China to build 6-8 reactors a year

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
48,055
Location
Ontario, Canada
China has recently finalized their own domestic reactor design, the Hualong One, which is based heavily on the French (Areva) EPR units. This is a Generation III reactor and will likely be the dominant reactor design going forward. China has been on a three-year hiatus from approving new builds (existing builds continued), but this has now ceased and they are expecting to ramp up approval and production to 6-8 units a year so they are able to meet their 2030 targets: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-exec-idUSKCN1RD16V?utm_source=applenews
Quote
BEIJING (Reuters) - China will be able to build six to eight nuclear reactors a year once the approval process gets back to normal in the near future, the chairman of the state-owned China National Nuclear Corporation told Reuters on Monday. "That should be enough to meet our country's 2030 development plans," he said on the sidelines of an industry conference. China did not approve any new projects for three years until it gave the nod to two new reactor complexes in southeast China earlier this year.
This includes an immediate plan for a total of 26 reactors in Guangdong, with the goal of 46:
Quote
The 120 billion yuan (US$17.74 billion) megaproject, to be run by the state-owned China General Nuclear Power Corp (CGN), will bring the total number of nuclear reactors in Guangdong, a manufacturing powerhouse and China's largest provincial economy, to 26. CGN's ultimate plan is to boost that number to 46, spanning 11 plants, to power Guangdong's booming economy, whose gross domestic product in 2018 is tipped to hit the 10-trillion-yuan mark and surpass South Korea and Canada. The new reactors in Huizhou, already given the go-ahead by China's environmental watchdog, will be built around China's indigenous, third generation Hualong (China Dragon) pressurized water nuclear reactor standards. The total power generation capacity will be equivalent to Hong Kong's annual electricity consumption, according to CGN.
At 1,170MW per unit, the 6-8 year target means that over the next 11 years we can expect a ramp up to 6-8GW per year of new nuclear to come online; 66-88GW total within that period. While still paling in comparison to the country's seemingly insatiable thirst for coal at 981GW of installed capacity, it would push total installed Nuclear to ~110GW, likely making it the third largest source of power in terms of actual generation output behind coal and hydro.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
3,646
Location
Worst Case, Ontario
Nuclear energy is the future and they don't have western environmentalism or WW2 guilt. Their air quality will eventually kill their population if they keep burning coal.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
48,055
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by csandste
Better than coal, I guess.
That it certainly is, if eliminating emissions is the end game. Keep in mind that 110GW of Nuclear has the ability to produce 906TWh/year of electricity @ a 94% CF, which is just a hair under the 1,160TWh their 315GW of hydro produces.
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
19,220
Location
Silicon Valley
Reduce coal related issues for sure, and energy independence being 2nd. They can't take the chance of a coastal blockade, and without importing oil, they will go down quick and they know it. When they have a sizable stockpile of waste, they'll likely be the biggest researcher / spender on reprocessing and fast / actinide fuel reactor, maybe thorium reactor too.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
3,646
Location
Worst Case, Ontario
Originally Posted by PandaBear
When they have a sizable stockpile of waste, they'll likely be the biggest researcher / spender on reprocessing and fast / actinide fuel reactor, maybe thorium reactor too.
Or just toss it in the ocean like they do with the rest of their trash.
 

CT8

Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
15,387
Location
Idaho
Originally Posted by A_Harman
People will eat anything if you put it into a hot dog. Which brings up my next subject of what to do with nuclear waste.
Ship the waste to N Korea.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,672
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted by A_Harman
People will eat anything if you put it into a hot dog. Which brings up my next subject of what to do with nuclear waste.
US (and therefore Japan) have issues with waste because they intentionally keep is as waste (was supposed to become A-Bombs). The balance goes into D.U. to dispose of in various desert settings. Countries that reprocess their nuclear material have far lower levels of waste...plus generate considerable fuel from the 238 part of the Uranium metal (and thorium too soon).
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
48,055
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by A_Harman
People will eat anything if you put it into a hot dog. Which brings up my next subject of what to do with nuclear waste.
US (and therefore Japan) have issues with waste because they intentionally keep is as waste (was supposed to become A-Bombs). The balance goes into D.U. to dispose of in various desert settings. Countries that reprocess their nuclear material have far lower levels of waste...plus generate considerable fuel from the 238 part of the Uranium metal (and thorium too soon).
thumbsup Exactly. the US nuclear waste "problem" isn't one. It's intentional, which is why France actively reprocesses, whilst the US doesn't. It isn't a matter of ability, it is one of will.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
3,441
I am a believer in nuclear power so please do not make assumptions about my stance when I say what I am about too. I have little faith in government run programs. I was in a unique position after 911 dealing with emergency planning regarding a 3 unit plant (2 active; 1 decommissioned). Originally these units were run by NY Power Authority and then bought out by a larger operation. I had zero nuclear background and had to learn a lot quickly. The people I met that work(ed) at the plant were truly dedicated, professional, brilliant Navy Nuke techs to boot. Class act throughout the system.

