active zones unloaded from the station reactors. In addition, every 10 years the pontoon must undergo factory dock repairs. This means that for this period the consumer will either have a shortage of energy, or an equivalent replacement of the lost power should be ensured, which will lead even more to the cost of the project. Obviously, in order to exclude navigational accidents, ice piles and hummocks, a pontoon will require the construction of protective structures in the water area, which also seems to be an expensive facility. The personnel serving the pontoon station operate in a shift mode by analogy with a ship, which again makes operation more expensive, like any shift method.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 10 July 2013 09: 58
      +5
      And how much will the construction and operation of a surface nuclear power plant in such inaccessible areas cost? I think this is still a lot of money and a big headache. Both during construction and during operation.
      1. afire
        afire 10 July 2013 10: 08
        +3
        in any case, it’s help to the north, but it’s expensive, our north has never been cheap, but it’s a lot of energy and its extraction does not constitute a headache in such a project, and maintenance - and whatever it is - everything needs to be maintained and everything needs to be monitored otherwise they won’t move anywhere. And the north needs to be developed, the NSR can be supported by local residents only + from this, since due to the available energy it will be possible to build new energy-intensive industries. Therefore, I believe that it is better to invest a lot in such projects than to steal.
    2. atalef
      atalef 10 July 2013 12: 29
      0
      Quote: AK-47
      [/ Center]

      In and in about what kind of building on the shore? Ru, the heat center? All this turns a mobile nuclear power plant into an ordinary floating hospital. Or will it be built in every town? And when will the nuclear power plant leave? What will fill the deficit?
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 10 July 2013 13: 24
        +4
        Most likely the trick is that it is cheaper to deliver a barge and attach it to the shore than to import building materials, build, etc. It is also easier to send the reactor on a barge for reloading than to build a piece of iron through xs which jungle, and then carry fuel. And the mobile nuclear power plant itself can be used in many situations. Especially in catastrophes - she will not have a price !!!
        1. atalef
          atalef 10 July 2013 16: 26
          -1
          Quote: Wedmak
          Most likely the trick is that it is cheaper to deliver a barge and attach it to the shore than to import building materials, build, etc.

          The trick is that a 350MW station is under construction for a year.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 10 July 2013 22: 16
            +3
            Where exactly is it being built in such a time?
          2. Misantrop
            Misantrop 10 July 2013 22: 45
            +4
            Quote: atalef
            The trick is that a 350MW station is under construction for a year.

            Dear, Siberia is slightly larger than Israel. Not much, but still ... And the climate is slightly different, slightly ... lol
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 11 July 2013 00: 12
              +2
              The main problem is still not in the climate, but in the ground. There, a foundation is needed in the form of a concrete monolith, which is extremely expensive for the areas of the COP
            2. atalef
              atalef 11 July 2013 00: 22
              +2
              Quote: Misantrop
              Dear, Siberia is slightly larger than Israel. Not much, but still ... And the climate is slightly different, slightly ...

              Yes, but at least it is about the shore of the ocean, the sea, a large river. So there will be no problems with delivery. What about construction? We have few cities beyond the Arctic Circle. By the way, is it the same Gadzhievo, so that boats would not generate electricity and heat? NPS - enough, there are those that have stood at the pier for years. Whatever the city was powered up, but there were less than 200t in it.
              1. BYRY
                BYRY 11 July 2013 23: 24
                -2
                "You have a lot of cities in the Arctic Circle" ??? Miracles. I did not know that Israel was there. Well, Birobidzhan is in the Far East, this is understandable. But where else are the polar Jewish settlements? I do not know .
        2. atalef
          atalef 10 July 2013 22: 04
          -1
          Quote: Wedmak
          Most likely the trick is that it is cheaper to deliver a barge and attach it to the shore than to import building materials, build, etc. It is also easier to send the reactor on a barge for reloading than to build a piece of iron through xs which jungle, and then carry fuel. And the mobile nuclear power plant itself can be used in many situations. Especially in catastrophes - she will not have a price !!!

