Toshiba to Pay $5.4 Billion for Westinghouse 226
Philip writes "Business electronics firm Toshiba is bidding for 100% control of Westinghouse - famous for making blenders and LCD televisions, but principally in the business of building nuclear reactors. 'By 2020 the market for nuclear power generation is expected to grow 50 percent compared to 2005,' Toshiba CEO Nishida said at a London news conference. 'Toshiba is responding to this challenge by acquiring Westinghouse.'"
Does this mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:2)
Heh, heh - hoax but nice pipedream^_^ The first tip-off is the skimpy details of the innerworkings of the battery in the article, but this made me laugh:
"XCell-N is a nuclear powered laptop battery that can provide between seven and eight thousand times the life of a normal laptop battery - that's more than three and a half years worth of continuous power.............
While Shephard says they are committed to safety, he does not re
Re:Does this mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
as far as generating electricity from radioactive materials goes there are two methodologies involved a. the ten
uhhh... no. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:uhhh... no. (Score:3, Funny)
Crap. My living room is way less than 12 miles from my kitchen.
Re:Does this mean... (Score:2)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:2)
But yeah, it has the potential to "cause cancer and stuff"!
sPh
Re:Does this mean... (Score:2)
Great. (Score:2)
Re:Great. (Score:2)
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Boy times change (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Boy times change (Score:2)
Re:Boy times change (Score:2)
Refrigerators - Nuclear Reactors... Same thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Westinghouse's Endeavors (Score:4, Informative)
Railroad Block Signal
Railroad Air Brakes
AC Power Generation
First Long-distance power transmission
Niagra Falls AC Generation
Steam turbine generators
Light Bulbs
AC Electric Locomotives
First Marine Turbine Engine
Micarta Laminate
Electric kitchen Range
Radios Receivers/Transmitters
Electric Iron
Television Cameras
Televisions
Elevators
Electrostatic Air Cleaners
First Atom Smasher
Radar
Automatic Washing Machine
Electric Clothes drier
X-Ray Machines
Self Defrosting Refridgerator
Electric Rotisserie Grills
Room Air Conditioners
Submarines
Jet Engines
Nuclear Reactors
And on and on and on
For those who don't know... (Score:3, Informative)
Westinghouse Electric Company [wikipedia.org]
Re:Boy times change (Score:2)
Re:Boy times change (Score:2)
National Security (Score:5, Interesting)
Does the DOE have any limitations on foreign corporations handling parts of our Nuclear Energy programs?
Is anyone else a little concerned about this?
Re:National Security (Score:3, Informative)
Re:National Security (Score:5, Informative)
Not entirely. Anything related to DoD (not DOE) is not primarily owned by BNFL. When CBS corporation split up the company in 2000, the DoD stiuplated that US based companies must have a controlling share in those divisions.
Re:National Security (Score:2)
I would suspect that since Westinghouse Electric Company is 100-percent owned by BNFL Nuclear Services Inc. (BNSI), a wholly owned BNFL Group U.S. subsidiary [prnewswire.com], that the US Government will be involved at all levels. Probably, DoJ with input from DoD, DoE and the NRC.
Re:National Security (Score:2)
But I don't know enough about Westinghouse these days to look at the issue in detail.
Re:I thought Siemens already owned Westinghouse?? (Score:5, Informative)
Not necessarily (Score:4, Interesting)
(Better yet, if the campaign succeeds AND one of the two fusion reactor projects produces cheap energy, we could eliminate all conventional and all fission reactors entirely and have just two or three fusion reactors per continent.)
Re:Not necessarily (Score:2)
Hardly - the problem of transmission and distribution remain; plus what happens when 1/3 of your power goes offline unexpectedly?
Solution to distribution issues. (Score:3, Informative)
With fewer power stations, the grid would be simpler and less likely to go into spasms when a tree falls on a power line or when some other accident occurs. Keeping things simple is Good.
Maybe three is an underestimate, but even one per State is vastly s
Re:Solution to distribution issues. (Score:5, Informative)
The outgoing three phase lines have to be kept at a considerable distance from each other (16 feet) meaning that the minimum tower width is 32 feet or so.
If you bring them any closer, you'd have arcing, or you'd need to heavily insulate them.
If you increased the voltage (some places in the US run as high as 750,000 volts), you need to move the lines further apart, or insulate them greatly- not only is this expensive, but it makes them heavier, so you'd need tougher towers, you'd have less margin for ice buildup, etc, etc.
There are numerous reasons why the main grid distribution voltage can't get substantially higher.
