Today China is what US was

[NSG_Blackcats]

Mr. Koji, this is not an India bashing thread. This thread is about China and US. So please stay on topic.

 

[Koji]

My apologies. I was only countering P2Prada's initial argument...who brought China first into the fold..

 

[Martian]

"Today, Chinese [nuclear industry] is [working] on what US was."

Today, China possesses 8.6 Giga-Watts (GW) of power-generation capability from nuclear power plants. In comparison, the US has 101 GW.

Nuclear Power in China

" * Mainland China has 11 nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, nearly 20 under construction, and more about to start construction in 2009.

* Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a sixfold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 60 GWe or possibly more by 2020, and then a further three to fourfold increase to 120-160 GWe by 2030.

* The country aims to become self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle."

"In July 2009, the State Council was reported to be considering raising the 2020 target to 86 GWe installed and 18 GWe under construction."

"In November 2007, the NDRC said that the government had budgeted CNY 450 billion ($65 billion) to build nuclear power capacity by 2020. It had selected 13 coastal sites to accommodate 59.46 GWe."

However, China should attain "at least 60 GWe or possibly more by 2020." And sometime between 2020 and 2030, China will match US nuclear-power generation capability. China will attain nuclear-generation capability parity with the United States in about roughly 15 years (just take the average).

I think badguy2000 is right. You need lots of money, at least $65 billion dollars, for nuclear power projects.

 

[Martian]

I think everybody needs to take a break.

We're only chatting in here. If China and the US want to keep squabbling, I say let them. I am surprised at how emotional some members react to my posts. They're just newslinks. I'm also very careful to avoid articles on India.

Here's a funny and popular cartoon about China and the US with over 175,000 views. I hope you have a good laugh. Hint: don't look at the planes; look at the author's choice of animals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTa697yCgKU

 

[Martian]

Let's try to have a dispassionate discussion about the Chinese currency.

The Chinese currency has been pegged to the U.S. dollar for over ten years. During the Asian financial crisis of 1997, China maintained its peg while other Asian countries devalued their currencies. China was an important contributor to help Asia weather the 1997 financial storm.

Due to increased productivity, the Chinese economy is becoming fiercely competitive on the world market. Due to complaints from the U.S., China responded by INCREASING the value of its currency by a whopping 21.9% from 2005 to 2008.

While in the middle of the worst global recession in 80 years, the U.S. is demanding that China raise the value of its currency. Obviously, this is ridiculous; it would damage the Chinese economy. As an important and responsible member of the international community, China has signaled its intention to allow the resumption of the appreciating value of its currency sometime next year in 2010.

In conclusion, China was a very responsible country in helping other Asian countries during the 1997 Asian financial crisis. China has been responsive and placed itself at an economic disadvantage by raising its currency value by 21.9% from 2005 to 2008. China continues to contribute to the global economy by signaling its willingness to shortly resume increasing the value of its currency to help uncompetitive foreign industries.

On a related issue, China has continued its positive contributions to the world economy by implementing a 500+ billion-dollar stimulus package. China is pulling in imports and helping its Asian neighbors and the world economy recover from the economic downturn.

For those of you that are interested in currency values during the current economic downturn, you may want to know that the Russian Ruble and Indian Rupee have both fallen sharply in value. Due to the decreased value of their currencies, both the Russian and Indian economies are far more competitive on the world market. The complaint regarding the Chinese currency is an U.S.-China issue. The Chinese peg has no effect on the Russian or Indian economies.

As stated above, the fall in the Russian and Indian currencies have made Russian and Indian industries more competitive in the world, including against Chinese industry.

I forgot to say something important here. Since the Yuan is pegged to the US dollar, the US competitiveness against China does not change. When the US dollar decreases (or increases) in value, the Chinese Yuan also decreases (or increases). Their relative competitiveness remains fixed.

The US is pressuring China to raise its Yuan value to force the Chinese to become less competitive against US industry. Over the last four years, the Chinese have already raised their currency by 21.9%. The US is upset that the 21.9% appreciation in the Chinese currency appears to have no effect. There are some fundamentalist economists in the United States that reason: we'll keep pushing the Yuan value to the sky until the rival Chinese economy crashes at some point. It's a nice dream, but I don't think the Chinese will go that far to accommodate the US.

At an initial superficial glance, the Europeans may have a reason to complain. The dollar's decline in value is dragging down the Yuan value and making European exports more expensive. However, uncomfortable facts keep cropping up. How about the fact that the Yuan has increased in value by 21.9% over the last four years? Today, European industry is still more competitive against the Chinese than it was four years ago before the Chinese 21.9% appreciation.

Also, if currency traders believe that European industries/countries are becoming less competitive against Chinese industry and that this factor outweighs the weakness in the U.S. economy then the currency traders will push down the value of the Euro and increase the value of the US dollar+Yuan peg duo.

 

[Martian]

It just occurred to me that this is a perfect opportunity to discuss Yuan, high-speed rail, productivity, and international competitiveness.

There has been some confusion as to whether a high-speed rail enhances economic competitiveness. Let's look at the critical factors and see what happens.

Let's suppose America manufactures (Dell) computers in Texas. Let's say the Union Pacific railroad company transports those computers to seaports at speeds of 50 miles per hour. Due to the 19th century speeds, Union Pacific can only run 10 freight trains per day.

Now, let's suppose China manufactures (Lenovo) computers in Guangzhou. Let's say China Railways transports those computers to seaports at speeds of 200 miles per hour. Due to the 21st century speeds, China Railways can run 40 freight trains per day (i.e. 4 times greater speed implies 4 times greater traffic density).

To cover its costs (i.e. rent, bond interest, employee wages, insurance costs, etc.) and to make a profit, Union Pacific charges 100 dollars per train-load of transport. Union Pacific's revenues per day are 1,000 dollars (10 trains x 100 dollars per train).

Let's assume that China Railways has a similar cost structure to Union Pacific. At Union Pacific rates, China Railways' revenues per day are 4,000 dollars (40 trains x 100 dollars per train). Instead of making ridiculous profits, China Railways charges only 50 dollars per train-load of transport. China Railways revenues are 2,000 dollars (40 trains x 50 dollars per train). China Railways still makes much more than Union Pacific, but the train shipment costs in China are only half as expensive as in America.

Therefore, let's say the Yuan appreciates by another 21.9% in the next four years. China's high-speed rail will enable Chinese computer manufacturers to stay competitive because their transportation costs per train-load of computers has dropped in half, compared to their U.S. competitors.

I hope my example was sufficiently clear to illustrate the point that increasing economic efficiency from a high-speed rail will lead to productivity gains that may easily offset an increasing currency and thus allow a country to maintain its international competitiveness.

 

[nitesh]

martian this post is for you I am waiting for the FACTS as asked in post 180 will wait for some time you provide it otherwise all your posts after 180 will be henceforth deleted.

 

[Soham]

Martian,
People are not bored in life that they'll set up polls to decide whether we like you or not.

 

[johnee]

martian this post is for you I am waiting for the FACTS as asked in post 180 will wait for some time you provide it otherwise all your posts after 180 will be henceforth deleted.

Nitesh Sir,
As a mod, you are the one to decide what is best way to run the forum, but I had small point to make. If a certain(non-abusive, not flame-baiting or not trolling) post is deleted because the points presented in the post are not being backed up by FACTS, then it will set a precedent. And many posts in the forum would have to be deleted.

IMHO, people must be allowed to put forth their views/opinions/sentiments and others who disagree with them can debunk them if necessary. Of course, pointless posts or emotional rants can and must be deleted but not opinions. Just my view, no offence meant to you, Nitesh.

 

[nitesh]

Nitesh Sir,
As a mod, you are the one to decide what is best way to run the forum, but I had small point to make. If a certain(non-abusive, not flame-baiting or not trolling) post is deleted because the points presented in the post are not being backed up by FACTS, then it will set a precedent. And many posts in the forum would have to be deleted.