          Maybe yes, if only it was not about one-time projects, but not about 200t cities. population. Where will the electricity come from when it leaves? And the population in the city (even a new one does not grow at a speed of 100 tons per month (whatever there is a need) for the quick delivery of nuclear power plants for generation. And as I have already said, a 350mW gas turbine will be built a year (and bring it in blocks and faster. Cheaper, more powerful safer.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 10 July 2013 22: 12
            +4
            Quote: atalef
            Where did the electricity come from when it leaves?

            Why would she leave? It will stand until the resource is developed, then it will be replaced by a new one, and this one will be disposed of. Or build a ground.

            And as I said, a 350mW gas turbine is being built a year.

            In permafrost areas? With the transportation of everything from the reactor to the screwdrivers along the Northern Sea Route only during the summer navigation? Is not a fact. In addition, such a hospital will be released in gold.
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 10 July 2013 22: 32
            +1
            Quote: atalef
            Where did the electricity come from when it leaves?

            Surely, a replacement will be replaced in her place (both temporary shelter and full-time work until the next deadline). In any case, people will not be left without heat and electricity.
            1. atalef
              atalef 11 July 2013 00: 23
              0
              Quote: Bad_gr
              Surely, a replacement will be replaced in her place (both temporary shelter and full-time work until the next deadline). In any case, people will not be left without heat and electricity.

              Why not build a hospital right away?
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 11 July 2013 10: 51
                +2
                Quote: atalef
                Why not build a hospital right away?

                What's the point? This nuclear power plant was collected, we can say, in greenhouse conditions and towed where necessary, where it will be anchored for thirty years (by the way, what’s not a hospital?)

                And to build a nuclear power plant on permafrost is not only very expensive, but maintenance will not be spent in a penny at all. After all, you won’t take it to the enterprise to replace the spent fuel (and just to prevent it), which means that everything you need will have to be carried out to the north.
                1. atalef
                  atalef 11 July 2013 11: 36
                  0
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  What's the point? This nuclear power plant was collected, we can say, in greenhouse conditions and towed where necessary, where it will be anchored for thirty years (by the way, what’s not a hospital?)

                  Then sorry for the meaning in a mobile nuclear power plant (if for 30 years), with all its shortcomings,
                  1. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 11 July 2013 12: 47
                    +1
                    Quote: atalef
                    with all its flaws

                    What are these?
    3. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 10 July 2013 16: 46
      +1
      If you recall how much fuel oil and coal should be delivered to those areas that cannot provide for themselves + to bring out the container in which it was delivered (200 l. Barrels, etc.). In addition, coal-fired boiler rooms (I'm not talking about the power plants that operate on it) are not ice at all for nature.
      But the nuclear power plant on the barge - will justify itself.

      There was information that at Japanese nuclear power plants they use sea water for cooling, and the excess heat was always dumped into the sea.
      1. atalef
        atalef 11 July 2013 00: 24
        0
        Quote: Bad_gr
        There was information that at Japanese nuclear power plants they use sea water for cooling, and the excess heat was always dumped into the sea.

        Of course, sea water cooling is used. Only large systems, how to fit on a barge?
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 11 July 2013 00: 59
          +1
          Quote: atalef
          Only large systems, how to fit on a barge?
          Elementary. A nuclear power plant with a capacity of 90 mW has 2 main capacitors (ATG and GTZA connected by a jumper in pairs) with a working diameter of just over 1 m and a length of about 2 m. It is quite enough in all modes. There really isn’t that much heat that needs to be dumped. Steam in the turbine is triggered almost to the water, the 11th stage is already almost kneading water
          1. atalef
            atalef 11 July 2013 07: 04
            0
            Quote: Misantrop
            There really isn’t that much heat you need to dump

