China to build 40 Nuclear Power Plants

[Disgruntled70sHab]

China is starving for energy.

China plans 40 more nuclear plants

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 Posted: 9:36 PM EDT (0136 GMT)[/b]


Nuclear power will be the main energy source for China's booming east coast.

SHANGHAI, China (AP) -- China plans to build 40 nuclear power plants over the next 15 years, making them the main power source for its booming east coast, a government technology official says. Power

I'm not sure which country China might rely on to assist them with this, but I also found this tid-bit.

" July 21-27, 2003: The seventh meeting of the Russian-Chinese intergovernmental commission for nuclear issues was held in Moscow, chaired by Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev and his counterpart Zhang Yuchuan, chairman of Chinese National Defense Science, Technology, and Industry Committee. The two sides discussed issues regarding cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy, including in the areas of experimental fast reactor, nuclear power units for spacecraft, and floating nuclear power plants."

China also has a strong relationship with Pakistan as well and they are getting closer. And, as we already know, Pakistan has its own nuclear program. Here is Pakistan's nuclear doctrine

This can't sit well with either Putin or Bush. Putin has been trying to put together the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) alliance and China's association with Pakistan could jeopardize that. I wonder what Bush is thinking right now as well.

Cheers.

[Doc Holliday]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

Putin has been trying to put together the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) alliance and China's association with Pakistan could jeopardize that.
TEXT

BRICS is slowly killing the textile, paper and furniture industry in Quebec and Ontario. The slavery cheap labor combined with the endless wood supply of Russia and the total ignorance of any kind of anti-pollution laws in those country makes it impossible to compete... I'm hoping Canada and US can jointly devellop protectionist and anti-dumping laws against BRICS to save our industries before it's too late...

[Cranky]

Doc_Holliday said:

BRICS is slowly killing the textile, paper and furniture industry in Quebec and Ontario. The slavery cheap labor combined with the endless wood supply of Russia and the total ignorance of any kind of anti-pollution laws in those country makes it impossible to compete... I'm hoping Canada and US can jointly devellop protectionist and anti-dumping laws against BRICS to save our industries before it's too late...

It's not killing it slowly, it's murdering it with a vengeance. Period, End of story.

Meanwhile......

Our politicians are trying to figure out how t divide, tax and drink our blood. They will do NOTHING until there is a 25% unemployemnt rate and there are food banks in every street corner.

Dark days are coming.....think '29.......

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

China is starving for energy.

It wasn't that long ago that the first three words of the above quote were what one would read regarding the world's most populous nation. How things change. And how change accelerates. Political and economic reforms and sending all those young people to study at the best universities around the the globe will finally start to pay dividends.

*

Forging a new order: India, China team up to hunt for black gold
SOMA BANERJEE

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ WEDNESDAY, APRIL 06, 2005 03:58:01 PM]

NEW DELHI: This is all about history, geography and politics of nations. Flowing from deep within the womb of Mother Earth. Daniel Yergin in his Pulitzer-winning classic, The Prize, recounts the fascinating history of one such commodity that powers the world: oil. Founded in the 19th century, the oil industry began by producing kerosene for lamps and progressed to gasoline. Huge personal fortunes arose from it, and whole nations sprung out of the power politics of the oil wells.

Now, 21st century’s emerging giants, India and China, have joined the quest for black gold. And the power play that emerges from it is driving the global demand for petroleum products. Small wonder then, the two Asian neighbours have been scrounging the earth in search of new territorial acquisitions. Not through the barrels of guns, but equity in vast oil and gas acreages across the globe.

- economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1069592.cms

*

Kudos to GWB's foreign policies for helping the other industrialized nations to refocus where their best interests lie. Complemenatry to Dis's link, here is another BRIC being thrown at the established order.

I see colors: I see brown...and yellow...

The New World Order is taking shape before our eyes.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

I guess Gwynne Dyer saw this coming as far back as October of '03. Here's an extraction from Mr. Dyer's column entitled, BRIC's

The Goldman Sachs paper is a sophisticated exercise in prediction that takes into account factors like population growth and changing age structures, capital accumulation and likely productivity growth, rather than just doing straight-line projections of current trends. It focusses on what it calls the 'Brics': four lower-middle-income countries -- Brazil, Russia, India and China -- that have big populations and already have significant industrial and technological skills and resources. And it tells us where it thinks we will all be in 2050.

