pump primary EPR

Metadata & sources Methods, scope, reference years, publications, contributors, projects and funding.

Scientific journal publication

Simons, A., Bauer, C. (2012). Life cycle assessment of the European pressurized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 226(3), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549

Background database: ecoinvent / 3.8
Background system model: cut-off
Biosphere database: ecoinvent / 3.8

These are the stored source profiles for this version. Foreground methodology is recorded in Scientific metadata.

External references

Publication DOI: 10.1177/0957650912440549

Declarations describe this version's foreground inventory. Missing information is not evidence of a particular allocation method or data origin.

Source publication year: 2012
Inventory reference year: Not specified
Foreground modelling approach: Not specified
Allocated product inventory: Not specified
Allocation or multifunctionality treatment: Not specified
Inventory contributions: Not specified
Methodology notes: Simons and Bauer (2012) is the primary source for the prospective Swiss/French EPR study. Earlier inventory work by Roberto Dones and Roth et al. (2009) is acknowledged in that study. The component bill of materials and its adapted suppliers are retained from CLIC; the paper's aggregate technology table does not independently verify this equipment recipe. Study year 2012 and scenario year 2030 do not date every material or background input.
System boundary: Declared equipment or procurement package and its recorded upstream materials, forming, freight and component suppliers. Whole-plant operation, replacement schedule and decommissioning are separate from this supply reference unless explicitly represented by an exchange.
Technology description: Primary-pump equipment represented by chromium steel and copper, hot rolling, wire drawing and freight. Pump head, coolant flow, motor rating and operational efficiency are not separately specified.
Intended application: Equipment supply within the linked EPR infrastructure model, using the declared procurement unit and supplier profile.
Use limitations: The bill of materials is not independently validated by the paper's aggregate plant characteristics. Plant capacity, 60-year reactor life and fuel-cycle assumptions do not automatically specify this component's rating, service life or production volume. Supplier/biosphere adaptations, package completeness and freight ownership remain qualified.
Data origins: Literature

Other fields not yet completed (6)

Data period start year, Data period end year, Valid until year, Multifunctionality applicable, Process type, Included life cycle stages

Publications (1)

Citation: Simons, A., Bauer, C. (2012). Life cycle assessment of the European pressurized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 226(3), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Title: Life cycle assessment of the European pressurized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies
Doi: 10.1177/0957650912440549
Url: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source type: Scientific journal
Publication year: 2012
Relation: Primary source
Authors: Andrew Simons; Christian Bauer · 0000-0002-1083-9200

Projects (1)

Name: Life cycle assessment of the European pressurized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies
Url: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Relation: Source study

Funding (1)

Organization: Axpo Holding AG
Project: Life cycle assessment of the European pressurized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies

Evidence and qualifications (19)

Target field: data_origins
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: Existing published CLIC inventory documentation
Source location: source
Qualification: Exact documented origins; no claim that every flow is measured.

Target field: intended_application
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: Existing published CLIC inventory documentation
Source location: source
Qualification: Source-linked modelling context; no 2030 component year or measured manufacturer inventory is inferred.

Target field: publications
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F0957650912440549
Source location: DOI registration: title, publication dates and byline
Qualification: Bibliographic details refer to this explicitly cited DOI. Existing citation text is retained, including any additional sources. Publication year does not establish the inventory reference year; publication authors are not assigned as inventory compilers.

Target field: publications
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://api.ror.org/v2/organizations/03eh3y714
Source location: Organization identity and registered names
Qualification: Canonical institutional identity only. Preserve historical declared spelling, departments, attribution and funding relationships; identity verification alone does not verify an award or its scope.

Target field: publications
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source location: Original paper/SI byline; pinned DOI registration and institutional identity evidence
Qualification: Canonical primary and legacy citations are aligned without changing freeform source, inventory source text or inventory contributors. Publication year is not a measurement/reference year. EPR underlying inventories are acknowledged to Roberto Dones and Roth et al. (2009); component quantities are not all printed in the 2012 article. Preserve each declared source role and historical affiliation.

Target field: methodology_notes
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source location: Table 4, source scope and acknowledgements; foreground equipment paths
Qualification: Distinguish electricity, dedicated plant equipment and fuel-cycle supply roles. Only CH/FR electricity nodes receive the explicit 2030 model year. No component measurement year, capacity factor, numeric TRL or accident-risk result is inferred.

