Westinghouse Electric signed a multibillion-dollar deal Tuesday with Chinese partners to build four nuclear reactors in eastern China.
“The definitive contracts signed today will result in the first-ever deployment of advanced U.S. nuclear power technology in China,” Westinghouse’s president and CEO, Steve Tritch, said at the signing ceremony at Beijing’s Great Hall of the People.
Construction will begin in 2009, with the first plant slated for operation in 2013 and the remaining three coming online in the next two years, Westinghouse, based in Pittsburgh, said.
The company did not give specific financial terms but said the deal would create about 5,000 jobs in at least 20 states in the United States.
China’s also purchasing from France and Russia and has committed to nuclear power as part of an essential mix of alternative energy sources needed to move away from fossil fuels.
I imagine we’ll discuss the potential for nuclear power for at least another decade before we make any decisions here in the U.S.. Or longer.
Well, we could just take the NIMBY attitude and say better there than here. Nuclear doesn’t cause global warming. But, at least in this country, we already have more toxic waste than would fit in the Yucca Mountain facility that seems less than likely to ever open.
And, let’s not forget that nuclear plants are prime terror targets. So, I can’t say I’m a big supporter of nuclear power. The best I’ll say about it is that it’s better than coal.
Also, I’ve heard that for nuclear power to make a real difference world-wide, we would need 25 times the number of power plants we have already. And, we’d need them in a lot of developing nations.
So, that would mean that many nations, some with dramatically lower safety standards, some with insufficient funds to implement safety standards even if they want to, will suddenly become nuclear.
Then there would be the risk of weapons proliferation.
So, China is already a nuclear power and seems willing to take the risk. Let’s hope they can keep this from being a problem internally and internationally.
The US has nuclear power expertise? Compared to the French?
I would have thought that most recent earthquake in Japan would put the kybash on any lingering thoughts of nuclear power for the GOUSA — AND—
there was that recent article about some expert saying that even with nuclear power, the need to develop renewable energy was still a requirement as the future energy needs exceeded what nukes could do.
My own thought was that if that is true, then it makes even more sense to skip the nuke part, invest that corporate welfare into the renewables, and we’re off a running with a sane energy program.
I’m sure big business/high tech/faith in science crowd will disagree.
Yeah, dude. Forget that science stuff. Just listen to your buddies at the American Legion bar on a Friday night. They’re always right.
I work right across the street from a nuke plant and it doesn’t worry me at all. Ed’s right, we’ll sit on our asses for another decade at least instead of doing what we should be doing, which is start construction on a couple dozen nuke plants, immediately if not sooner.
So of the problems Arent with the need for Plants…
As you mentioned, we would need 25 times as many to Help the world, NOW…But, by 2050, That number would probably double, again due to population concerns.
But, knowing corps, they wont let the Cits have it by then.
We need MORE, PORTABLE, POTABLE, Reliable, Renewable power..
I would love to see what the farming communities in China would do if someone told that about Useing Methane and alcohol generation.
China has the Knowledge, but tends to let Persons LEARN on their own..
#2 – bobbo,
I couldn’t agree more!!
Oh, and let’s not forget that there is no more expensive source of power than nuclear. The only reason the power companies like it is because they get handed the 2 gigabucks to build the damn plant by the government. Isn’t externalization of expenses a beautiful thing?
3—the science stuff is that uranium waste is poisonous for thousands of years and we have no way of removing it from our environment. Now what science stuff do you have to refute this other than “faith?”
4—I work right across the street from a photo-electric plant and it doesn’t worry me at all. Lets build them immediately if not sooner and avoid the radioactive waste.
1&5–Looks like we read the same article, with your rendition being much more presentable than mine. I always wonder why people without a specific motive to promote nukes don’t recognize the potential harm. That becomes more amazing as the alternatives show so much more promise every year that goes by.
A few forward thinking environmentalists have changed their minds and gotten on board with nuclear: http://tinyurl.com/qa6rn
Some people can shake their fear though most can’t, making the whole debate pointless. Instead, we’ll all sit around on our butts and the treehuggers will call every proponent a paid shill.
Remember, to the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and others, mankind is evil and must die.
6,
you are close…
But most companies Admit…
The reason we use Gas, is that ITS CHEAP.
The reason they want nukes, is ITS CHEAP.
you dont need water, wind, a sunny day, or a volcano to achieve POWER.
but few corps Ever look at the END of the line..
Dams, take ALOT of ground and put it under water, Dams restrict Fish Flow.. Dams take up Farm land
Oil and gas, pollute, and transportation for it POLLUTES, Pipe lines break, Ships sink…
Nukes are Just DIRTY…
This is an Old controversy…
Its the same as the restriction put on CAR FUELS and not Diesel..BEcause Diesel, dont pollute ??? Diesel is just a heavy Metal pollution over Lighter then Air pollution…
Even with Solar power cells, there is pollution from manufacturing… Which is changing, I hope Soon.
