China Launching 1500 MWe Nuclear Power Plant

China’s State Power Investment Corp (SPIC) has officially launched the CAP1400 reactor design. the 1500 MWe design is a larger version of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor. The plan is for many of these nuclear reactors to be built in China and for export to other countries. Once mass production of the CAP1400 starts, the project cost can be reduced by about 20%. Over 90% of the equipment and components can be made with internal Chinese suppliers. This includes main pumps, valves, pressure vessels, steam generators, reactor internals, control rod drive mechanisms, large forgings, nuclear-grade welding materials, 690 U-shaped pipes and other key equipment.

Construction of two demonstration CAP1400 units is continuing at Huaneng Group’s Shidaowan site in Shandong province. The CAP1400 projects were approved in 2019.

The CAP1400 can be used for non-power applications, such as heat, steam supply, hydrogen production and desalination. China is constructing a reactor to provide solely district heating, which he said will improve the environment, especially in this northern area of the country.

The CAP1400 power generation costs are 6 cents/kilowatt hour and USD6 per gigajoule of heat. This is less than USD15 per gigajoule for heating only alternatives. The CAP1400 price could go down to 4.8 cents per kilowatt-hour with mass production.

If the straight kwh of electricity costs are compared then the 4-5 cents for solar in some parts of China can be cheaper, but the solar price does not include the cost of backup (either natural gas or coal in China) or energy storage. Peaker plants (natural gas) cost twice as much because they are only running at peak hours. The combined costs to get to stable energy generation for an apples to apples comparison and to match the actual energy demand are better for nuclear.

Nuclear at 6 cents generates per kwh makes almost twice as much energy as heat. This cogeneration offsets the cost. China uses heat for industrial purposes and to heat homes.

Curtailment is wasted energy generation when it is making too much at the wrong time. Generating too much power at midday from renewables can mean 7%-15% is wasted. Curtailment sometimes reaches 39%.

Not generating at night or cloudy days or polluted days means that backup is needed. The solar power also needs to be rebuilt in 20-25 years while the CAP1400 nuclear plant will last for 60 years and probably over 100 years with a refit in 60 years.

China’s nuclear energy is still less expensive than solar and wind power.

The pressurized water reactor CAP1400 was one of the sixteen National Science and Technology Major Projects. The contract with Westinghouse banned China from selling its version overseas unless it generated over 1,350 megawatts. The CAP 1400 reactors can now generate around 1,500MW of electricity.

President Xi Jinping promised to make China carbon neutral by 2060.

The CAP 1400 is the second third-generation nuclear technology China has developed. The Hualong One reactors based on a French design.

The reactors are designed to last 60 years. The chance of an accident is 100 times lower than with second-generation technology.

Each reactor can provide the energy demand of 22 million people and cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 9 million tonnes.

In 2019, China emitted about 14 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Building 200 CAP1400 reactors would reduce China’s emissions by 1.8 billion tons.

China could accelerate nuclear energy buildout to reach 200 GW in 2030 and 400 GW by 2050. This is according to a 2018 research paper on Prospects in China for nuclear development up to 2050.

China could also make significant progress toward closing the nuclear fuel cycle by developing facilities to reprocess uranium (like in France and Japan) and with fast breeder reactors.

SOURCES -South China Morning Post, World Nuclear News, Yanxin Chen, Guillaume Martin, Christine Chabert, Romain Eschbach, Hui He, et al.. Prospects in China for nuclear development up to 2050. Progress in Nuclear Energy, Elsevier, 2018, 103, pp.81 -90. ff10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.11.011ff. ffcea-01908268f, Carbon Brief
Written by Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

26 thoughts on “China Launching 1500 MWe Nuclear Power Plant”

  1. Yes, a very low death/TW.h is still not a zero death/TW.h. Keep cranking out more and more TW, and you'll will start to get a death toll.

    Of course the total power generation toll would be lower than if those TW.h were produced by coal plants. Or not produced at all leaving people in the dark. But that's not going to appear on the MSM reports and we all know it.

    And we have to admit that the very low d/TW.h rate was achieved with the current attitude to nuclear safety. If nukes were made with the slapdash attitude of solar installs then we'd see more deaths.

