In U-235 atoms, the nucleus, which is composed of protons and neutrons, is unstable. As the nuclei break up, they release neutrons.

The difference is that nuclear plants do not burn anything. Instead, they use uranium fuel, consisting of solid ceramic pellets, to produce electricity through a process called fission.

Nuclear plants, like plants that burn coal, oil and natural gas, produce electricity by boiling water into steam.

Uranium comes in two forms, U-235 and U-238. As found in nature, uranium is more than 99 percent U-238; unfortunately, U-235 is what is used in power plants. U-238 can also be processed into plutonium, which is also fissionable.

The mining process is similar to coal mining, with both open pit and underground mines. It produces similar environmental impacts, with the added hazard that uranium mine tailings are radioactive. Groundwater can be polluted not only from the heavy metals present in mine waste, but also from the traces of radioactive uranium still left in the waste. Half of the people employed by the uranium mining industry work on cleaning up the mines after use.

To be mined as a fuel, however, it must be sufficiently concentrated, making up at least one hundred parts per million (0.01 percent) of the rock it is in.

Uranium is found in a number of geological formations, as well as sea water

The time it takes to lose half of its radioactivity is called a "half life." U-238, the most common form of uranium, has a half life of 4.5 billion years.

Uranium is one of the least plentiful minerals—making up only two parts per million in the earth's crust—but because of its radioactivity it is a plentiful supply of energy. One pound of uranium has as much energy as three million pounds of coal.

In nuclear power plants, neutrons collide with uranium atoms, splitting them. This split releases neutrons from the uranium that in turn collide with other atoms, causing a chain reaction. This chain reaction is controlled with "control rods" that absorb neutrons.

When bombarded with a neutron, it can be split apart, a process called fission (pictured to the right). Because uranium atoms are so large, the atomic force that binds it together is relatively weak, making uranium good for fission.

The nucleus of an atom is held together with great force, the "strongest force in nature."

The administrators of the central ministries, planning agencies, and big state trusts joined the lower-level administrators, technical functionaries, and the intellectual elite that formed the social base of the "democrats" led by Boris Yeltsin, in opting for capitalist restoration. They saw this as the only way to secure their material privileges in the face of the disintegrating "command" system.

With the coming to governmental power of openly pro-capitalist politicians in the wake of the collapse of the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe, there was a decisive shift in the outlook and orientation of the Soviet bureaucracy.

By 1991, the Bush administration reconsidered policy options in light of the growing level of turmoil within the Soviet Union. Three basic options presented themselves. The administration could continue to support Gorbachev in hopes of preventing Soviet disintegration. Alternately, the United States could shift support to Yeltsin and the leaders of the Republics and provide support for a controlled restructuring or possible breakup of the Soviet Union. The final option consisted of lending conditional support to Gorbachev, leveraging aid and assistance in return for more rapid and radical political and economic reforms.

After the demise of Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and the Caucasus demanded independence from Moscow. In January 1991, violence erupted in Lithuania and Latvia. Soviet tanks intervened to halt the democratic uprisings, a move that Bush resolutely condemned.

Gorbachev’s decision to allow elections with a multi-party system and create a presidency for the Soviet Union began a slow process of democratization that eventually destabilized Communist control and contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

the rapid changes in Eastern Europe. Bush encouraged Gorbachev’s reform efforts, hoping that the Soviet leader would succeed in shifting the USSR toward a democratic system and a market oriented economy.

Gorbachev’s decision to loosen the Soviet yoke on the countries of Eastern Europe created an independent, democratic momentum that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, and then the overthrow of Communist rule throughout Eastern Europe.

George H.W. Bush did not automatically follow the policy of his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, in dealing with Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union. Instead, he ordered a strategic policy re-evaluation in order to establish his own plan and methods for dealing with the Soviet Union and arms control.

After the initiative from Estonia, similar movements sprang up all over the former Soviet Union. In the Transcaucasus region (in the South of the Soviet Union), a movement developed inside the Armenian-populated autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabagh, in the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Once this “Pandora’s box” had been opened, nationalist movements emerged in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Byelorussia, and the Central Asian republics.

In addition to its nuclear weapons capabilities, Russia possesses an extensive civilian nuclear power infrastructure, including 33 operating nuclear power reactors located at 10 nuclear power stations, and a vast network of fuel cycle facilities. [3] The Russian government plans to expand civilian nuclear energy over the coming decades through the construction of new reactors.

At present, it appears that Russia is well-positioned to continue its expansive nuclear power diplomacy in pursuit of a broader sphere of influence. However, competition from other capable nuclear powers may emerge in the medium-term.

From this perspective, Russian-built nuclear power plants in foreign countries become more akin to embassies — or even military bases — than simple bilateral infrastructure projects.

Naturally, sending nuclear power abroad also provides economic gains to Moscow; The U.S. Department of Commerce projects $740 billion in revenue generation from nuclear power technologies between now and 2025. With Rosatom boasting no other comparable international competitor, vast swaths of that revenue will be siphoned into the pockets of the Kremlin, with nuclear energy standing firmly alongside oil and gas as an adhesive to the otherwise fracturing economy.