I would LOVe to see a change in Dam construction and generation. As with Drinking water and irrigation, we already have alot of uses for Water, besides Dams.
NOW IF we could catch all this flooding on the EAST coast and ship it to the Other states.
#1 “And, let’s not forget that nuclear plants are prime terror targets.”
Exactly how many nuke plants have been attacked by terrorists?
#8 – iGlobalWarmer,
I think the radiation is affecting your brain. Just kidding.
Seriously though, we don’t reduce our waste the way the French do. What do you propose we do with the waste? We already have more in temporary storage than would fit in the Yucca Mountain facility if it could ever be opened. This is huge and a serious problem.
And then, you still haven’t mentioned the terror risk. You live near a plant. Are you totally unconcerned about what could happen if it were targeted?
#9 – ECA,
As for being cheap, yes, an already running nuclear plant produces energy cheaply. But, never so much that it recoups the $2GB it took to build it. Nor does it last very long. The concrete degrades much faster than was initially anticipated.
8–yes, some do, but NOBODY has an answer on how to safely remove the waste. So, like you, not addressing the issues sufficies. If all our energy needs could be met without nukes, would you still be for nukes?
9–It would help the slow witted like myself if you would limit the issues in each post to 15. As understand the drift of your concern, yes, all the pro’s and con’s of competing legitimate interests need to be accomodated as much as possible. And I support the notion of CHEAP being a defining concern. Take away the subsidies, add in the cost of storage and removal, and Nukes are many times more expensive than any other form of energy. Cant think like a general and master that.
10—You sound like a person of General Officers Rank. Always fighting the last war, no imagination at all. I salute you, sir!
I’m against hydroelectricity. if a dam were to break, the loss of life and the destruction of the environment would be devastating. Dams destroy natural habitats too.
I’m also against solar power. Just think of all the solar cells required to make a useable voltage. The cost is 6 tomes that of a coal fired plant. They have a life-span of about 25 years. It’s also dangerous to work in a solar cell plant. And besides, radiation from the sun causes cancer.
I’m also against wind energy. Wind generators contribute to global warming by removing an important cooling mechanism. Wind is converted to electromagnetic energy which gives off heat. The cooling effect of air movement is also reduced when the energy is removed from wind. And just imagine if a wind generator in a fell over near a city.? I shudder. I’m against tall buildings for that same reason.
And don’t get me started on corn. 🙂
#11 – Yes, the French handle their waste better – separate issue. Much as it pains me to say “learn from the French” , in this area we should. Also, the US has approved re-use of spent fuel. Most of our “waste” is actually fuel that’s only been used once. It can be “recycled”.
Terrorists could create a much larger mess by targeting the oil refinery or chemical plant nearby. There is no such thing as a risk free life. Looking at risk vs reward, I choose more nukes.
(Note: I choose more nukes and part of a mix, not exclusive nukes. Cheap power trickles down to solve a lot of other problems. Ideally, I would like to see the US start construction tomorrow on at least 500 new power plants of all kinds.)
#14 – you needn’t waste any time on statements of attainder from the ignorant. There aren’t any governments, corporations or alternative energy advocates proposing exclusive reliance on nuclear energy. Not the French, not the Chinese, not even numbnuts in Washington.
It’s just a convenient misdirection from folks who are too lame to Google anything seriously longer than 2 paragraphs about current nuclear plant construction. Not the 2+G from T-W nor the 3G goodies coming down the pike from France.
Same goes for understanding the history of either primary system in use. The essential reason Euro systems haven’t a fraction of the waste of traditional Westinghouse systems is that they use breeder reactors – like Iran, Pakistan and all those folks we’re supposed to trust much less than India or England. 🙂
So far, the worst waste of reasoning space on this issue is – it’s going to take lots of time, effort, money and commitment; so, we shouldn’t start. What?
#10 – Gig,
Exactly how many times had office buildings been attacked by passenger jets prior to 9/11?
#14 – iGW,
Good. For the power plants of all kinds, how about a mix of 40% solar, 40% wind, and 20% tidal, recognizing that large areas of the country have no tides?
#15 – god,
So far, the worst waste of reasoning space on this issue is – it’s going to take lots of time, effort, money and commitment; so, we shouldn’t start. What?
Actually, it is true that nukes take a long time to come online. That is indeed time we may not have. No one knows exactly when we will cross a tipping point of climate change.
It also takes a tremendous amount more money per megawatt than any of wind, solar, or tidal. Again, the reason power companies like nukes is that they don’t pay the cost of building the plants.
If I could buy a 300 MPG automobile with a couple of millions of your dollars, that would save me a fortune over the life of the car. Wouldn’t do much for your bottom line though …
#16 – Google it yourself, lazy whelp. A number of plots had been exposed, proposed – for crashing things into buildings including the WTC which was previously a target for bombing as you may well remember.
Sorry if the means and targets don’t always match. But, it does sound like you should apply for a gig with TSA.
