| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| 100 Westinghouse nuclear reactors in operation or under construction by 2020 |
| 2008-07-07 |
| In CHINA! China wants to have 100 of Westinghouse Electric Co.'s nuclear reactors in operation or under construction by 2020 -- more than double what was anticipated, according to the company's incoming CEO. Aris Candris, who will lead the Monroeville-based firm beginning Tuesday, said Chinese officials shared those plans with Westinghouse during a mid-May meeting. 'It is huge,' Candris said in an interview Thursday with the Tribune-Review. 'Originally we were thinking somewhere around 40.' Its AP1000 reactor, which can generate enough power to electrify 700,000 homes, is the technology of choice for half of the 30 reactors planned for the United States. Hmm, China building 100 in the next 12 years. We build 30 in the next 30 years, if at all due to enviro obstructionists and lawsuits. China Wins. |
| Posted by:OldSpook |
| #5 TOPIX/RENSE > TELEGRAPH.uk - OIL PRICE SHOCK PUTS CHINA AT RISK OF BLOWING UP; + GLOBAL WARMING, SICHUAN QUAKE A WARNING LIGHT TO BEIJING. Also from TOPIX > THE G-8 ISN'T ENOUGH + STANDOFF ON GLOBAL WARMING, OTHER ISSUES. FUTURE GUAM-MICRONESIA vv "EARTH CHANGES" [Warming] + FOOD-OIL-RESOURCES CRISES + ISLAMIST THREAT [espec post-NUKE JIHAD] > DIASPORAS > I've been telling various local personages that not only will a future Guam suffer from massive ONE-WAY BOAT/SHIPLOADS OF ILLEGAL CHINESE-ASIAN EMIGRANTS crashing their vessels into the reefs and beaches of northern Guam, etc in search of new lives + NEW PLACES TO LIVE IN, BUT ALSO PLANELOADS OF SAME. MIGRANT-KAZES. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-07-07 23:23 |
| #4 It's been kept very quiet, but Westinghouse was bought last week by Toshiba (TOSBF around 7 bucks a share), They wanted the Nuke reactor building Part, it compliments their own. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2008-07-07 20:10 |
| #3 Practically speaking, the US should not just build more typical reactors, the large scale water cooled behemoths we are familiar with; but also different kinds of reactors for less than grid operations. That is, everywhere in the US is wired for a one size fits all electrical grid, but it is inefficient and prone to failure. Instead, zones of the US should separate their grid from the whole, if they have the reactor or reactors large enough for their own energy needs. This would transcend State boundaries and be more ordered by distance and topography. This is somewhat how we use nuclear power today, for example the Palo Verde plant in Arizona sends almost all of its electricity to California. Especially in the West, three States might have three major cities relatively close. All their energy needs could be handled by a single traditional reactor, plus one or two half-sized pebble bed reactors, and a few small reactors. They would have far more energy than their projected growth, so neither need to take energy from the western grid, nor put energy back into it. So why be connected at all, except as an emergency backup? In the eastern US, just the opposite problem, but with a similar solution. That is, shorter distances, but so much development there is no place to put the grid. So with smaller, more local reactors, they get the energy they need without buying incredibly expensive tracts of land. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-07-07 18:59 |
| #2 I have to wonder how much money China funnels into the US environmental movement to keep our energy production hamstrung. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-07-07 18:06 |
| #1 Thought this was going to be a story about fast-tracking the construction of 100 nuclear reactor in the USA. @!$%&* |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-07-07 18:06 |