IMHO, people must be allowed to put forth their views/opinions/sentiments and others who disagree with them can debunk them if necessary. Of course, pointless posts or emotional rants can and must be deleted but not opinions. Just my view, no offence meant to you, Nitesh.

Johnee sir I understand your point but no body should be allowed to run amok with nonsense also. I hope you agree here. I hope I answered your point. Please see the point on which I am insisting to be presented with FACTS

 

[p2prada]

It just occurred to me that this is a perfect opportunity to discuss Yuan, high-speed rail, productivity, and international competitiveness.

There has been some confusion as to whether a high-speed rail enhances economic competitiveness. Let's look at the critical factors and see what happens.

Let's suppose America manufactures (Dell) computers in Texas. Let's say the Union Pacific railroad company transports those computers to seaports at speeds of 50 miles per hour. Due to the 19th century speeds, Union Pacific can only run 10 freight trains per day.

Now, let's suppose China manufactures (Lenovo) computers in Guangzhou. Let's say China Railways transports those computers to seaports at speeds of 200 miles per hour. Due to the 21st century speeds, China Railways can run 40 freight trains per day (i.e. 4 times greater speed implies 4 times greater traffic density).

To cover its costs (i.e. rent, bond interest, employee wages, insurance costs, etc.) and to make a profit, Union Pacific charges 100 dollars per train-load of transport. Union Pacific's revenues per day are 1,000 dollars (10 trains x 100 dollars per train).

Let's assume that China Railways has a similar cost structure to Union Pacific. At Union Pacific rates, China Railways' revenues per day are 4,000 dollars (40 trains x 100 dollars per train). Instead of making ridiculous profits, China Railways charges only 50 dollars per train-load of transport. China Railways revenues are 2,000 dollars (40 trains x 50 dollars per train). China Railways still makes much more than Union Pacific, but the train shipment costs in China are only half as expensive as in America.

Therefore, let's say the Yuan appreciates by another 21.9% in the next four years. China's high-speed rail will enable Chinese computer manufacturers to stay competitive because their transportation costs per train-load of computers has dropped in half, compared to their U.S. competitors.

I hope my example was sufficiently clear to illustrate the point that increasing economic efficiency from a high-speed rail will lead to productivity gains that may easily offset an increasing currency and thus allow a country to maintain its international competitiveness.

You forgot to mention how much oil or electricity is required to run those trains and who's paying how much in taxes and salaries. Then there is the little thing called capital outlay. Who's funding all of this and at what interest? Then there is the question of market dynamics. If you are a customer, which computer will you choose if you have the money to burn, IBM or Lenovo?

All these play into competition. Now let's say out comes Thailand or Mexico who will do the same thing at the same price as China at the same level of quality. Will you choose Thailand or Mexico over China?

China's high-speed rail will enable Chinese computer manufacturers to stay competitive because their transportation costs per train-load of computers has dropped in half, compared to their U.S. competitors.

If so, then other smaller countries like Thailand and Mexico will give severe competition to China. Don't forget that right now all countries in the world want to be a slave of the US because that's where the money is.

 

[Martian]

[mod] martian I am still waiting for the facts, hope you remember this [/mod]

 

[Martian]

martian if you put a nonsense statement you will get answer in the same plate now please prove your this statement with FACTS or else back off or I need to take action because I can't keep giving you levy to do BS, here is the statement you made in your post number 175

Other than slightly more sophisticated satellites, what can the US do in space that China cannot? Want me to post the Chinese spacewalk again?

Are you talking about this (see highlight above)? Here we go.

1. US has communication satellites. So does China.

2. US has reconnaissance satellites. So does China.

3. US has spy satellites. So does China.

4. US has direct-ascent ASAT capability. So does China.

5. US has anti-satellite lasers. So does China.

6. US can send man into low-earth-orbit for spacewalk. So can China.

7. US lacks rocket to send man to moon. China lacks similar rocket at this time (may change around 2020-2025).

8. US has GPS satellites. China has GPS satellites (China's system currently covers Asia. China's complete 30-satellite GPS "Beidou" system to cover the entire Earth will be finished within 5 years.)

