This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
-- Alex 13:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The citation given does not really support this statement and appears to me not to make much sense anyway because it states that a high price of uranium is making MOX not cost effective (which is the wrong way round). Also, the cited article clearly has a political agenda (which is not proof they are talking nonsense but does make them suspect).
This section could do with a clear source, and also a clear indication of what the danger is: is it proliferation (people might extract the plutonium to make bombs) or the less forgiving nature of the fuel (which should be safe enough when used in reactors that were actually able to obtain a license to burn the stuff)? Man with two legs 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The sentence discussed above has since disappeared from the article Man with two legs 11:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It says:
I question if this is correct. Pu-240 has a critical mass of 40kg according to the article on critical mass, lower than U-235. Either it is very reluctant to fission with slow neutrons, or it is not a nuclear poison. Does anyone know for sure? Man with two legs 17:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Pu-240 does not have an extremely high thermal neutron capture cross section [1] (only slightly more than Pu-239's cross section for capture without fission) but it does have a very low thermal neutron cross section for fission. It is not fissile, though "neutron poison" is an exaggeration.
However, Pu-241 appears to have an even higher cross section than Pu-239! (35% higher total, same 75% chance of fission) So decay to Am-241 is reducing the quality of the remaining Pu, not improving it as the article currently says.
In general it seems that the nuclides with odd numbers of neutrons are fissionable with thermal neutrons, and the nuclides with even numbers of neutrons are not. -- JWB 14:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a comment in the introduction that MOX fuel is a proliferation risk. If the plutonium therein is not weapons grade, then I don't see how it can be. I have put a citation needed tag on it for the time being. Thoughts, anyone?
Man with two legs ( talk) 15:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I moved my entries to nuclear reprocessing. Simesa ( talk) 05:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason to include Thorium in an article about mixed OXIDE uranium fuel. We don't mention coal or petroleum in this article either. Please don't readd it. 74.237.158.41 ( talk) 14:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is likely to mistake coal or petroleum for nuclear fuel. However the fuel with thorium oxide and plutonium oxide is a mixed oxide nuclear fuel. If the term is restricted to uranium oxide and plutonium oxide (sources?) this needs to be explained. -- JWB ( talk) 15:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
" Q: What is mixed oxide fuel?
A: Mixed oxide fuel is a mixture of uranium oxide with plutonium oxide. It can be safely used in commercial nuclear reactors, and has been successfully used as a fuel source in Europe for more than 20 years. In the U.S., the National Academy of Sciences has studied mixed oxide technology and recommends the process as a preferred means of safely disposing of surplus plutonium. "
source: http://www.moxproject.com/about/faq.shtml
74.237.158.41 ( talk) 17:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Great. So the article should have the explanation that the industry definition (or at least one common usage) is this non-obvious one. -- JWB ( talk) 17:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The industry term is the only reason this phrase exists. Mixed oxide is not a scientific term. MOX term used by the project spearheaded by Areva and the US Department of Energy. You can read more about it at moxproject.com. The use of mixed oxide to describe Thorium Oxide - Plutonium Oxide is a neologism that you invented and does not need to be explained in a wikipedia article about MOX. 74.237.158.41 ( talk) 18:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The phrasing did not say that the MOX name applies to fuels containing thorium oxide - it said that it did *not* apply.
The purpose of the article is to explain. If you already know all the specifics like this jargon usage of "MOX", you do not need to read the article in the first place. -- JWB ( talk) 18:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is going to make the mistake that it does apply to other oxides (titanium dioxide for instance :)) because the first paragraph states "Mixed oxide, or MOX fuel, is a blend of oxides of plutonium and natural uranium, reprocessed uranium, or depleted uranium which behaves similarly (though not identically) to the low enriched uranium feed for which most nuclear reactors were designed. MOX fuel is an alternative to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel used in the light water reactors that predominate nuclear power generation." There is no need to mention a competing technology in the second paragraph of this article. If you want to add a section for competing technologies at the bottom of the article you are free to do so. 74.237.158.41 ( talk) 18:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, this has led me to do a little research. It turns out the statement that MOX does not refer to Th/Pu fuels is false - there are abundant references to "Thorium MOX":
So "MOX" is used in the literature both to refer to a specific uranium-plutonium composition and as a generic term; the former derived from the latter by synecdoche, specifically Totum pro parte. -- JWB ( talk) 02:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This is english speaking wikipedia, which makes use of secondary sources from english speaking countries. You may be able to find references to Thorium-MOX or TMOX if you look for sources in non english speaking countries, but as you probably gathered after looking for your sources nobody refers to thorium fuel sources as only "MOX fuel" without further qualification. There are two possibilities. We can move this article to Mox Project and make the current article a subsection on the fuel used for the Mox Project, or you can let the article stay as it is.