            Not water, but saturated steam. Are you anybody by profession.? Being in the same boat next to the steam generator, turbine and generator makes you an energy engineer, If you knew what nonsense you were writing.
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 11 July 2013 11: 36
              +2
              Quote: atalef
              If you knew what nonsense you are writing.
              And HOW do your other posts sound to the practitioner-operator ... lol Well, do not get into steam turbines if you have been dealing with gas turbines all your life, and you have heard about steam only from theoreticians at the institute. A quarter of a century ago ... I don't go to gas. Simply because I do not have sufficient information for this, except for general provisions. And by profession I am an operator of ship nuclear power plants. With considerable experience in practical operation and repair, including in a combat campaign. So this "saturated steam" was repeatedly seen alive. After the ATG with its active turbine - yes, saturated steam, but the main active-reactive turbine, the steam heat drop is almost completely triggered. For reasons of efficiency, a turbine of this type will obviously be installed on the projected installation, so that if steam gets there, then only through the etching valve discharge system (provided that there is one at all, they do not need particularly fast maneuvers)
  • JIaIIoTb
    JIaIIoTb 10 July 2013 09: 16
    +3
    There is such an organization called AKME-engineering. This organization developed a metal-cooled reactor with an output of 100 MW, with the possibility of transporting this reactor by road and rail. The reactor is designed specifically for the development of the shelf of the Arctic Ocean.
    So preparations for the battle for the north are in full swing.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 10 July 2013 09: 48
      +1
      Quote: JIaIIoTb
      with the possibility of transporting this reactor by road and rail.

      The first domestic developments of this type (railway-based nuclear power plants) are already more than 40 years old, is it really ever going to be in demand? what
    2. atalef
      atalef 10 July 2013 12: 32
      +2
      Quote: JIaIIoTb
      There is such an organization called AKME-engineering. This organization developed a metal-cooled reactor with an output of 100 MW, with the possibility of transporting this reactor by road and rail

      All this is beautiful, the only question is - cooling turbines and superheated steam, to saturated to preserve the principle of Carnot (the system of operation of thermal power plants) COOL AS WE WILL?
      1. JIaIIoTb
        JIaIIoTb 10 July 2013 13: 04
        +1
        Dear Atalef, without a clue how))) I am not an expert. I know one thing, a plant for the production of these reactors is almost built. And to be honest, I am surprised by your reaction, I understand that the Jews are the smartest, but we also have breakthroughs)))
        1. atalef
          atalef 10 July 2013 16: 28
          -1
          Quote: JIaIIoTb
          Dear Atalef, without a clue how))) I am not an expert. I know one thing, a plant for the production of these reactors is almost built. And to be honest, I am surprised by your reaction, I understand that the Jews are the smartest, but we also have breakthroughs)))

          I’m not saying that micro-NPP is not beautiful, wonderful, even. Just why? I do not see the point. Expensive, dangerous, and as a result, a hospital.
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 10 July 2013 15: 33
        +1
        Quote: atalef
        COOL AS WE WILL?

        This issue has already been successfully resolved in due time.
        Quote: Misantrop
        The first domestic developments of this type (railway-based nuclear power plants) are already more than 40 years old

        For some reason, it seems to me that over the years, applied energy has not degraded too much, they came up with something wink
        1. atalef
          atalef 10 July 2013 16: 33
          -1
          Quote: Misantrop
          This issue has already been successfully resolved in due time.

          How and where ?

          Quote: Misantrop
          For some reason, it seems to me that over the years, applied energy has not degraded too much, they came up with something

          The latest invention in the energy sector was somewhere in 1907-8. The rest of the time is an increase in efficiency due to materials, thermal insulation and more precise adjustment of the fuel combustion process.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 10 July 2013 17: 26
            +3
            Quote: atalef
            And where ?
            In SVVMIU, the main forge of personnel of the atomic fleet of the USSR. As well as some quite interesting projects. There was a rather serious university, Dubna, Obninsk, Novosibirsk, they were constantly hanging there for a month or two, working out their theoretical achievements in the experimental reactor. Including Alexandrov appeared at least once a year
            1. atalef
              atalef 10 July 2013 22: 06
              0
              Quote: Misantrop
              In SVVMIU, the main forge of personnel of the atomic fleet of the USSR.