Thus, Russia’s nuclear power diplomacy has penetrated the international stage in an already significant manner. Countries that have signed on to Rosatom nuclear agreements span across all regions of the world, and include strategically significant players such as Argentina, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

As of 2014, 29 Russian reactors are planned for construction abroad, and Rosatom predicts that the number will grow to around 80 within a “few years.”

Over the past five years, Rosatom has quietly cornered the market in nuclear energy, systematically seeking out agreements and contracts with roughly 30 nations interested in the installation of nuclear power plants (NPPs).

Russia’s state-owned nuclear vendor — Rosatom — is the only company in nuclear capable of offering the “industry’s entire range of products and services.”

Reactor Type V=PWR MWe net, each Commercial operation Licensed to, or scheduled close Balakovo 1 V-320 988 5/86 2045 Balakovo 2 V-320 988 1/88 2033 Balakovo 3 V-320 988 4/89 2049 Balakovo 4 V-320 988 12/93 2053 Beloyarsk 3 BN-600 FBR 560 11/81 2025 Beloyarsk 4 BN-800 FBR 789 10/16 2056 Bilibino 1-4 LWGR EGP-6 11 4/74-1/77 Dec 2018, Dec 2021 Kalinin 1 V-338 988 6/85 2045? Kalinin 2 V-338 988 3/87 2047 Kalinin 3 V-320 988 11/2005 2034 Kalinin 4 V-320 988 9/2012 2042 Kola 1 V-230 432 12/73 2018 or 2033 Kola 2 V-320 411 2/75 2019 or 2034 Kola 3 V-213 440 12/82 2026 Kola 4 V-213 440 12/84 2039 Kursk 1 RBMK 971 10/77 2022 Kursk 2 RBMK 971 8/79 2024 Kursk 3 RBMK 971 3/84 2029 Kursk 4 RBMK 925 2/86 2030 Leningrad 1 RBMK 925 11/74 2019 Leningrad 2 RBMK 971 2/76 2021 Leningrad 3 RBMK 971 6/80 2025 Leningrad 4 RBMK 925 8/81 2026 Novovoronezh 4 V-179 385 3/73 2032 Novovoronezh 5 V-187 950 2/81 2035 potential Novovoronezh 6 V-392M 1114 2/2017 2077 Smolensk 1 RBMK 925 9/83 2028 Smolensk 2 RBMK 925 7/85 2030 Smolensk 3 RBMK 925 1/90 2050 Rostov 1 V-320 990 3/2001 2030? Rostov 2 V-320 990 10/2010 2040 Rostov 3 V-320 1011 9/2015 2045 Total: 35   26,865 MWe

Most reactors are being licensed for lifetime extension. Half of Russia's nuclear generation in 2015 came from units which had been upgraded for long-term operation and were operating beyond their initial design lifetimes (around 30 years), mostly with 15-year extensions initially.

In parallel with this Russia is greatly increasing its hydro-electric capacity, aiming to increase by 60% to 2020 and double it by 2030.

The aim is to have almost half of Russia's electricity from nuclear and hydro by 2030

in the European part of Russia is approcahing the end of its design life; and thirdly Gazprom cut back on the very high level of natural gas supplies for electricity generation because it can make about five times as much money by exporting the gas to the west

Russia's electricity supply, formerly centrally controlled by RAO Unified Energy System (UES)*, faces a number of acute constraints. First, demand rose strongly to 2010 after more than a decade of stagnation

Rosatom's current long-term strategy up to 2050 involves moving to inherently safe nuclear plants using fast reactors with a closed fuel cycle, especially under the Proryv (Breakthrough) project. It envisages nuclear providing 45-50% of electricity at that time, with the share rising to 70-80% by the end of the century. The ultimate aim of the closed fuel cycle is to eliminate the production of radioactive waste from power generation.

However, early in 2017 the CEO of Rosatom said that the government would end state support for the construction of new nuclear units in 2020, and so Rosatom must learn to earn money on its own, primarily via commercial nuclear energy projects in the international market.

Between the 1986 Chernobyl accident and mid-1990s, only one nuclear power station was commissioned in Russia,

Rosenergoatom is the only Russian utility operating nuclear power plants.

Komsomol, Russian abbreviation of Vsesoyuzny Leninsky Kommunistichesky Soyuz Molodyozhi, English All-Union Leninist Communist League of Youth

the mood scores show that both types of meditation practice elevated mood in comparable ways. Given that elevated mood facilitates divergent, rather than convergent thinking and may even interfere with the latter (Akbari Chermahini and Hommel, in press), it is possible that meditation practice affected convergent thinking in two opposite ways: the focused character of the meditation might have improved convergent thinking performance while the relaxing aspect of the procedure might have hampered it. However, at this point this is still a speculation that calls for further research, perhaps using more extended practice.

cognitive

Divergent thinking is taken to represent a style of thinking that allows many new ideas being generated, in a context where more than one solution is correct

diversity across these studies with regard to sample characteristics and type of meditation is considerable, which renders it questionable whether they were actually assessing the same construct and processes.

In previous studies, meditation training has been shown to enhance some cognitive processes, such as the allocation of attentional resources in attention-demanding tasks (Brown et al., 1984a,b; Slagter et al., 2007).