  2. China knows solar PV is cheaper, that's why they installed ~130 gigawatts over their current 5 year plan(ending 2020). USA knows nuclear is mostly uneconomical, that's why they've added ~2.5GW(under construction since 2013) new nuclear in that same period. That's right, economics and not tree hugging is to blame for both state of affairs.

  3. That may not be such a bad thing… Government uninterested in exploiting space also means that we have the "internet" where free market and entrepreneurs dominate.

  4. Yep, most of populated China is "unsuitable" for either solar or wind. They will have to use coal or nuclear to keep the lights on.

  5. Why would they pop? Nuclear has the highest safety rating of all – higher than even Solar. I was surprised to learn that more people per kWh die installing solar than through nuclear accidents.

    Fear mongering is not helpful, especially if you care about either a green, low carbon world or cheap, reliable power for economic growth.

  6. Actually, because Chinese security IS tight (by western standards) I'm not sure we will find out unless it does go badly wrong.

  7. On the subject of cheap gas, Turkey seems to be saying they've just discovered some vast, world price altering, gas field.

    Because God is still punishing the Middle East*, said find is of course right on disputed border territory.

  8. To steelman the argument: It's reasonable to suggest that the safety (not security) systems (both technical and human) are not as emphasised in Chinese nuke plants as much as western examples of the same age and technical generation.

    Possibly because in China, a radiation leak that causes no injuries (eg. Three Mile Island) would be considered less of a big deal than say a coal tailings dam collapse that killed a few people.

  9. This would only be true of Space Solar, all things considered. Esp at a scale relevant to global heating.

  10. If the straight kwh of electricity costs are compared then the 3.8 cents for solar in China can be cheaper, but the solar price does not include the cost of backup (either natural gas or coal in China.) or storage. Peaker plants (natural gas) cost twice as much because they are only running at peak hours.

    Nuclear at 6 cents generates per kwh makes almost twice as much energy as heat. This cogeneration offsets the cost. China uses the heat for industrial purposes and to heat homes.

    Curtailment -wasted generation at the wrong time is 7%-15%. Curtailment sometime reaches 39%.

    Not generating at night or cloudy days or polluted days means that backup is needed. The solar power also needs to be rebuilt in 20-25 years while the nuclear lasts for 60 years.

    https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1003939/china-is-wasting-less-solar-and-wind-power

  11. Speaking of pork, if SLS is cancelled, with the idea that cargo rated Starship is soonly, Musk time, then the people can be brought up separately, and the Gateway and related Mars craft assembled more in Space, not needing the huge crew rated rocket. ??

  12. I suggest you check out Bridenstein. He had a Moon Museum in his house, very serious and well informed. Now, by NASA I mean the NASA effort to NOT industrialize Space, but rather bridge the workflow so that the next orbiting habitat will be primarily for private research and profit, but still much used and needed by NASA. Perhaps an addition to ISS rather than replacement. The orbit is strange, but good for tourists' view. We can't just stop LEO! Then, NASA can continue on with the harder stuff only they can finance. It is best to get the gov out of any marketplace driven even partly by profit. Plenty of energy where money is to be made! Pure R&D is best done before profit is visible, the unknown.

  13. China, Russia, Canada, Finland, etc- there are countries.

    Maybe NuScale changes things for the UK. Problem in the US is that methane is crazy cheap.

  14. I don't think NASA really wants to industrialize space. I think they want the pork to flow.

    Musk and Bezos OTOH…

  15. China isn't exactly known for its security measures. They are increasing the risk for every new plant. The lack of proper knowledge and scientists is also a factor, specially when they lack in the funding necessary to maintain so many nuclear plants.

  16. "costs are 6 cents/kilowatt and USD6 per gigajoule of heat." Assume this is really $.06 per KWh-e, an often used measurement, and that they have the fastest growth curve, to .4 TWe by 2050, again, assuming the e, one can compare to Criswell LSP, which has a .5 to 1 TWe "starter kit" to get to break even cash flow, at 1 cent per KWh-e, and falling if you believe Musk rocket costs, and Criswell estimates for lower build out costs. And, you get transmission and balancing to anywhere needed, with power beaming. I guess we will need help with this decision. Perhaps NASA wanting to industrialize Space will help?

Comments are closed.