Onto the second subject, just to make clear because I've been seeing something promoted a lot on the internet recently. Have you ever been compensated by Thorium Power Ltd either directly or indirectly, where compensation includes cash; free or restricted stock of common or preferred equity shares of OTCBB:THPW; services; or favorable treatment by this corporation? Are you knowingly invested in OTCBB:THPW using personal or a 3rd party's funds?
I am not employed by the US Government(DOE,NNSA), Areva, or Shaw Industries. I have never received anything from these corporations and have never invested in their stock. I have no Conflict of Interest other than making sure wikipedia is as accurate as possible. 74.237.158.41 ( talk) 02:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not employed or compensated by anyone in or related to the nuclear industry. If you take even a casual look at my edits you will see I am not pushing thorium or any particular technology.
We are not restricted to the "two possibilities" you mention. We can simply describe the actual situation and document "mixed oxide" as a term with the obvious, generic meaning, and a conventional, more specific meaning. This is a situation similar to many other terms.
The idea of disqualifying sources published in good English by Europeans, Japanese or Indians is new to me, and particularly bizarre since you are citing Areva which is a European company. If you are not simply making this up please give a policy link. Most work on MOX has been outside the native English speaking countries and if you disqualify this there is not much left. -- JWB ( talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about not following the guidelines that discourage anonmynity but this is my first time posting on wiki. At any rate, I just wanted to add that I am doing my thesis on thorium fuel cycles and, therefore, have seen many talks on the subject. Although it sometimes is a point of confusion (that needs further clarification), MOX is used to describe other mixed oxide fuels. I this is insufficient evidence but I'd advise the editors of this page to consider broadening the definition. 173.230.162.216 ( talk) 19:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)SomeNukeStudent
An editor recently changed all the instances of isotope names to the Nuclide2 template, which shows the atomic number and atomic mass number is preceding subscript and subscript before the element symbol. This is standard notation in the specialist technical literature, but seems inappropriate for a popular encyclopedia article since it is unfamiliar to most readers. I propose to revert to notation that uses either the element name or the element symbol followed by the atomic mass number, e.g. plutonium-239 or Pu-239. Comments? NPguy ( talk) 15:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an important article about a subject with important implications. Therefore, the lack of citations to enable verification of the article's statements is disappointing. Also, direct quotations or attributing statements to a particular person or organization require pinpoint citations to the source. If this is not corrected within 30 days, I will delete unsourced material.— Finell 02:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
As we are learning from the Fuchishma plant, in the case of core meltdown, all fuels do not pose the same risk. MOX, because of its plutonium, is much more dangerous. This is certainly an important consideration when evaluating which fuel to use, and needs prominent inclusion in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.150.132 ( talk) 16:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"Reprocessing of commercial nuclear fuel to make MOX is done in the United Kingdom and France" says the article. Citation needed, says I.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf29.html might have been the source, but although it claims to have been updated in 2012, it appears not to have noticed that the closure of UK reprocessing at Sellafield was announced in 2011, as seen in Wikipedia article on Sellafield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.247.139 ( talk) 10:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Just France. France is producing MOX fuel for its own reactors and for other countries that send their spent fuel to La Hague for reprocessing. France's customers have included Japan, Belgium, and Germany, but Switzerland may be the only one left. The United Kingdom has a MOX plant that never reached full-scale operation, after MOX fabricated for Japan failed quality control tests. Japan has not yet completed its own MOX plant. The United States is also building a MOX plant for disposition of excess plutonium from weapons. NPguy ( talk) 02:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
nice summary of the state of Japan's MOX plans and the amount of money spent, also much needed perspective on what it may be good for and what not (notably the argument that it diverts much needed funds from renewables): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/05/national/science-health/japans-%C2%A52-9-trillion-nuclear-recycling-quest-coming-three-decades/
This reactor has Mox and is in meltdown. SaintAviator ( talk) 02:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on MOX fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I removed the following statement from the introduction.