              It is a pity that he did not answer HOW. Speaking of nuclear submarines, don’t tell me, I have a father, a submariner, and for 12 years I lived in Gadzhievo
              Since with cooling, in more detail, please.
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 10 July 2013 23: 02
                +1
                Quote: atalef
                I have a father a submariner and for 12 years I lived in Gadzhievo
                It is clear that the bay is visible from the village, and the nuclear submarines on the wall of the last house still seem to have been drawn for the first time in the early 80s. But still, to study the features of the shipboard nuclear power plant, this IMHO is still not enough ... wink
                In the same photo one of the ships of my division. And if you look very closely, you can see where my compartment is located there. Where the rear slope of the rocket block passes into the aft end, just the middle of the 7th compartment of the reactor wink
                Quote: atalef
                It is a pity that he did not answer HOW
                I don’t remember exactly, but I don’t want to lie. For a long time this project leafed through, in 1981 still. The other day I’ll try to phone with the guys, clarify, if interested
                1. atalef
                  atalef 11 July 2013 00: 27
                  0
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  It is clear that the bay is visible from the village, and the nuclear submarines on the wall of the last house still seem to have been drawn for the first time in the early 80s.

                  Probably after the 83rd, because I do not remember her.
                  1. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 11 July 2013 01: 02
                    +1
                    Quote: atalef
                    Probably after the 83rd, because I do not remember her.
                    in 81 I saw her for sure, only then it wasn’t painted so beautifully
                2. atalef
                  atalef 11 July 2013 00: 28
                  +1
                  Quote: atalef
                  But still, to study the features of the shipboard nuclear power plant, this IMHO is still not enough.

                  Well, you can certainly add the St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, as well as 25 years in the profession, not a little in my opinion.
                  1. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 11 July 2013 01: 14
                    +1
                    Quote: atalef
                    Petersburg Polytechnic

                    Our political officer was finishing it. He also liked to say that he has a "dark mechanical past" lol That's just the knowledge of the installation, to be honest, he did not shine (although he did not squint, like all the other politicians) And one of my sailors studied there. True, at the diesel faculty. Then, after the service, I recovered to the special faculty (from my submission). Met him later, was pleased
          2. Misantrop
            Misantrop 10 July 2013 20: 11
            +1
            Quote: atalef
            The latest invention in the energy sector was somewhere in 1907-8
            belay It seems that you do not consider nuclear energy as energy ... what lol
            1. atalef
              atalef 10 July 2013 22: 09
              +1
              Quote: Misantrop
              It seems that you do not consider nuclear energy as energy.

              You don’t understand what it’s about, and what’s that what makes the steam warm?
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 10 July 2013 23: 05
                +2
                Quote: atalef
                where does that heat steam?
                And the so-called MHD generators do without steam at all, as well as photovoltaic converters, wind power plants. Is this not energy? belay
                1. atalef
                  atalef 11 July 2013 00: 34
                  0
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  This is not energy

                  Electricity or power? There is a big difference. So neither MHD generators, nor photovoltaic elements contribute anything new to the energy sector. they cannot achieve the efficiency of modern thermal power plants. and consequently the low cost of kWh (we don’t take hydro power plants into account - this is not the point) And in the power system the last invention was in 4-1907.
                  1. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 11 July 2013 01: 20
                    +1
                    Quote: atalef
                    And in the power industry, the last invention in 1907-8.
                    In general, I honestly have the impression that all this is not the first time invented. Too many technical artifacts ...
      3. cdrt
        cdrt 10 July 2013 17: 53
        0
        It's so cold in the north, why chill wink
    3. strange and pretty meaningless
      strange and pretty meaningless 10 July 2013 13: 28
      +2
      Quote: JIaIIoTb
      metal cooled reactor

      belay If we are talking about a metal HEAT CARRIER of the first circuit, then this reactor was used live on Soviet submarines of projects 705, 705K - in the 70s. The lead-bismuth alloy was used as the primary coolant.
      1. GHG
        GHG 10 July 2013 14: 32
        +1
        It will be cooled by sea water through a condenser, like the nuclear submarines and the icebreakers. The world’s ocean is not a lake, and the station is then low-power compared to other nuclear power plants.
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 10 July 2013 17: 55
          -1
          hmm ... but you can also recall the problems with cracking, which were on boats with a metal coolant ... Here is a holiday that will be to the city, from such a station I eat
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 10 July 2013 18: 41
            +2
            Quote: cdrt
            recall the problems with cracking, which on boats with a metal coolant were ...
            With cracking WHAT? belay With the difficulties of providing heat from the shore with the installation removed, I remember. With slagging of the circuit due to the postponement of the coolant filtering periods, too. Even with a coolant leak on the deck flooring I remember (I even saw it). But with cracking ... what Do not share the secret? wink
            1. atalef
              atalef 10 July 2013 22: 20
              -1
              Quote: Misantrop
              With slagging of the circuit due to the postponement of the coolant filtering periods, too. Even with a coolant leak on the deck flooring I remember (I even saw it). But with cracking ... Do not share the innermost?

