Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

China COSCO CEO seriously considering nuclear powered continaer ships
Next Big Future ^ | December 3,2009 | Brian Wang

Posted on 12/05/2009 2:50:10 AM PST by jmcenanly


The boss of the world’s largest shipping conglomerate has advocated the use of nuclear power on-board merchant ships.

Outlining the container alliance CKYH’s decision to push ahead with super slow steaming, COSCO ceo and president Capt Wei Jiafu said that the move was in part a green one. He then went on to say that he was in favor of using nuclear power on-board merchant ships as a further green initiative. ‘As they are already on-board submarines, why not cargo ships?’ he mused. Later he spoke to Seatrade Asia Online and revealed COSCO is in talks with the national nuclear authorities to develop nuclear powered ships.

Earlier that morning Wei had said as much as 40% of the global total order-book is under threat. Wei’s prediction is far higher than most analysts’ at present. He was speaking at the Senior Maritime Forum coorganised by UBM and Seatrade at this year’s Marintec China. Citing ‘financing and cash flow problems in medium and small sized corporations’ since the outbreak of the financial crisis, Wei said that his ‘personal feeling’ was that ‘about 40% of new building orders will be postponed or canceled this year and next year’. COSCO, itself, has canceled 126 bulkers and postponed the delivery of a large swathe of box-ships by one to two years.

(Excerpt) Read more at nextbigfuture.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: china; nuclear
We have got to lose this nuclear phobia we've seemed to have developed over the last 30 years.
1 posted on 12/05/2009 2:50:10 AM PST by jmcenanly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jmcenanly

2 posted on 12/05/2009 2:53:49 AM PST by myknowledge (F-22 Raptor: World's Largest Distributor of Sukhoi parts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmcenanly

I agree.

I think its a nifty idea, along with adding some freaking nuclear power plants in this country as well. Then use the coal in gassification instead.


3 posted on 12/05/2009 2:56:38 AM PST by Crazieman (Feb 7, 2008 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1966675/posts?page=28#28)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmcenanly

Rumor has it Chinese container ships, are manufactured to be quickly converted to warships as needed.

Deck guns added. Couple changes, and you’ve got a 1000 ship Navy.

Just saying...

How’s that “free trade” thing working out, America?

Time for a bit of good old fashioned TRADE WAR. Or else a real one later.


4 posted on 12/05/2009 2:56:38 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network (2012: Repeal it all... All of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Time for a bit of good old fashioned TRADE WAR. Or else a real one later.

Why would the Chinese want to start a war with their best customer?

Why would the Chinese try to take our nation by force when we are selling it to them via our debt?

5 posted on 12/05/2009 3:04:57 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

It is without question true, that current trade policies are destroying America’s once world-leading manufacturing capabilities far more effectively than could squadrons of enemy heavy bombers.

With EXACTLY the same effect:

America is strategically weakened.


6 posted on 12/05/2009 3:07:08 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network (2012: Repeal it all... All of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Crazieman
Then use the coal in gassification instead.

Why, when we have enough presently recoverable natural gas to last a couple hundred years?

7 posted on 12/05/2009 3:11:45 AM PST by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
How’s that “free trade” thing working out, America?

We've gone from barely having relations with them in 1972 when Nixon visited China to owing them $2 Trillion in 37 years. Un-friggin' believable insanity. "Stupid is as stupid does, momma used to always say".....

8 posted on 12/05/2009 4:04:16 AM PST by Thermalseeker (Stop the insanity - Flush Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
Why would the Chinese want to start a war with their best customer?

I'm in a nearly perpetual state of war with my electric company. No choice, it's a monopoly. And although their billing practices are highly questionable, I really enjoy electricity.

China's controlling interest in the US expands daily. Eventually they won't start a "war", they'll just patiently explain to us how things are. We won't mind anyway, there's a new season of American Idol just around the corner....

9 posted on 12/05/2009 4:12:41 AM PST by RetroSexual (Pray for America; Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Deck guns added. Couple changes, and you’ve got a 1000 ship Navy.

With all the high profile piracy going on these days, they'd probably arm their nuclear container ships upon launching. Guns? I think a battery of surface-to-surface missiles would be quite effective.

One could hardly question it. Can't have the Somalis in possession of nuclear reactors now, can we?

And suddenly we'd have a dozen Chinese nuclear warships in our harbors, complete with warheads.

Thank God the current administration would never allow such a thing to happen.... :-P

10 posted on 12/05/2009 4:20:55 AM PST by RetroSexual (Pray for America; Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jmcenanly
Power plants are one thing. Putting nuclear ships in the hands of untrained sailors is another. Most ships have half a dozen intelligent, well trained people on board the rest are deck hands who couldn't be trusted to operate a nuclear reactor.

Add to that the issue of pirates and the potential for blowing up a reactor in a port.

NOT a good idea.

Oh, and before you respond by telling me they will be regulated. Tell me by whom? The UN?

11 posted on 12/05/2009 4:23:15 AM PST by raybbr (It's going to get a lot worse now that the anchor babies are voting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetroSexual

There won’t be a need for a war. When we can’t pay our debts, China will just take what we have to offer...our assets and properties.


12 posted on 12/05/2009 4:24:03 AM PST by Sender (It's never too late to be who you could have been.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Nuclear powered commerce would be a good for the US however. Lots of nuclear veterans out there could work those ships. Not only that but you could make subs that use the North Pole passage for even more direct trade.


13 posted on 12/05/2009 4:30:52 AM PST by Nateman (If liberals aren't screaming you're doing it wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sender

In which case, they would be an invasion force, they’d be bill collectors.


14 posted on 12/05/2009 6:47:20 PM PST by jmcenanly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jmcenanly

While that may save fossil fuel it will make it way harder to detect the nukes intended to do us harm. Hard to say no to China for many reasons but they have the most to gain by our sudden demise as a superpower.


15 posted on 12/07/2009 10:07:34 AM PST by exPBRrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson