CAP1400
About
The CAP1400 — developed as an evolution of the AP1000 — is a Gen III large PWR with an electrical output of approximately 1,400 MWe. It is designed for large-scale electricity generation, but it can be adapted for cogeneration, especially district heating and desalination.
| Developer | State Power Investment Corporation (SPIC) |
|---|---|
| Country of Origin | China |
| Size | Large |
| Type | Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) |
Jump To:
Analysis
4
Deployment Timescale
Score Justification
The CAP1400 has received national regulatory approval in China; its demonstration unit is operational, with additional units under construction. The design is fully licensed and based on established large-reactor technology. Its construction includes substantial on-site civil works and its systems require substantial nuclear-grade qualification.
By indicator
- 4/4 Regulatory Engagement
To what extent has the reactor developer engaged with a recognized nuclear regulatory authority in the licensing process? (30% of total score) - 6/6 Technology Precedent
Has the reactor design, or a sufficiently similar design, been certified anywhere in the world? (10% of total score) - 1/3 Modularity
What share of total reactor systems can be manufactured off-site in controlled factory environments rather than constructed on-site? (15% of total score) - 2/4 Specialization
To what extent do construction activities and components require lengthy qualification processes? (15% of total score) - 5/5 Supply Chain
How mature and available are suppliers for key reactor components and fuel services? (30% of total score)
1
Overnight Cost
Score Justification
As a large reactor with extensive containment structures and conventional construction methods, the CAP1400 incurs high construction costs. Although the design uses modular construction techniques, including open-top assembly, it is largely assembled on-site rather than at the factory.
By indicator
- 1/4 Component Cost
What is the expected cost of the reactor’s major components? (40% of total score) - 2/6 Construction Cost
To what extent does the design reduce construction cost and risk through modular fabrication and limited nuclear-grade specialization? (60% of total score)
2
Operational Cost
Score Justification
Operational Cost of the CAP1400 reactor is driven by high maintenance, staffing, and decommissioning costs — largely derived from its sizable footprint. Its use of traditional LEU UO₂ fuel, however, leads to relatively inexpensive fuel costs and moderate waste management costs.
By indicator
- 3/3 Fuel Cost
What is the estimated cost of nuclear fuel per unit of electricity generated, including enrichment, fabrication, and back-end costs? (15% of total score) - 1/4 Maintenance Cost
What is the expected annual maintenance cost for the reactor and balance of plant systems, including consumables? (25% of total score) - 1/5 Staffing Level
How many full-time personnel are required to safely operate and maintain the reactor unit? (40% of total score) - 3/5 Spent Fuel & Radioactive Waste Management Cost
What are the expected operational costs associated with managing spent fuel, including interim storage, transport, disposal, or recycling? (10% of total score) - 1/5 Decommissioning Cost
What are the total lifetime contributions required for decommissioning, regardless of funding mechanism? (10% of total score)
2
Cost Predictability
Score Justification
Cost Predictability of the CAP1400 benefits from the baseline of its fully operational nuclear demonstration reactor. It has not, however, officially transitioned to commercial operation and it lacks the predictability that comes with multiple deployments. In addition, the design of the CAP1400 relies primarily on on-site construction, which creates site-specific construction risks and variability across projects.
By indicator
- 2/5 Prototype
To what extent has the reactor design been built, demonstrated, or commercially deployed in practice? (75% of total score) - 1/3 Modularity
What share of total reactor systems can be manufactured off-site in controlled factory environments rather than constructed on-site? (25% of total score)
4
Security
Score Justification
The CAP1400’s design has physical protection implemented through conventional security measures rather than explicit security-by-design integration. The CAP1400 uses standard-assay LEU fuel, and its thermal spectrum is not optimized to produce weapons-usable nuclear material.
By indicator
- 3/3 Fuel
What is the enrichment level and composition of the reactor fuel? (40% of total score) - 4/4 Nuclear Material Production
What is the potential for the reactor to produce weapons-usable nuclear material? (40% of total score) - 0/1 Security by Design
Has the reactor developer built in security by design? (20% of total score)
4
Safety
Score Justification
The CAP1400 has an approved national safety case and incorporates multiple shutdown systems, including boron-based reactivity control. The design operates at high pressure with credited containment structures and provides up to 72 hours of passive heat removal. It uses standard uranium oxide fuel with zirconium alloy cladding and light-water coolant. It does not use accident-tolerant fuel commercially.
By indicator
- 2/2 Safety Case
How mature and publicly established is the reactor’s safety case with the regulator? (40% of total score) - 2/2 Shutdown Mechanism
How diverse, independent, and passive are the reactor’s shutdown systems? (20% of total score) - 0/1 Fuel With Safety Characteristics
Does the reactor use fuel with accident tolerance or inherent safety characteristics? (10% of total score) - 3/4 Pressure & Containment
How well does the reactor’s containment strategy protect from the release of radioactive material? (10% of total score) - 2/3 Passive Heat Removal
How long can the reactor remove core heat without operator intervention? (10% of total score) - 3/4 Coolant Reactivity
How chemically reactive is the reactor coolant? (10% of total score)
3
Spent Fuel & Radioactive Waste Management
Score Justification
The CAP1400 uses standard–assay LEU UO₂ fuel, which has been licensed and qualified for disposal in multiple countries. This familiar spent fuel form usually can be transferred to interim storage within five years. The reactor does not introduce novel waste streams that require separate treatment and handling beyond past practice.
By indicator
- 1/1 Spent Fuel Licensing Precedent
Has the spent fuel form been previously licensed for disposal? (20% of total score) - 3/4 Waste Streams
How many distinct waste streams require separate conditioning or handling pathways? (20% of total score) - 1/3 On-Site Storage
How much on-site area is required for interim spent fuel storage? (10% of total score) - 2/3 Spent Fuel Volume
What volume of spent fuel is produced per unit of electricity generated? (15% of total score) - 1/2 Decay Heat
What is the decay heat output of spent fuel at the 50-year interim storage milestone? (20% of total score) - 2/2 Time to Interim Storage
What is the average time until spent fuel can be transferred to interim storage? (15% of total score)
5
Supply Chain
Score Justification
The design of the reactor benefits from a highly developed manufacturing base for major components. Fuel enrichment and fabrication are supported by established commercial facilities, providing a robust and scalable supply chain.
By indicator
- 2/2 Key Component Availability
To what extent are commercial or pilot-scale suppliers available for the reactor’s major components? (60% of total score) - 4/4 Fuel Availability
Are suppliers available for both fuel fabrication and enrichment required by the reactor design? (40% of total score)