              a reactor with a metal coolant is now not used anywhere (neither in the states nor in Russia), the only place where they are promising is space.
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 10 July 2013 23: 14
                +1
                Quote: atalef
                a reactor with a metal coolant is now not used anywhere (neither in the states nor in Russia)

                And again I did not guess ... request Beloyarsk NPP with a BN-600 reactor. Sodium as a heat carrier
                http://www.ippe.ru/podr/ippe1/rpr/3-7rpr.php
                1. atalef
                  atalef 11 July 2013 00: 41
                  0
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  And again I did not guess ... Beloyarsk nuclear power plant with a BN-600 reactor. Sodium as a heat carrier

                  The only fast neutron reactor, soon more research and for the development of fuel. , as well as its power of 600mW. 30 years working since built already - what to do, do not intend to build anything else like that. The reactor is healthy, you can’t drown it in the New Earth.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 11 July 2013 00: 51
                    +2
                    Quote: atalef
                    they’re not going to build anything like that anymore.

                    Build. Another power unit. In 2014 should be commissioned
                  2. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 11 July 2013 01: 23
                    0
                    Quote: atalef
                    are not going to build anything like that anymore

                    The funny thing is that they seem to be going. Only so far have not really decided on the concept to the end. The acquaintance is just a doctor of science in this topic. By ear, to be honest, it sounded pretty crazy, but nonetheless ...
          2. GHG
            GHG 10 July 2013 19: 14
            +1
            The reactor, in any case, will be water-water, the simplest and most perfect.
  • pensioner
    pensioner 10 July 2013 09: 20
    +1
    Great news. This will be the thing !! The problem in the development of the Far North is, by and large, the same - energy shortages. Surely this is precisely the reason for the development of the FNPP. Opportunities will open wide.
    1. pensioner
      pensioner 10 July 2013 18: 10
      +1
      No, well, I understand everything ... But, what would be against the development of energy ... Who are you, Gulchatai? Open your face! Well, explain yourself! Let's talk. I am also not special in nuclear energy. If you want, I’ll invite specialists. Very good ones. The heat and power department of UPI is not completely alien to me. Do you have enough doctors?
  • Darth Revan
    Darth Revan 10 July 2013 09: 22
    0
    Quote: scientist
    hear the conclusion of IAEA experts and environmentalists


    For the first time I hear about such :)))
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 10 July 2013 09: 27
    +2
    These stations still need to be assigned protection. It will be very great the temptation of the bearded to seize such a ship. So deliveries abroad of these ships, the question is still open.
    1. pensioner
      pensioner 10 July 2013 09: 33
      +1
      Well, the security will be, I hope, at the appropriate level. The object is strategic.
      1. GHG
        GHG 10 July 2013 19: 16
        0
        Well, after all, icebreakers do not capture ... I don’t think they are guarded by a guard battalion wassat
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 10 July 2013 22: 27
          0
          Well, after all, icebreakers do not capture ...

          And who has them, where are they and how many are there? Stored up to get them. But such stations, and even for export ...
  • royk
    royk 10 July 2013 09: 38
    +2
    Great surprise! Pleasantly surprised. It would not be bad to bring the technology to more mobile options. Consider, if such a station comes to any place and starts supplying any city, then it will be difficult to refuse such an atomic power station and send it to another place. It turns out that it will play the role of stationary. No, of course, this does not take away the pluses from the current project, but it's time to do a lot of small ones, instead of one big one.
  • NOMADE
    NOMADE 10 July 2013 09: 41
    0
    Quote: afire
    yes good to complain, in the Moscow region tariff 4.01 hi , but lately there has been an active gasification of the eastern part, so soon heating can be converted to gas - more economical, and everyone is switching to energy-saving technologies - there are simply no options and no one wants to pay a lot. Do you have such ridiculous prices because of the Bilibino NPP? a lot of extra energy? it’s just that you voiced one-sidedly, your complaints about prices are not entirely clear.
    Yes, we have normal prices, you just need to save money on learning, and not burn the light for nothing.