Have I answered your question to your satisfaction? Do you want me to post links for each item? I can do that if you like. Isn't this stuff common knowledge?

Will you give me back my two demotion points? I don't want to be only a DFI captain. I have higher aspirations.

 

[nitesh]

Are you talking about this? Here we go.

1. US has communication satellites. So does China.

2. US has reconnaissance satellites. So does China.

3. US has spy satellites. So does China.

4. US has direct-ascent ASAT capability. So does China.

5. US can send man into low-earth-orbit for spacewalk. So can China.

6. US lacks rocket to send man to moon. China lacks similar rocket at this time (may change around 2020-2025).

7. US has GPS satellites. China has GPS satellites (China's system currently covers Asia. China's complete 30-satellite GPS "Beidou" system to cover the entire Earth will be finished within 5 years.)

Have I answered your question to your satisfaction? Do you want me to post links for each item? I can do that if you like. Isn't this stuff common knowledge?

As ritesh said previously you have to get some treatment. Will be doing it once I reply. Again you are getting involved in putting selective information. What crap is this: "US lacks rocket to send to moon" You have conveniently forgotten Hubble telescope, mission to mars and other various projects. You have forgot there space shuttles. As DD has already posted previously the considerable Russian assistance you got these are just examples. So stop divulging in to giving selective information. Now cool yourself off for some time. And remember if you start this crap again absolutely no consideration will be given to you.

 

[Yusuf]

I wonder where the Apollos went with the Saturn Rockets?

 

[Martian]

As ritesh said previously you have to get some treatment. Will be doing it once I reply. Again you are getting involved in putting selective information. What crap is this: "US lacks rocket to send to moon" You have conveniently forgotten Hubble telescope, mission to mars and other various projects. You have forgot there space shuttles. As DD has already posted previously the considerable Russian assistance you got these are just examples. So stop divulging in to giving selective information. Now cool yourself off for some time. And remember if you start this crap again absolutely no consideration will be given to you.

The Hubble telescope was built at a time when science was not yet capable of solving the problem of atmospheric distortion caused by the uneven temperature of Earth's atmosphere. If the atmosphere is causing stars to twinkle then the simple solution is to send a telescope beyond the atmosphere to avoid the "twinkling effect."

However, since the time of Hubble, science has advanced considerably. Scientists have solved the "twinkling effect" by using adaptive optics. As I understand it, you fire a laser into the atmosphere. The laser creates an artificial "guide-star." The optical sensors on the ground adjust the mirrors on the telescope to compensate for any distortions in the laser guide-star compared to an ideal non-distorted guide-star.

China will probably not launch an expensive space-based Hubble telescope because it is far more cost-effective to use an Earth-based advanced telescope with adaptive optics technology.

China's finest telescope to trace universe's origin

"BEIJING - China built the finest optical telescope to scan 10 million celestial spectra in the coming five-to-six years, one of the world's most ambitious astronomical endeavors to record key data portraying how the universe was formed.

The Chinese government, which awarded a 235 million-yuan ($34 million) contract to a consortium of elite astronomers and engineers, officially unveiled on Thursday the Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST), the biggest telescope of its kind in the world.

The research team, led by Cui Xiangqun, a world-renowned active optics expert who heads the Nanjing Institute of Astronomical Optics and Technology under the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), made a breakthrough in synchronized movements of 24 hexagonal mirrors of a Schmidt reflecting corrector, which is used to track celestial bodies for scientific analyses.

Cui and her team even made each mirror piece, 1.1 meters in diametrical length, capable of deformation for more precise targeting and error correction in observations. Light from celestial bodies are reflected to a bigger spherical mirror, made up of 37 same-sized hexagonal mirrors in a similar way.

With the 3.6-meter-aperture reflector and the 4.9-meter-aperture spherical mirror, together with a focal plane mounted with 4,000 optical fibers - all cutting-edge technologies - scientists could ascertain spectra of 2.5 million fixed stars, 2.5 million galaxies, 1.5 million brighter cluster galaxies and one million quasi-stellar objects, mostly in the north celestial sphere.