While researching my new task output stood out like the proverbial prostitute in church. NY Power Authority output graphed looked like an EKG of a heart attack. Very inconsistent. After private takeover the output graph was much more linear and deep valleys were the result of refueling. Seems inconsequential but I believe it reveals a lot. A lot about government control. These were good people working in a bureaucratic system as best they could. Many more examples but not for a public forum.

What I fear is Chinese government control of what really is a massive project. Chinese utter disregard for the environment with cement factories is somewhat understandable but the truly egregious toxic dump sights are inexcusable IMHO. Playing with a nuclear reactor with cavalier attitudes is a world wrecking experiment. Making a few scientists disappear like COVID isn't going to cut it in the wake of a catastrophe.

I don't want to assume but I sure as heck hope the Chinese will reconstitute spent fuel assemblies. It's absurd the US does not allow reconstitution of commercial fuel assemblies; only the military does. Besides the obvious waste the onsite storage of spent fuel is a disaster in the making. That's just my opinion.

Doesn't help that I'm reading Midnight in Chernobyl :oops:
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
3,441
Shannow & Overkill I see you beat me to the waste issue. Some additional government nonsense: Most reactor sites in the US have 1 NRC overwatcher for each unit. The 2 units in my post have anywhere from 2 to 3 due to the heavy political forces that play.
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2020
Messages
115
Very few "environmentalists" are aware that fossil fuels like coal contain significant amounts of radioactive material that goes out the smokestack.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
48,055
Location
Ontario, Canada
I am a believer in nuclear power so please do not make assumptions about my stance when I say what I am about too. I have little faith in government run programs. I was in a unique position after 911 dealing with emergency planning regarding a 3 unit plant (2 active; 1 decommissioned). Originally these units were run by NY Power Authority and then bought out by a larger operation. I had zero nuclear background and had to learn a lot quickly. The people I met that work(ed) at the plant were truly dedicated, professional, brilliant Navy Nuke techs to boot. Class act throughout the system.

While researching my new task output stood out like the proverbial prostitute in church. NY Power Authority output graphed looked like an EKG of a heart attack. Very inconsistent. After private takeover the output graph was much more linear and deep valleys were the result of refueling. Seems inconsequential but I believe it reveals a lot. A lot about government control. These were good people working in a bureaucratic system as best they could. Many more examples but not for a public forum.

What I fear is Chinese government control of what really is a massive project. Chinese utter disregard for the environment with cement factories is somewhat understandable but the truly egregious toxic dump sights are inexcusable IMHO. Playing with a nuclear reactor with cavalier attitudes is a world wrecking experiment. Making a few scientists disappear like COVID isn't going to cut it in the wake of a catastrophe.

I don't want to assume but I sure as heck hope the Chinese will reconstitute spent fuel assemblies. It's absurd the US does not allow reconstitution of commercial fuel assemblies; only the military does. Besides the obvious waste the onsite storage of spent fuel is a disaster in the making. That's just my opinion.

Doesn't help that I'm reading Midnight in Chernobyl :oops:

The two CANDU's built at Qinshan in the early 2000's were built with the purpose of running on spent LWR fuel, so yes, China has intentions on reprocessing/recycling. State run programs are only as good as the states running them. Here in Ontario, our provincially run plants have very good track records for reliability, as does our single facility (the largest operating plant on the world, which is publicly owned/privately operated) at Bruce, however, if you were to map its output it would appear sporadic, since it does load following and offers up to 2,400MW of flexible generation.

France has an excellent operating record of publicly owned units as well.

Large roll-outs are typically public in nature because only the government is willing to put forth that amount of capital with such a long horizon on payback. Now, that's not always the case, Bruce Power is spending $13 billion to refurbish six units at their site, the cost of which will be recuperated through rates, which will take probably 10-15 years, as they are on a fixed-rate contract at $0.077/kWh.

One thing I have noticed is that for-profit operators, like Bruce Power, are more inclined to pursue uprates to increase unit output. Darlington Unit 2 came back from refurb early this year and nameplate remains unchanged. Bruce plans on trying to get as close to 7,000MWe out of their site as possible in comparison and the site has increased in output several times already. Originally 6,280MWe, it's now 6,430MWe.
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Messages
3,632
Location
USA
Very few "environmentalists" are aware...
Find an environmentalist anywhere advocating replacing nuclear with coal, or any other expansion of coal power.

The only one you might find is an "environmentalist" with vested connections to the coal industry.
 
Top