The world's biggest economy will be China's, of course, with the United States in second place (although America may still be China's equal in technological innovation).

We were talking about China's ambitious plan to erect 40 nuclear power plants earlier today at work. There's a possibility they might need many of them especially if they continue to grow economically. However, they're also the world's second-largest consumer of oil behind the USA. Does China have alternative agendas for their potential?

Cheers.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

We were talking about China's ambitious plan to erect 40 nuclear power plants earlier today at work. There's a possibility they might need many of them especially if they continue to grow economically.

I assume that's why they're building them.

However, they're also the world's second-largest consumer of oil behind the USA.

It seems that they realize that fossil fuels won't be the energy source of the future.

See my post above this one where I quote from an article that talks about India and China aggressively seeking out sources of oil to meet short and medium term energy needs.

Does China have alternative agendas for their potential?

Alternative to what? Domination of the world economy? Maybe the US should invade them now, before it's too late.

*

US, China, India: A tri-polar world?

March 28, 2005

Ten years ago, Tom Clancy, master of the peculiarly American art of techno-novels, wrote a book called Executive Orders, in which Iran, China and India collude against the United States. It was rather a good book, even if at 1200-odd pages, a bit too fat.

Now Arvind Virmani (Director, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations) has sketched out a different scenario. In a recent working paper* he concludes "that the current unipolar world will be transformed into a bipolar world during the first quarter of this century, and into a tri-polar one (China, USA, India) during the second quarter of the century." Europe will fade away.

He also recommends "the formation of an Asian Economic Community, patterned on the European Economic Community, with China, India and Japan at its core and including other countries of Asia."

The paper is actually an extension of another paper he had written a whit earlier. In that he had analysed the economic basis of national power and given projections for the global economy and national power potential up to 2035. Here he has revised and extended those projections to 2050.

Virmani depends on two assumptions for what some may regard as a rather optimistic conclusion about India, China and the US forming a trinity. One, that India and China will not be rivals; and two that India and the US will co-operate as closely and deeply as perhaps the US and the UK do at present.

It is worth considering, however, whether the two are not mutually exclusive. Historically, in a three-power situation, two have always colluded against the third.

The partners, as we saw in George Orwell's 1984, may change but the fact remains: triangular collaboration is inherently unstable. Besides, three-person games, I need hardly point out to Virmani, are the only ones in game theory without stable solutions.

Be that as it may, the process Virmani outlines is absorbing. Thus, he says, in the next decade China's economy will become larger than of the US, a projection first made by Larry Summers in 1993.

"Its power potential will therefore equal that of the United States sometime during the second quarter of this century." But well before that the US would have lost its monopoly of world power as China challenges it.

Then, "in parallel, India's economy will overtake Japan's within five years to become the third largest in the world. Its incremental impact on the global economy will exceed that of Japan within 15 years. The Indian economy will equal the US economy in size by 2040. The world will, therefore, become tri-polar by the middle of the century."

Naturally, "India will be the weakest pole for most of this century." Here Virmani raises but does not explore the most crucial question of all: China's attitude towards India.

At present, China despises India as a weakling. If relations between it and India have to improve, there will have to be a fundamental change in China's attitude. Virmani's paper would have been richer if he had discussed this aspect in some detail.

He also goes a bit awry when he says that "the US and India . . . have no conflicts of interest." What about Pakistan, then? As he himself says, "for the next decade or so US foreign policy will be driven by its traumatic experience of 9/11."

This makes Pakistan an important concern of US foreign policy. With Iran going the way it is, Pakistan's importance is likely to grow for the US, not diminish.

It would also have been helpful if, while discussing the likely scenario over the next half century, Virmani had given a specific, explicit and detailed place to the politics of energy, which is likely to be the single most important driver of foreign policy. Increasingly, energy is going to be the parameter around which national interests are defined.

- inhome.rediff.com/money/2005/mar/28guest.htm

*

How long has China been around as a civilization compared to the USA? What is the difference in mindset when thinking in terms of dynasty rather than presidency? Sun Tzu was a native and lifelong resident of which country?