"Although MOX fuel can be used in thermal reactors to provide energy, efficient fission of plutonium in MOX can only be achieved in fast reactors.[1]"
I have a few reasons, not in order of importance:
1) The statement is not cited correctly. This article: referenced text on page 198, but the index at the end of the book ends at page 197. After some searching, I found some relevant text on page 57, which I will discuss below.
BTW, this book is the referenced source: "Burakov, B. E.; Ojovan, M. I.; Lee, W. E. (2010). Crystalline Materials for Actinide Immobilisation. London: Imperial College Press. p. 198."
2) The book states that "Although MOX fuel can be used in thermal reactors to provide energy, efficient burning of plutonium in MOX can only be achieved in fast reactors" which is not quite the same statement made in the wikipedia article. The text that follows (in the book) discusses how much of the initial plutonium is consumed, and how much is transmuted into non-fissile isotopes, and what the implications are. The referenced statement in the book appears to be about destruction of fissile plutonium by all sources, not just fission. Also, this context doesn't refer to the usual meanings of efficient fission that readers might expect, such as neutron economy or net energy production.
3) This detail is too subtle and easily misunderstood to include in the introduction, especially where it was located. If inclusion in this article is warranted, it belongs in the section on fast reactors.
Echawkes ( talk) 22:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Rosatom began industrial production of MOX fuel in September 2015 at its Mining and Chemical Combine in Zheleznogorsk, Krasnoyarsk Territory. The design capacity of the launch complex is 400 fuel assemblies per year and was supposed to be achieved in 2019, however, in reality, industrial production began already in August 2018, when the first batch of fuel assemblies was sent to the Beloyarsk NPP [13]. At the MCC, nuclear fuel will be produced from recovered materials, including high-level plutonium. More than 20 enterprises of the Russian nuclear industry took part in the launch of this production.
https://ria.ru/20190827/1557945434.html
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX-%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE
http://www.rosatominternational.com/news/2016/11/29-11-1
--
145.255.168.249 (
talk) 21:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
-- Alex 13:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The citation given does not really support this statement and appears to me not to make much sense anyway because it states that a high price of uranium is making MOX not cost effective (which is the wrong way round). Also, the cited article clearly has a political agenda (which is not proof they are talking nonsense but does make them suspect).
This section could do with a clear source, and also a clear indication of what the danger is: is it proliferation (people might extract the plutonium to make bombs) or the less forgiving nature of the fuel (which should be safe enough when used in reactors that were actually able to obtain a license to burn the stuff)? Man with two legs 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The sentence discussed above has since disappeared from the article Man with two legs 11:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It says:
I question if this is correct. Pu-240 has a critical mass of 40kg according to the article on critical mass, lower than U-235. Either it is very reluctant to fission with slow neutrons, or it is not a nuclear poison. Does anyone know for sure? Man with two legs 17:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Pu-240 does not have an extremely high thermal neutron capture cross section [1] (only slightly more than Pu-239's cross section for capture without fission) but it does have a very low thermal neutron cross section for fission. It is not fissile, though "neutron poison" is an exaggeration.
However, Pu-241 appears to have an even higher cross section than Pu-239! (35% higher total, same 75% chance of fission) So decay to Am-241 is reducing the quality of the remaining Pu, not improving it as the article currently says.
In general it seems that the nuclides with odd numbers of neutrons are fissionable with thermal neutrons, and the nuclides with even numbers of neutrons are not. -- JWB 14:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a comment in the introduction that MOX fuel is a proliferation risk. If the plutonium therein is not weapons grade, then I don't see how it can be. I have put a citation needed tag on it for the time being. Thoughts, anyone?
Man with two legs ( talk) 15:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I moved my entries to nuclear reprocessing. Simesa ( talk) 05:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason to include Thorium in an article about mixed OXIDE uranium fuel. We don't mention coal or petroleum in this article either. Please don't readd it. 74.237.158.41 ( talk) 14:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is likely to mistake coal or petroleum for nuclear fuel. However the fuel with thorium oxide and plutonium oxide is a mixed oxide nuclear fuel. If the term is restricted to uranium oxide and plutonium oxide (sources?) this needs to be explained. -- JWB ( talk) 15:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
" Q: What is mixed oxide fuel?