Also local lines need to be kept at relatively low voltages to reduce maintanance costs. Again, the higher the voltage, the more prone a line is to arching to nearby grounds. If you run 100,000 volts through a neighborhood line you'd reduce line losses, but you'd have to send tree trimming crews out alot more often, and they'd have to cut trees much further back.
In short, when you decide on a grid voltage for a particular line run, you have to weigh construction costs vs maintanance costs vs material cost vs line losses.
There are numerous factors at play here.
Re:Solution to distribution issues. (Score:3, Informative)
(Ever see what happens when you ground 345kV ? We did that once in New Hampshire and grid operators in New York were asking about it)
(SF6 gas
Re:Not necessarily (Score:2)
Assuming it was, there is still the issue of how much one reactor can supply, I doubt that you can get to just a handful of reactors per continent unless it is only supplying a small fraction of the power. As it is now, many nuclear power stations have multiple reactors each.
Not that I disagree with conservation, but I think you are wildly overestimating the savings with ju
Re:Not necessarily (Score:3, Insightful)
I find that capitalism is better than banning lightbulb:/
For instance, I use CFL (compact fluorescent light bulbs) regularly, but especially in the hot summer where the extra heat generated from traditional light-bul
Easy solution to the fusion problem. (Score:2)
Cut the power to the heating circuit by 20% each year.
If they don't acieve fusion in time, put the next generation of fusion researchers up there, give them time to read the notes, turn the heating up to 100%, th
Re:Not necessarily (Score:3, Interesting)
Hydrogen Economy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hydrogen Economy (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now, we have approximately 800 megawatt-hours generated in this state by wind turbines. That's the equivalent of one or two coal-fired electric plants. Our problem right now is one of distribution
And the problem with that is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And the problem with that is... (Score:2)
"Lower density" means "less mass per volume" to me, but it doesn't indicate potential energy per unit of volume, so this comparison doesn't measure apples to apples. Did you mean to say "10% energy density"? Or would you have figures on energy density that you could post?
I get the Daimler-Chrysler "High Tech Report" annually, and they've been tracking their development of fuel cell vehicles for the last 10 years. One of their original goals w
Re:Hydrogen Economy (Score:2)
For that sort of market (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:For that sort of market (Score:2, Informative)
Re:For that sort of market (Score:2)
IDK which countries you meant, but over here (.nl and surrounding countries) that's exactly what's happening. The memory of Chernobyl is fading, and all the publicity on Peak Oil etc. is making nucleat power look like a good idea once more.
Re:For that sort of market (Score:2)
Realistically, nuclear is the best option that we have. Modern designs are even cleaner, safer, and more efficient than we currently have operating, and are a guaranteed source that solar and wind cannot touch.
24 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:24 (Score:2)
GE? (Score:2)
Re:GE? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:GE? (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
GE ESBWR (Score:5, Interesting)
IANANE (I am not a Nuclear Engineer), but BWRs seem to have fewer problems (no steam gnerators to leak/plug up, no vessle head degradation) and are theroetically more efficent (single cycle)...
I wonder if anyone is going to make a bid for GENE (General Electric Nuclear Energy)...
I also wonder why we dont hear more about CANDU reactors [candu.org]. They use natural uranium instead of enriched uranium, which could provide more peaceful energy in unstable areas of the worls
CANDU (Score:5, Informative)
http://canteach.candu.org/library/20000101.pdf [candu.org]
Existing reactors work by using an expensive fuel (enriched uranium) and a cheap moderator (graphite or water).
CANDU's idea is relatively safer. Instead of enriched uranium, CANDU reactors use natural uranium (which is cheap) along with an expensive moderator (heavy water). The design is a bit safer too.
OTOH, heavy water is still a part of the nucleur weapons making process & is export controlled.
Re:CANDU (Score:3, Informative)
Re:CANDU (Score:2)
Re:GE ESBWR (Score:2)
I have a family member that is an engineer for GE. Based on what I know from him, I think it would be unlikely that GE would sell it's Nuclear division. Over the last several years many of GE's departments haven't made much money, doesn't make sense to me that they would sell off a department that has potential. Plus, GE is more known for buying other businesses, not selling them off.
Of course this doesn't mean t
Re:GE ESBWR (Score:2)
Thank you, Greenpeace (Score:5, Insightful)
It seriously set the nuclear power industry back, which is a shame. Old plants continue to operate, but new ones are very slow to appear. Safe and non-polluting technologies were available for decades and we are wising up to using them only now.