    )) Sorry, I made a mistake with the cost, it is 2.8 rubles, for individuals - for legal entities more than 4 rubles. (The question is, what kind of competition with the Chinese industry, even when compared to electricity. Maybe ..?.)
    It turns out cheaper than in Moscow, but also the level of Z.P. and life in Moscow is higher, gasoline is better and cheaper by 2-3 rubles)))) I do not complain, I just resent the sale policy for pennies - electricity. The same thing with oil and gas. The paradox is that coming and refueling in a border town in China comes out even a little cheaper. This is despite the fact that we sell it to them))
    I agree on gas, a good thing. Only gasification of Primorye - while more in words ((
    1. afire
      afire 10 July 2013 10: 18
      +2
      I believe that we all should not despair, hope, as always, for the best, the nose in the wind. If you can buy gasoline cheaper at the border in China, it does not mean that he will have the same price at, say, 500 km from the border with the Russian Federation, transport will start to eat up, delivery, etc. The same energy 1000km from the borders with the Russian Federation will be even more expensive, but here China does not inflate the price, since it did not spend anything on delivery - it plays honestly with its residents, and who told you that cheap Chinese means high-quality? Mm, Already I have no equal to this))) therefore it is better with its 100% 92m gasoline than the 95th (read 80) Chinese gasoline.
  • VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 10 July 2013 10: 22
    +1
    I heard somewhere that "Lomonosov" will be sent to Vilyuchinsk
  • NOMADE
    NOMADE 10 July 2013 10: 27
    +2
    Quote: GES
    Do you know what the electricity tariff is made up of? The initial cost is the selling price per kW, goes to the owner of the TGK, OGK and the like, then it (electricity) is distributed by region, oblast, district, city. IDGC, FGC is engaged in this. Further, the mark-up for all kinds of network companies. But it is necessary to maintain the lines, substations in good condition, because so much was lost in 90-2000. Physically and morally, the equipment is outdated and worn out. We overpay for updating the equipment, the Chinese have a shorter "food chain" and have signed a long-term contract. This system is complex, but I understood this issue as it should be.


