![]() |
Здравствуйте, гость ( Вход | Регистрация )
![]() |
![]()
Сообщение
#1
|
|
![]() Модератор ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Группа: Clubmen Сообщений: 25 438 Регистрация: 16.1.2007 Из: Обнинск Пользователь №: 4 ![]() |
Тема по китайскому CAP-1400.
Сначала про название, про его буквенную часть. Китайцы предпочитают "Си-Эй-Пи". У нас приживается "Цап". У буржуев слышали "Кэп". |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Сообщение
#2
|
|
![]() Модератор ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Группа: Clubmen Сообщений: 25 438 Регистрация: 16.1.2007 Из: Обнинск Пользователь №: 4 ![]() |
Правовая сторона дела.
According to Baker Donelson, the Westinghouse technology transfer agreement for the AP1000 reactor grants the Chinese only a “nonexclusive license to use that technology in China,” with Westinghouse retaining all its intellectual property rights. The agreement allows the Chinese to modify the AP1000 design but they cannot export such variants “unless they do so with Westinghouse under a marketing alliance.” However, the Westinghouse agreement does give China the right to export a “large passive plant,” essentially a larger version of the AP1000. Such plants could be sold to any country except the United States and Japan, subject to U.S. export control laws, according to Baker Donelson. Westinghouse would have the right to participate in such export projects to the extent that they incorporated AP1000 technology. If China did not include Westinghouse in such exports, then Westinghouse would have to be compensated for any of its technology that was used. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
Текстовая версия | Сейчас: 11.8.2025, 17:51 |