We should have our nuclear plants built and run by the French. Ditto for a high speed passenger rail network.
Since the dollar is dropping steadily against the Euro, we can pay them with Velveeta and Gallo Hearty Burgundy! Oh, and we can throw in Jerry Lewis while we’re at it.
#1 I agree that while the use of nuclear power does not contribute to global warming their use insignificant UNLESS a many are used. I would have thought having less nuclear bomb making material around is a good thing…or not.
But another note…
I recall back in the 70’s the catch phrase was GLOBAL COOLING just like now with global warming. Evidence was presented – nuclear winter model scenarios indicated that CO2 is a contributing factor in triggering a new ice age.
Anecdotal evidence seemed to confirm this with winters trending colder – unusual snowfalls even in Florida.
So just like now back then we all had to adjust our lifestyles so we wouldn’t cause the next Ice Age…so what gives huh?
Cheers
#18 – god,
It was a rhetorical question. If you claim that such googling will yield different results than I expect, yes, you can provide a link without immature name calling that makes you sound 12 years old.
Here are some links on nuclear plant threat. Clearly, given the amount of thinking on the subject, the possibility has been noted. The fact that the current consensus is that they are relatively safe in the U.S. does not say much for the world standards we should be discussing when we think of multiplying the number of plants world-wide by 25 and putting them in developing nations.
http://tinyurl.com/2tda4w
http://www.swemorph.com/pdf/inmm-r2.pdf
Coal miners die extracting yet we build coal plants. The fact the people die in the normal development of an energy source is enough to switch from it if possible. Nuclear is far cleaner and is not dependent on fossil fuels and (this is the important part) is available now. At the very least we should replace every coal plant with a nuclear plant. Hell, even replacing existing nuclear plants with ones of equivalent size would generate more energy as they have devised techniques that make them safer and more efficient.
#11
Can you provide a source that substantiates the claim that there is more nuclear waste now than will fit in Yucca mountain when it is opened? It is obviously not out of the realm of possibility, but it sounds questionable given the size of the Yucca mountain facility.
#19 – DaveW,
I doubt that they’ll have interest in our wine or cheese-like-spread. They might just do it for Jerry though. Good thinking.
#20 – TIHZ_HO,
WRT cooling, see this site. It also has answers to many other questions often raised by skeptics.
http://tinyurl.com/2k9goj
1. Nuclear is overpriced. Huge startup costs, then the plant becomes unusable after 25 years from nuclear embrittlement of its metal structure, that little fact that no one talks about much.
2. If other forms of energy were not subsidized (nuclear got another 8 billion recently, for example, which sustainable energy got just about nothing) and externalized costs of dirty power (coal, oil) couldn’t be externalized anymore (in other words, the producers had to pay for the true costs of their product, such as wars and environmental damage), then alternative energy sources would be far more competitive.
3. Nuclear is being pushed by the same crowd that sent the cost of gasoline from $1.50 a gallon to $3.00 a gallon during their tenure, lied to us about Iraq, and just generally works hard to screw over everyone except their power-hungry friends. Are these the people you want to trust? As far as I’m concerned, if they’re for it, I’m against it.
4. Let’s have the equivalent of a “space program” for energy. Do we believe in American ingenuity so little that we can’t envision becoming energy independent within the next, say, twenty years?
#22 – Thomas,
Thanks for the correction. I can’t remember where I read that and could not back it up with a quick search. However, it appears that we have 50,000 metric tons already and a limit of 70,000 metric tons at Yucca with a forecast of more than doubling our current waste by 2035. I’d still call that a serious problem.
http://tinyurl.com/yrptmz
#25 Nuclear is overpriced. Huge startup costs, then the plant becomes unusable after 25 years from nuclear embrittlement of its metal structure, that little fact that no one talks about much. Where on earth did you get this “fact”? When did we build the last nuclear plant in the U.S.? 1996? In fact, according to the EIA “The oldest reactors still operating in the United States were licensed in 1969.” that’s a bit more than 25 years.
#20 – don’t start the global warming argument. Global warming is a religion and you’re not going to argue anyone out of it. It goes like this:
Summers are getting warmer = global warming
Winters are getting colder = side effect of global warming
Coastal glaciers are shrinking = global warming
Inland glaciers are growing = side effect of global warming
Etc., etc., etc. = global warming
It’s all global warming. The only way to solve it is to sacrifice everything that makes life worth living or better yet for mankind to go extinct.
16 – I want all those and nukes. I want the power generated per person to go WAY up.
iGW, embarrassment causes global warming too.
#28, I googled it and found this.
“One mandated safety indicator is the calculated probable frequency of degraded core or core melt accidents. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifies that reactor designs must meet a 1 in 10,000 year core damage frequency, but modern designs exceed this. US utility requirements are 1 in 100,000 years, the best currently operating plants are about 1 in 1 million and those likely to be built in the next decade are almost 1 in 10 million.”