    +1, that's right.
    But there is one point. They collect all the power not only from Primorye, but partly from other regions. Recently, there was an article in one of the local publications that you see that Primorye lacks capacity to meet the growing needs of China. Therefore, it is planned to build 2 more new power plants, and the construction of new high-voltage lines from central Russia .. It turns out that "effective managers" at the expense of state money, provide themselves, in fact, a legalized "milking" of the population, at the expense of the sale of China (and as a result - their enrichment.
    And in order to reduce the consumption of electricity by the population, they lobbied through the Duma - "the social norm of electricity consumption." Want to laugh at this norm? This is 120 kW for 1 person.! It was supposed to take 2-3 times more money over the norm! If it had not started "seething" among the masses, they would have introduced. But the governor was afraid of a social explosion (+ elections soon), and the introduction of this project was postponed.
    1. GHG
      GHG 10 July 2013 14: 15
      +1
      To be honest, you are interested in this. Then take an interest in this topic BALANCING MARKET and what kind of organization "SO UES" is. I myself have previously worked in this system and I know how rates for overruns are increased. This is a SYSTEM OPERATOR OF A UNIFIED ENERGY SYSTEM. They are guided by only one rule, pay too much, and if you are a large businessman with your large enterprise and did not get enough money before your application, then pay too.
      All this under the pretext of improving the quality of electricity, i.e. constancy of frequency and voltage.
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 10 July 2013 17: 59
        +1
        But by the way, why is it unfair ... If you have badly planned your production, this is your problem, why others should suffer because of you (more precisely because of your downtime) - the same power plants will have to produce less, the proceeds will be counted. And all because you are ... unreasonable. If you don’t want to, conclude a good contract with an energy sales company, buy it yourself, turn around ...
        1. GHG
          GHG 10 July 2013 19: 18
          0
          What you planned is what you buy according to the norms. the price of everything above market value ... it’s more expensive.
  • Tatar
    Tatar 10 July 2013 11: 01
    0
    and for this business it was possible to adapt "sharks" with their capacity of 380 MW for both reactors, and any decommissioned submarine after repair and refinement. so also safety in the event of storms or devastating tsunamis, undocked in depth
  • Russ69
    Russ69 10 July 2013 11: 52
    0
    For me, such a floating nuclear power plant is extremely necessary for us. And how much, the operation will show.
  • Foooxxxxx
    Foooxxxxx 10 July 2013 16: 15
    -2
    It is necessary to refuse nuclear power plants, and they still make floating ones, God forbid some kind of catastrophe in the ocean, this was still not enough ...
  • MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 10 July 2013 19: 29
    +2
    We were one of the first in the world to build peaceful nuclear power plants .. They work in many countries of the world .. (Chernobyl is a muddy story ..) Floating nuclear power plants is not a bad idea for the North of the tundra .. They need to be there (deer to light up !! joke !!) ..SIBERIA AND NORTH is a stronghold of Russia !! There would be more such floating stations !!! We would have muddied such things there !!!
  • alex86
    alex86 10 July 2013 19: 42
    +1
    I have vague memories that in the 60s, along with the implemented mobile nuclear power plant, there was a floating one (or had a dream? ...) But discussions and development were definitely ...
  • earthling
    earthling 10 July 2013 20: 08
    +2
    A good "thing" for feeding a combat laser. wink
  • Apollo
    Apollo 10 July 2013 22: 10
    +3
    Theme video



    extension

    1. Tersky
      Tersky 10 July 2013 23: 03
      +2
      Quote: Apollon
      Theme video

      Apollo, hi ! Yes, the casket itself simply opens. The decision to build the FNPP on Sevmash was made when the plant had an order for only two nuclear submarines and the prospects for new orders were still vague. And vice versa - “Academician Lomonosov” was removed from construction in 2008, when the plant had four nuclear submarines at different stages of construction, two more were awaited, the Northern Fleet was repaired, and Admiral Gorshkov was upgraded for the Indian customer. At the same time, the Baltic Plant was on the verge of survival and did not have large orders.
      As a result, it was the order for the FNPP that allowed the Baltic Shipyard to retain competence in the field of nuclear shipbuilding (it should be noted that in addition to the platform itself, the Baltic Shipyard produces steam generators for KLT-40С reactors). For the construction of the FNPP in June of the 2012, the plant received a Rostekhnadzor license for a period up to 2017 of the year, which permits the assembly, installation, commissioning, testing and testing of equipment and systems of a nuclear installation, installation and commissioning of nuclear reactors, as well as their preparation for loading nuclear materials at the FNPP and the future nuclear icebreaker, the contract for which at that time was not yet. So this project, unless of course there is a potential buyer, will remain in a single copy.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Conepatus
    Conepatus 11 July 2013 00: 00
    0
    Bring such a thing to the South Pole and you can build a small city on an ongoing basis. To stake out the main place, then let the world public fall as much as you like, anyway they will come and beg for electricity.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 11 July 2013 00: 21
      0
      Quote: Conepatus
      Fit such a thing to the South Pole and you can build a small city on an ongoing basis

      It is impossible. Nuclear-free zone. Nuclear-powered icebreakers are prohibited there.
  • vkrav
    vkrav 11 July 2013 01: 43
    +2
    Here it is - a tool for developing the North and the Far East! We drove it to the right place, if necessary we dragged it ashore, or artificial ground. We drove a floating (or modular) oil refinery or gas liquefaction plant. And export the finished product. More than sure- - if there will be floating nuclear power plants - there will be floating processing plants. And specific parameters will still be specified in accordance with specific tasks. It is simply striking that there is an attempt to create a universal mobile installation for all occasions.
  • svoboda1970
    svoboda1970 12 July 2013 17: 32
    0
    I wonder how this thing has security?
    And by what forces will its security be ensured?