Talk:Nuclear power in China/Archive 1

ERP or CNP
Are they really going to buy any of the EPRs or are they just going to keep building the CNP-1000? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Neglected page
I stand corrected - the page has just been updated. The first new Westinghouse plant has already started construction - see Simesa (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement tag
This article now reads like an advertisement for nuclear power. Nuclear expansion in China has not been without its critics yet this is not discussed. This material has been removed, see :
 * However, according to a government research unit, China must not build "too many nuclear power reactors too quickly", in order to avoid a shortfall of fuel, equipment and qualified plant workers.

Other critical material has just not been included. For example the recent Time article said this:
 * "China's break-neck pace has not, of course, been without its critics. In a vast country where corners have been known to get cut in construction and regulation, and all too often with fatal consequences, safety concerns loom large. And the last time that a nation tried to expand its nuclear sector so quickly, Three-Mile Island happened. Though no major incidents have been in the last 15 years, a fuel rod crack and small radiation leak at the Daya Bay nuclear plant in southern China raised concerns last year. The plant was criticized at the time for not publicizing the incidents immediately, though Hong Kong based China Light and Power (CLP), a shareholder, said the leak fell beneath the bar for requisite reporting. Just this week, however, Tuesday, the plant announced it would now announce any incident at the plant, however minor, within two days of its occurrence".

The New York Times has said:
 * "And China is placing many of its nuclear plants near large cities, potentially exposing tens of millions of people to radiation in the event of an accident. In addition, China must maintain nuclear safeguards in a national business culture where quality and safety sometimes take a back seat to cost-cutting, profits and outright corruption...".

There are four references to World Nuclear Association (WNA) material, the "international organization that promotes nuclear power and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry". Why are we using sources close to the nuclear industry and not IAEA figures?

This article basically presents the nuclear industry's perspective on nuclear power in China and not much else. The article reads like a publicity brochure. We need a much more neutral, balanced article, with a more critical approach and more third party sources. -- Johnfos (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm all for having critical comment in articles, but I don't see the first edit you refer to as removing such comment. It is mostly about rephrasing some poorly worded content. The moving of this detail out of the intro paragraph into the main body seems justified to me. I'm happy to see some more being added, and the bit in the WNA article about concerns that the regulatory regime workforce numbers are too low for the expansion seems a worthwhile addition. Rwendland (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The material is still there, lower down in the "Future projects" section. A recommended goal of 70&minus; GW, as opposed to the current official goal of 70+, isn't worth repeating in the intro. I dropped the Bloomberg cite because the WNN article is much more detailed, and I added a link to the original Chinese Outlook article.
 * The Time and Times articles are both cited. (Though the latter is not correct when it says "China is placing many of its nuclear plants near large cities", as you can see from the map.)
 * The WNA is a reliable source which provides a lot of information about the topic. It's not infallible, of course. I've contacted them several times about errors — and they've accepted the corrections. If you think some number of theirs is wrong, I suggest you do the same.
 * You don't think the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is "close to the nuclear industry"? I hope that not true.
 * —WWoods (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was concerned when I saw that the Bloomberg reference was removed. I've made a few changes now that help to move things in the right direction. Johnfos (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Might be of relevance for expansion
It seems that China is engaging in R&D relating to utilising the thorium fuel cycle as a potential for power-generating reactors. If anyone is interested, here's a starter. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 14:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, 20 March 2011, Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium, Telegraph UK

Naming
There is a discussion which is also related to this article or category. You are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Make it better
OK, look, China's ambitious nuclear program is not reflected in the table. The table is a hodgepodge of currently existing sites and, interestingly, not all of them...China's official capacity is 8587 MWe not 5040 as in the table.

You should have a table that shows the "Nuclear reactors under construction and about to start construction" and leave out the ones that are currently online.

Secondly, you should add a table "Further nuclear power units planned and proposed" which shows the full extent of what the Chinese want to do.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.137.164 (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2008
 * Maybe it's not very clear that the table only contains plants that are underconstruction. It is a bit of miss leading that makes people think there is only 5040MW nuclear powerplant in China in total. I agree with you. Calvingao (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What does "Current phase capacity" mean, and how does it differ from "Maximum capacity"? —WWoods (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Current phase capacity is the capacity that is underconstruction. All the plants have an ultimate plan which corresponds to the maximum capacity.Calvingao (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The phrase current phase capacity confused me too since phase might refer to electricity phase. Perhaps "Capacity Under Construction" and "Planned Maximum Capacity" would be clearer terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.36.79 (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The table of plants 'under construction' could be updated and renamed 'under construction or completed' It might be helpful to have separate lines for the different reactor sets at each site. may be a suitable source. - Rod57 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Map colors
The dots on the map are a bit confusing and counter-intuitive, as the power plants which are already operating are shown with red dots, while the ones which have not been completed are shown as green dots. I don't know if perhaps the colors have different meanings in China, but for most English speakers red is more associated with "stop" while green is associated with "go," "green-light." So I would suggest changing the color to green for the reactors which are currently operational, and perhaps orange for the ones which are under construction. -Helvetica (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * these colours are used in all maps in en:wiki, and so in it:wiki. in de:wiki they are a bit different--Dwalin (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Misleading Capacity Labels
The capacity of reactors should be used to describe the potential electric output of the reactors, not the net power output including thermal waste. This is especially true since China has no intention of using the thermal waste to, say, heat buildings. The power should be relabeded in terms of MWe (Megawatt Electric). So, for example, the AP1000 should have a capacity of 1117 MWe, not 5000 MW. Using the MW instead of MWe is deeply misleading about how much power China is getting from it's nuclear power program. Greg Comlish (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Acronym IPP
The acronym IPP occurs only once, in a section heading. It needs an expansion and, depending on the expansion, a definition. 121.73.5.66 (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Lufeng Nuclear Power Plant
There's another nuclear power plant in Lufeng Guangdong Province. It is not on the form.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to add it if you have a reliable source. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Propose an Nuclear export section
I have been reading up on China and Bri lately. Specifically nuclear power and have noticed alot of info like China's financing option for its exports or the construction agreements that it has reached with countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, Argentina, UK plus the memorandum of understanding on exporting its Nuclear tech with several african countries, etc are currently not in this wikipedia article as of time of writing.