A: Mixed oxide fuel is a mixture of uranium oxide with plutonium oxide. It can be safely used in commercial nuclear reactors, and has been successfully used as a fuel source in Europe for more than 20 years. In the U.S., the National Academy of Sciences has studied mixed oxide technology and recommends the process as a preferred means of safely disposing of surplus plutonium. "
source: http://www.moxproject.com/about/faq.shtml
74.237.158.41 ( talk) 17:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Great. So the article should have the explanation that the industry definition (or at least one common usage) is this non-obvious one. -- JWB ( talk) 17:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The industry term is the only reason this phrase exists. Mixed oxide is not a scientific term. MOX term used by the project spearheaded by Areva and the US Department of Energy. You can read more about it at moxproject.com. The use of mixed oxide to describe Thorium Oxide - Plutonium Oxide is a neologism that you invented and does not need to be explained in a wikipedia article about MOX. 74.237.158.41 ( talk) 18:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The phrasing did not say that the MOX name applies to fuels containing thorium oxide - it said that it did *not* apply.
The purpose of the article is to explain. If you already know all the specifics like this jargon usage of "MOX", you do not need to read the article in the first place. -- JWB ( talk) 18:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is going to make the mistake that it does apply to other oxides (titanium dioxide for instance :)) because the first paragraph states "Mixed oxide, or MOX fuel, is a blend of oxides of plutonium and natural uranium, reprocessed uranium, or depleted uranium which behaves similarly (though not identically) to the low enriched uranium feed for which most nuclear reactors were designed. MOX fuel is an alternative to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel used in the light water reactors that predominate nuclear power generation." There is no need to mention a competing technology in the second paragraph of this article. If you want to add a section for competing technologies at the bottom of the article you are free to do so. 74.237.158.41 ( talk) 18:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, this has led me to do a little research. It turns out the statement that MOX does not refer to Th/Pu fuels is false - there are abundant references to "Thorium MOX":
So "MOX" is used in the literature both to refer to a specific uranium-plutonium composition and as a generic term; the former derived from the latter by synecdoche, specifically Totum pro parte. -- JWB ( talk) 02:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This is english speaking wikipedia, which makes use of secondary sources from english speaking countries. You may be able to find references to Thorium-MOX or TMOX if you look for sources in non english speaking countries, but as you probably gathered after looking for your sources nobody refers to thorium fuel sources as only "MOX fuel" without further qualification. There are two possibilities. We can move this article to Mox Project and make the current article a subsection on the fuel used for the Mox Project, or you can let the article stay as it is.
Onto the second subject, just to make clear because I've been seeing something promoted a lot on the internet recently. Have you ever been compensated by Thorium Power Ltd either directly or indirectly, where compensation includes cash; free or restricted stock of common or preferred equity shares of OTCBB:THPW; services; or favorable treatment by this corporation? Are you knowingly invested in OTCBB:THPW using personal or a 3rd party's funds?
I am not employed by the US Government(DOE,NNSA), Areva, or Shaw Industries. I have never received anything from these corporations and have never invested in their stock. I have no Conflict of Interest other than making sure wikipedia is as accurate as possible. 74.237.158.41 ( talk) 02:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not employed or compensated by anyone in or related to the nuclear industry. If you take even a casual look at my edits you will see I am not pushing thorium or any particular technology.
We are not restricted to the "two possibilities" you mention. We can simply describe the actual situation and document "mixed oxide" as a term with the obvious, generic meaning, and a conventional, more specific meaning. This is a situation similar to many other terms.