All the 10 million spectra are expected to be completed within five-to-six years, Cui said, adding that the data would be subsequently accessible to global scientists.

Spectra are key for astronomers to read celestial bodies' chemical composition, density, atmosphere and magnetism. So far, the science community have found the existence of billions of celestial bodies, but have only managed to collect spectra of about one in every 10,000 of them.

The ambitious goal of collecting so much data encouraged Cui and her team to overcome the obstacles making a super large telescope that has both a big aperture and wide field of view."

"The light of space is fed into the front ends of optical fibers positioned on a focal plane, before real-time data are recorded into spectrographs fixed in a room underneath.

The idea was developed from the spherical and aspherical mirror combination, invented by German opticist B. V. Schmidt in 1931. It also uses advanced active optics technologies.

Dr. R. N. Wilson, inventor of the active optics theory, wrote in an e-mail to Cui, his former colleague at the European Southern Observatory, that LAMOST "embodies every aspect of the most advanced and modern telescope technology."

Carrying on mankind's dream of understanding the universe, inspired by the invention of astronomical telescope by Italy's Galileo Galilei, Chinese scientists are hoping to capitalize on the "costly big toy" to unravel dark matter, dark energy, as well as celestial formation and evolution.

Before LAMOST, the American Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) had been the most powerful spectra-collecting optical telescope. Installed in a New Mexican astronomical station, SDSS has an aperture of 2.5 meters.

In recent months, Cui's huge telescope managed to capture more than 3,600 spectra in each of the four trials on clear Spring nights.

"We're quite comfortable with the scans," Cui said. "Most of the time, we shot the targets exactly, if not hitting the bull's eyes."

University of Chicago Prof. Donald York, founding director of SDSS, said in an e-mail interview with Xinhua that the data for well-positioned fibers of LAMOST looked "very good."

York, however, said that precise calibrated data in wavelength and absolute flux of the celestial bodies cannot be done until the telescope's fiber positioning becomes "perfect" after debugging.

California Institute of Technology astronomer Richard Ellis said, "A large telescope is one of the best examples of what a civilization does well, and I think here we look at the LAMOST now and we see what China has done."

Cui said Chinese scientists might consider building a similar big telescope on Antarctica, to gain wider and clearer cosmic view."

 

[nitesh]

^^

Is you are trying to say US does not have earth based observatories?
Other way of saying China lacks the technology to send a telescope to space.

 

[Martian]

^^

Is you are trying to say US does not have earth based observatories?
Other way of saying China lacks the technology to send a telescope to space.

I'm saying that China will not launch a Hubble-type telescope because advanced adaptive optics allow China to achieve space-based telescope results with advanced Earth-based telescopes.

The point is that China possesses Earth-based Hubble-quality telescope capability and advanced adaptive optics technology that is equal to the United States.

The US has spaced-based Hubble. China has equal astronomical capability using advanced Earth-based adaptive optics.

 

[nitesh]

I'm saying that China will not launch a Hubble-type telescope because advanced adaptive optics allow China to achieve space-based telescope results with advanced Earth-based telescopes.

The point is that China possesses Earth-based Hubble-quality telescope capability and advanced adaptive optics technology that is equal to the United States.

The US has spaced-based Hubble. China has equal astronomical capability using advanced Earth-based adaptive optics.

So this means that NASA is a fool who is who is still managing that costly equipment and they are not able to make any advances in there earth based observatories in so much time.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

I'm saying that China will not launch a Hubble-type telescope because advanced adaptive optics allow China to achieve space-based telescope results with advanced Earth-based telescopes.

The point is that China possesses Earth-based Hubble-quality telescope capability and advanced adaptive optics technology that is equal to the United States.

The US has spaced-based Hubble. China has equal astronomical capability using advanced Earth-based adaptive optics.

Can someone ban this *****?

You're telling me that an earth bound telescope with all the atmosphere in between that a space borned telescope with no gases in between except those we want to see?

You are NOT a patents expert. You certainly are NOT an astrolomy expert. In fact, you are a freaking clown!