Re:Thank you, Greenpeace (Score:2)
Re:Thank you, Greenpeace (Score:2)
I said: "and other fossil fuels".
Also, having an abundance of cheap electricity would've made things like plugin hybrids [hybridcars.com] more economically sensible and, possibly, retired the diesel railroad engines.
The convenience of electric home heating (and hot-water) could've been much cheaper, freeing more oil and natural gas for the plastics.
Re:Thank you, Greenpeace (Score:3, Interesting)
On top of that we would have probably retired at least some of the U.S. nuclear plants by now. ALL of them are based on inherently unsafe, antiquated designs. I spend a LOT of time talking about nuclear and alternative energy with my girlfriend's housemates, one of whom has a couple of books out on the subject of humanity's future and who is getting a column in The Fifth Estate [fifthestate.org] , a leading anarchist rag, and another of whom is a professor who used to work for ARPA as a programmer/engineer and who has work
Re:Thank you, Greenpeace (Score:2)
Nuclear is currently used primarily for non transport energy so would have near zero impact on our oil dependency unless and until we switch to hyrogen for transport and use nuclear energy as the source to generate the hydrogen. Non transport energy sector is dominated by coal for electricty and natural gas.
The cost per kWh for nuclear is
Re:Thank you, Greenpeace (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that Chinese (no more willing to depend on foreign fuel suppliers, than us) are about to build dozens of new nuclear plants (Toshiba's main motivation [economist.com] for this purchase), the world is suddenly reconsidering...
Re:Thank you, Greenpeace (Score:2)
The fact that no new nuclear plants are being built is not because the government is banning them (it hasnt) but because the government has refused to subsidize them. If nuclear plants were truly low cost, they would be getting bu
Re:Thank you, Greenpeace (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder, then, why do Chinese plan to build dozens of nuclear plants by 2020? Do they know something, you don't?
Perhaps, the main burden preventing new plants in the US is the unsurmountable amounts of red-tape imposed by the Greenpeace-influenced electorate and politicians? Coal-firing plants, meanwhile, are getting exemption from environmental regulations -- because someone has to keep the lights on and nu
Re:Thank you, Greenpeace (Score:2)
I know people that lived in the heavily industrialized areas of ex-communist countries. There most people would die comparatively young, age fast and suffer from many nasty cancers and other diseas
Re:Thank you, Greenpeace (Score:2)
But it still needs huge subsidies, because building a plant is far too expensiv. A nuclear plant needs a decade to bring in the construction costs. That's why nobody in today's competitiv economy is building nuclear plants. Nobody makes an investement that will pay off only after 10 years. After these are amortized however, it is one of the cheapest energy sources around.
Brakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Brakes (Score:2)
Faively still sells railroad brakes. [faiveley.fr] But today they're axl
Re:Brakes (Score:2)
Ironically, I was at a friends house for the super bowl last night, and they had a new Westinghouse HD big screen TV! Obviously not manufactured by Westinghouse (the Westinghouse we all knew and loved ceased to exist some time ago, anyway) but some Japanese company, I forget who, licensed their name for televisions.
Re:Brakes (Score:2)
Re:Brakes (Score:2)
Then you have missed out on a very drool-worthy piece of tech: the Westinghouse LVM-37W1, a 37" LCD with 1920x1080 resolution for under $2000.
It's already in play in the west (Score:5, Interesting)
In the UK the BBC website recently ran articles pointing to upcoming reviews of existing nuclear power plants and the impact of bring new plants online.
As noted before the environmentalist camp has had some of it's big guns come out in support of nuclear power as the only alternative available to stave off global warming.
Probably the various political power bases have decided nuclear power is the way to go and have given the spin doctors orders to soften public reaction.
Good news for Canada with a mature nuclear technology, substantial Uranium resources, not to mention being oil and hydro rich.
Re:It's already in play in the west (Score:2)
To be fair, that's what nuclear power stations put into the atmosphere. Big fluffy white clouds.
It always annoys me when a TV news segment or a documentary illustrates 'carbon dioxide emissions' with a shot of a power station's cooling towers. The big fa
Toasters, LCD televisions and Alternating Current! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Toasters, LCD televisions and Alternating Curre (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely. Westinghouse build the first A/C power station out in Telluride, Colorado in 1891, with design help from Tesla and $100,000 from L.L. Nunn [telluridet...stival.com]. While we're on the subject, this July 9th will be Telsa's 150th birthday, so light up those Tesla Coils [telluridet...stival.com] to celebrate; we'll be doing up here so in Telluride!
