China Could Export $145 Billion Worth of Nuclear Reactors By 2030

China’s Belt and Road nuclear projects could earn Chinese firms as much as 1 trillion yuan ($145.52 billion) by 2030. This would be 30 large nuclear reactors built in countries that are part of the Belt and Road plan.

Forty-one Belt and Road nations already had nuclear power programs or were planning to develop them. China would need 20% market share to create five million new jobs and export 30 nuclear reactors. This would also mean that if China could get half of the nuclear market in those countries then China could build 75 nuclear reactors outside of China by 2030.

China is exporting its own third-generation reactor design known as Hualong One.

China’s domestic nuclear construction pace has slowed down so there is extra capacity available to build nuclear reactors for other countries.

By 2026, China is expected to generate close to 100 gigawatts of electricity from nuclear energy, nearly tripling current production. In addition to lower capital and labor costs, large-scale standardization efforts and growing technical expertise in manufacturing and construction have helped make nuclear power economical in China.

Karachi 2 and 3 (in Pakistan) are the first export of China’s Hualong One design, with construction of unit 2 beginning in 2015 and unit 3 in 2016. Installation of the reactor internals at unit 2 was completed in January this year. The units are scheduled for commercial operation in 2021 and 2022.

In addition to the two units under construction in Pakistan, four Hualong One units are being built in China. China National Nuclear Corporation is constructing two units at its Fuqing plant in Fujian province, while China General Nuclear (CGN) is building two at its Fangchenggang site in Guangxi province. All four units are expected to enter commercial operation in 2019-2020.

CGN proposes to use a UK version of its Hualong One design – the HPR1000 – at a prospective new nuclear power plant at Bradwell, England.

China is close to a nuclear reactor deal in Argentina. An Argentina deal is one of the first success stories for Chinese nuclear overseas. Since 2000, Russia has dominated overseas nuclear power, supplying 45 percent of total capacity. China is the fifth largest exporter, supplying just 9 percent.

SOURCES- Reuters, World Nuclear News, Bulletin of the American Scientist
Written By Brian Wang, nextbigfuture.com

21 thoughts on “China Could Export $145 Billion Worth of Nuclear Reactors By 2030”

  1. Only if they use weasel words.

    It certainly does apply to those who believe in LSP or the MSR of the year*.

    *A particular MSR hype lifetime apears to be on the order of 4 years, with at least one “new” concept appearing each year.

    Reply
  2. One is a mature industry that is dying and the other is an exponentially growing industry.

    I guess we can celebrate the birth of a baby rhino but let us not think that birth means the rhinos aren’t going extinct.

    Reply
  3. That was good. I was going to tell him that his opinion was one of 9 billion and therefore less than insignificant. He bugs me lately.

    Reply
  4. 30 reactors is an insignificant increase in global power production

    • US solar power generation in 2018 after 25 years (per Wikipedia): 96.1 TWhr
    • 36GWe Chinese nuclear in a decade from new build: 283 TWhr

    Boy you must really be disappointed with US solar production.

    Reply
  5. You’ve obviously never seen how China builds stuff. For better and worse it is basically 125% effort.

    When it comes to China and nuclear:

    • The plant designs are good (AP1000 and its derivatives)
    • I worry a little about the materials. How reliable is the concrete?
    • I worry a deal about following the designs when building. Following the plan isn’t the Chinese way of building things, usually you wing parts of the construction.
    • I worry a lot about how the plants will be run. Maybe too much faith will be put in passive safety, trust in the building and its materials…
    Reply
  6. A Solar Power Sat would do that. The position of the sat is trivial, Moon or orbit. Beam is the same, as are receivers.

    Reply
  7. I wasn’t implying that my comment was subtle enough for people to miss the sarcasm. I was just trying to introduce the italics convention here because often there are people who DO miss the point of what is meant to be a joke.

    On to the actual subject: I would love to see solar power being beamed from the moon, but:

    • I think you are overly optimistic about how ready people are to let other people do what the first group thinks is a bad idea.
    • What you need is a small but viable prototype or pilot plant design. You are very unlikely to get a full scale system in operation if you can’t get a small (say $50-100 million) system up and running so people can see it is feasible, safe and commercially viable.
    Reply
  8. I knew it was sarcasm from content, but thanx for the style note, I was unaware. All caps still means SCREAMING, right? But caps in quote are from the source, headlines in lists are often caps.
    So, do we obey the idiots? Do people not use cellphones, etc? Fortunately, not! Each jurisdiction can accept their own beams, so let the others freeze in the dark, as Texans used to say about the windfall petroleum tax, long ago.
    Even Mankins thinks the power will be all in one beam(which *would* be a 20-200 TW death ray!), whereas the advantage is to Criswell, as the beams are to local areas, greatly reducing transmission needs, and supplying that thru redirectors if needed. Compare ppg 12 and 13(a transition phase) and see which looks better!
    Thanx!

    Reply
  9. I’m absolutely sure that the screaming kids in paper mache hats who think that a fission reactor is just another sort of nuclear bomb will be perfectly happy to accept the physics and engineering that means that a huge energy ray aimed at their planet can’t possibly be a death ray.

    After all, they don’t freak out about vaccines or mobile phone towers or power lines, because accepted experts have assured them it’s all perfectly safe.

    (Stylistic note: In some forums the use of italics means sarcasm, and frankly it’s a good idea because so many people completely miss it otherwise.)

    Reply
  10. On the basis of the economic size, London may be “Greater Pakistan”.

    Assuming their economy doesn’t fall to a Pakistani per capita level.

    Reply
  11. As you know from resident experts on Solar Power Sats, there is good news and bad news about power beaming. The bad news is that the frequencies used require large antennae and beams. The good news is that the frequencies used prevent weaponization!
    “BEAMS DELIVER POWER TO RECTENNAS- Safe (<20% of sunlight)- Reliable (through clouds, rain, smoke, etc.)” -pg 3. You can read?

    Reply

Leave a Comment