Also I noticed the page to be somewhat outdated. And some of the reasoning behind the forecasts to be lacking. Here's a balanced article about obstacles and forecasts. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/06/02/business/china-nuclear-power-homegrown-reactors/

Nonetheless China is indeed becoming a major Nuclear generator and is becoming more focused on exports. Their policy is to ‘go global’ with exporting nuclear technology including heavy components in the supply chain. And since 2013, China has already reached more than ten construction agreements—exports, mostly concentrated in Asia through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and China’s largest nuclear company plans at least thirty BRI nuclear reactors by 2030 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/the-trade-war-we-want-china-to-win-chinas-nuclear-exports-can-challenge-russian-dominance/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-nuclearpower/china-could-build-30-belt-and-road-nuclear-reactors-by-2030-official-idUSKCN1TL0HZ

Hence given all that significant and relevant information to the topic backed by sources, I feel there's an appropriate need now for a new dedicated section titled China's nuclear exports. I would get to it if I have time but thought out if courtesy, to propose the chapter first on Talk and hope that other editors can get it started. Nvtuil (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * not in the template page--Dwalin (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * A section on technology exports would be interesting to have, and definitely notable.--Ita140188 (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Numbers do not add up
The numbers for the reactors "under construction" in the table do not add up (just do the "sanity check" of comparing the last digit in the sum that is given at the bottom of the table and by summing the non-zero last digits). It is also confusing whether the power is meant for all reactors at a site combined or per reactor if more than one reactor is under construction at a site. Using the former assumption, I get to a sum of 13,593 Megawatt, not the 15,727 Megawatt the article gives - a 2,134 Megawatt discrepancy. The same seems to be the case for the "reactors planned" column. Here my calculated value of 43,614 Megawatt differs from the value given in the last row of 48,061 Megawatt by 4,447 Megawatt. For the "operational reactors" my calculations yield 49,709 Megawatt as opposed to the article's sum of 47,518 Megawatt - a 2,191 Megawatt discrepancy. Ironically enough, the discrepancy seems less egregious in the "total" column where my calculations yield "only" a 510 Megawatt discrepancy (column sum higher by 510 Megawatt than value given). The sums of my sums 106,916 Megawatts, differing from the sum the article gives (111,306 Megawatts) by 4,390 Megawatts. Of course it is entirely possible that some of this is due to my eyes glazing over when I hacked that into my pocket calculator and thus not counting certain plants or double counting others. But given that the last digits often differ and that there is no mention of rounding anywhere in the table or the footnotes, I assume there is a genuine error (or several) in the table and not just in my calculations how ever wrong they might be... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Speculation as to reasons for discrepancy
I think there are several possible reasons. One is that when one or several reactors were completed, their numbers were moved from one column to the other without (correctly) adjusting the "sum" values. Another option is that someone else made a simple arithmetic error (but for the more common ones the discrepancies are too "odd"). Another is that - as is not uncommon for planned designs - the numbers changed at various stages of planning and construction and the sums were not adjusted (correctly). Another last option is that someone "corrected" the sums from sources that cite the sums but did not do the same for the components of the sums. So now the question is: Given that this is a problem that is detectable by arithmetic means alone but cannot be completely fixed by those means alone (because, after all, the "wrong" sums might be correct, but some power plants may be missing from the list or have been given the wrong value), what should be done? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The reason is simple, really (as you correctly assumed). I created the table with the correct sums calculated in a spreadsheet. However, editors usually move numbers around when updating without ever changing the corresponding sums. I usually try to correct for this, but over hundreds of edits some of these go unnoticed and the errors accumulate. The sums should be recalculated periodically. Unfortunately there is no basic "spreadsheet" functionality in Wikipedia tables to do this automatically. --Ita140188 (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Nuclear power in China
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nuclear power in China's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "engineering-201603": From Hualong One:  From China National Nuclear Corporation:  

Reference named "wna": From Nuclear power debate:  From Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant:  From Hualong One:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)