The idea of disqualifying sources published in good English by Europeans, Japanese or Indians is new to me, and particularly bizarre since you are citing Areva which is a European company. If you are not simply making this up please give a policy link. Most work on MOX has been outside the native English speaking countries and if you disqualify this there is not much left. -- JWB ( talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about not following the guidelines that discourage anonmynity but this is my first time posting on wiki. At any rate, I just wanted to add that I am doing my thesis on thorium fuel cycles and, therefore, have seen many talks on the subject. Although it sometimes is a point of confusion (that needs further clarification), MOX is used to describe other mixed oxide fuels. I this is insufficient evidence but I'd advise the editors of this page to consider broadening the definition. 173.230.162.216 ( talk) 19:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)SomeNukeStudent
An editor recently changed all the instances of isotope names to the Nuclide2 template, which shows the atomic number and atomic mass number is preceding subscript and subscript before the element symbol. This is standard notation in the specialist technical literature, but seems inappropriate for a popular encyclopedia article since it is unfamiliar to most readers. I propose to revert to notation that uses either the element name or the element symbol followed by the atomic mass number, e.g. plutonium-239 or Pu-239. Comments? NPguy ( talk) 15:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an important article about a subject with important implications. Therefore, the lack of citations to enable verification of the article's statements is disappointing. Also, direct quotations or attributing statements to a particular person or organization require pinpoint citations to the source. If this is not corrected within 30 days, I will delete unsourced material.— Finell 02:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
As we are learning from the Fuchishma plant, in the case of core meltdown, all fuels do not pose the same risk. MOX, because of its plutonium, is much more dangerous. This is certainly an important consideration when evaluating which fuel to use, and needs prominent inclusion in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.150.132 ( talk) 16:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"Reprocessing of commercial nuclear fuel to make MOX is done in the United Kingdom and France" says the article. Citation needed, says I.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf29.html might have been the source, but although it claims to have been updated in 2012, it appears not to have noticed that the closure of UK reprocessing at Sellafield was announced in 2011, as seen in Wikipedia article on Sellafield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.247.139 ( talk) 10:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Just France. France is producing MOX fuel for its own reactors and for other countries that send their spent fuel to La Hague for reprocessing. France's customers have included Japan, Belgium, and Germany, but Switzerland may be the only one left. The United Kingdom has a MOX plant that never reached full-scale operation, after MOX fabricated for Japan failed quality control tests. Japan has not yet completed its own MOX plant. The United States is also building a MOX plant for disposition of excess plutonium from weapons. NPguy ( talk) 02:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
nice summary of the state of Japan's MOX plans and the amount of money spent, also much needed perspective on what it may be good for and what not (notably the argument that it diverts much needed funds from renewables): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/05/national/science-health/japans-%C2%A52-9-trillion-nuclear-recycling-quest-coming-three-decades/
This reactor has Mox and is in meltdown. SaintAviator ( talk) 02:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on MOX fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I removed the following statement from the introduction.
"Although MOX fuel can be used in thermal reactors to provide energy, efficient fission of plutonium in MOX can only be achieved in fast reactors.[1]"
I have a few reasons, not in order of importance:
1) The statement is not cited correctly. This article: referenced text on page 198, but the index at the end of the book ends at page 197. After some searching, I found some relevant text on page 57, which I will discuss below.
BTW, this book is the referenced source: "Burakov, B. E.; Ojovan, M. I.; Lee, W. E. (2010). Crystalline Materials for Actinide Immobilisation. London: Imperial College Press. p. 198."
2) The book states that "Although MOX fuel can be used in thermal reactors to provide energy, efficient burning of plutonium in MOX can only be achieved in fast reactors" which is not quite the same statement made in the wikipedia article. The text that follows (in the book) discusses how much of the initial plutonium is consumed, and how much is transmuted into non-fissile isotopes, and what the implications are. The referenced statement in the book appears to be about destruction of fissile plutonium by all sources, not just fission. Also, this context doesn't refer to the usual meanings of efficient fission that readers might expect, such as neutron economy or net energy production.
3) This detail is too subtle and easily misunderstood to include in the introduction, especially where it was located. If inclusion in this article is warranted, it belongs in the section on fast reactors.
Echawkes ( talk) 22:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Rosatom began industrial production of MOX fuel in September 2015 at its Mining and Chemical Combine in Zheleznogorsk, Krasnoyarsk Territory. The design capacity of the launch complex is 400 fuel assemblies per year and was supposed to be achieved in 2019, however, in reality, industrial production began already in August 2018, when the first batch of fuel assemblies was sent to the Beloyarsk NPP [13]. At the MCC, nuclear fuel will be produced from recovered materials, including high-level plutonium. More than 20 enterprises of the Russian nuclear industry took part in the launch of this production.
https://ria.ru/20190827/1557945434.html
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX-%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE
http://www.rosatominternational.com/news/2016/11/29-11-1
--
145.255.168.249 (
talk) 21:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)