Lock 'n Spin (Score:2, Funny)
The purchase of Westinghouse... (Score:4, Interesting)
The rest of the old Westinghouse has been gone for many years. When you see a new "Westinghouse" consumer product, such as a lcd television, that's a separate individual or company that purchased the right to use the brand name in a certain product area, and then contracted with an asian manufacturer to produce the product.
The same point is true of "Polaroid" lcd televisions; an investor bought the right to use the brand name for electronic products at Polaroids bankruptcy auction, and then contracts with asian manufacturers to bring in product.
The Inventors of Alternating Current (Score:3, Informative)
AC won, and Westinghouse became rich and famous: http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/edison/sectio
Re:The Inventors of Alternating Current (Score:2)
It's not over yet, plenty of us still use DC and I know at least 4 people from Australia who are AC/DC. So don't be such a AC fanboi!
Toshiba Mini Reactors (Score:5, Informative)
They are small, safe, and cost effective.
They are the size of a grain silo, buried 100 feet underground. They are idiot-proof (think of the causes of Chernobyl) because the nuclear reaction only happens while a plate is moving in front of the rods. If the plate stops, the reaction stops. The plate cannot move except intentionally, so the chance of a runaway meltdown approaches zero.
If the U.S. were smart it would take a months budget for the war in Iraq and just buy the technology outright from Toshiba, then deploy them as widely and cheaply as possible.
I'd like my nuclear power Highly Centralized, pls! (Score:2)
Re:I'd like my nuclear power Highly Centralized, p (Score:2)
Our own bunker busters don't even reach 100 feet underground.
It seems to be a very safe plan.
Liquid sodium circulates to a steam generator on the surface, where the electricity is produced. The kwazy terrorists could disrupt the electricity (as with any plant) but wouldn't cause any kind of meltdown or fall out.
The Titanic is unsinkable! (Score:2)
But seriously, I agree that we should increase our use of nuclear reactors, but IMHO we have to be extremely careful when it comes to any talk about "foolproof" technology. Also, I am personally more fond of pebble bed style reactors [wikipedia.org].
Re:Toshiba Mini Reactors (Score:2)
Re:Toshiba Mini Reactors (Score:2)
You can be sure if it's Westinghouse. (Score:2)
not to be confused with the Westinghouse of... (Score:4, Informative)
such is the stuff of de-mergers of the US' industrial base in the late 80s and 1990s.
hmmm, one little question (Score:2)
Anyone? Looks like 40 plants being licensed or built currently...pretty vague info
Since the US has done 0? lately, i was curious how many a 50% increase is....
I find some of these numbers interesting, like the cableco paying over $3k per customer in buyouts
Although with a product priced in the billions, it seems like there may be a little room for some profit
Not all it's cracked up to be (Score:2)
Which adds up to a whopping 2.75% annual growth rate. What's to get excited about?
Mis-print, should have read 500% (Score:2, Interesting)
34 times earnings, for a business that they expect to grow by 12% per
year - unless they think that they will get significant synergy with
their existing nuclear businesses, then I think that they are significantly
overpaying for the business.
How qualified is Toshiba to managing nuclear sites (Score:4, Interesting)
There is incentive on the part of executives to diversify, as managers can then get promoted, whereas there was little room to grow before. In the short term the stock goes up and executive salaries also rise, but in the long term, mismanaged divisions only weigh a company down, offsetting profits from the healthy divisions and hurting long term investors.
There is a rising market for nuclear reactors, so this might turn out to be good thing for Toshiba, but I'd do more research before plopping down some coin for Toshiba stock.
Re:How qualified is Toshiba to managing nuclear si (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How qualified is Toshiba to managing nuclear si (Score:3, Informative)
old joke: man opens fridge... (Score:2)
what are you doing? demands the man
isn't this a westinghouse? asks the squirrel
yes, but... says the man
then I'm westing.
ba-boom-cha! I'll be here all season, thank you.
Re:WoW (Score:3, Interesting)
GE has been doing that for decades - add in locomotives; lightbulbs, and plastics as well.
Re:WoW (Score:4, Funny)
No big deal (Score:2)
and as a sister post pointed out, GE too.
BTW, there is no technical difference between an electric motor and an electrical generator
Here you go. (Score:2)
Re:what?? (Score:2)
Re:Anyone else worried about this? (Score:2)
You're a bit paranoid there, I think. The Japanese are heavily dependent on nuclear power - I think more so even than France. They have plenty of experience with nuclear fission, they have plenty of radioactives of all kinds available. If Japan wanted