Target field: funding
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source location: Source funding statement immediately before acknowledgements
Qualification: Axpo Holding AG funded the cited study. The project declaration is labelled by the paper title with relation source_study; no formal grant/acronym is invented and no funding of the CLIC adaptation is inferred.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source location: fields/design_capacity; source Tables4–5 and exact component scope
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Design capacity: Unspecified. Basis: No new independently verified plant/component output, utilization or life value; retain qualified existing equipment labels. Do not transfer whole-reactor characteristics to components or fuel factories. Evidence classification: guarded source table and reference boundary review. Confidence: high for retained source assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source location: fields/design_capacity_unit; source Tables4–5 and exact component scope
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Design capacity unit: Unspecified. Basis: No new independently verified plant/component output, utilization or life value; retain qualified existing equipment labels. Do not transfer whole-reactor characteristics to components or fuel factories. Evidence classification: guarded source table and reference boundary review. Confidence: high for retained source assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source location: fields/capacity_factor_percent; source Tables4–5 and exact component scope
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Capacity factor (%): Unspecified. Basis: No new independently verified plant/component output, utilization or life value; retain qualified existing equipment labels. Do not transfer whole-reactor characteristics to components or fuel factories. Evidence classification: guarded source table and reference boundary review. Confidence: high for retained source assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source location: fields/annual_production_volume; source Tables4–5 and exact component scope
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Annual production volume: Unspecified. Basis: No new independently verified plant/component output, utilization or life value; retain qualified existing equipment labels. Do not transfer whole-reactor characteristics to components or fuel factories. Evidence classification: guarded source table and reference boundary review. Confidence: high for retained source assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source location: fields/annual_production_volume_unit; source Tables4–5 and exact component scope
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Annual production volume unit: Unspecified. Basis: No new independently verified plant/component output, utilization or life value; retain qualified existing equipment labels. Do not transfer whole-reactor characteristics to components or fuel factories. Evidence classification: guarded source table and reference boundary review. Confidence: high for retained source assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source location: fields/annual_production_volume_year; source Tables4–5 and exact component scope
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Annual production volume year: Unspecified. Basis: No new independently verified plant/component output, utilization or life value; retain qualified existing equipment labels. Do not transfer whole-reactor characteristics to components or fuel factories. Evidence classification: guarded source table and reference boundary review. Confidence: high for retained source assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source location: fields/plant_lifetime_years; source Tables4–5 and exact component scope
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Plant or represented-asset lifetime (years): Unspecified. Basis: No new independently verified plant/component output, utilization or life value; retain qualified existing equipment labels. Do not transfer whole-reactor characteristics to components or fuel factories. Evidence classification: guarded source table and reference boundary review. Confidence: high for retained source assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source location: Study scope and Tables4–5; exact retained EPR component/fuel-service review
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Commercial maturity stage: early_commercial. Basis: Retain the legacy early-commercial assessment as EPR supply-chain/scenario context, not independent proof of this exact component's market stage. The 2012 prospective model and a source inventory package do not establish present-day deployment or procurement qualification. Evidence classification: source scenario and exact process boundary assessment. Confidence: medium curator judgement with explicit scope limits. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source location: Study scope and Tables4–5; exact retained EPR component/fuel-service review
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Technology readiness level: 8. Basis: Retain the legacy EPR-context curator rating with an explicit component-scope limitation. It is not a publisher-assigned score for every cable, fuel-cycle or procurement helper and does not certify the material bill or nuclear qualification. Exact own-component readiness remains a source-scope question. Evidence classification: source scenario and exact process boundary assessment. Confidence: medium curator judgement with explicit scope limits. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source location: Study scope and Tables4–5; exact retained EPR component/fuel-service review
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Technological representativeness: 4. Basis: The paper models prospective 2030 EPR pathways with mixed-vintage background information. Exact component inventories contain material/processing proxies and incompletely verified source bills. They meet the prospective/proxy representation category4, rather than a claim of observed industrial operating data for each item. Evidence classification: source scenario and exact process boundary assessment. Confidence: medium curator judgement with explicit scope limits. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source location: Study scope and Tables4–5; exact retained EPR component/fuel-service review
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Geographical representativeness: 3. Basis: RER is an archived regional proxy and is not a separately tabulated scenario in the source paper; category3 reflects generic regional transfer. CH/FR labels retain their source scenario matching, without claiming a measured manufacturing site or operating reactor sample for each component. Evidence classification: source scenario and exact process boundary assessment. Confidence: medium curator judgement with explicit scope limits. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Source location: Study scope and Tables4–5; exact retained EPR component/fuel-service review
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Temporal representativeness: 4. Basis: The 2030 date is a scenario horizon in a 2012 prospective study, not a future measurement year or a refresh of underlying manufacturing inputs. The retained scenario/proxy inventories meet category4 for prospective or stale representation; source publication and plant-life assumptions do not supply measurement coverage. Evidence classification: source scenario and exact process boundary assessment. Confidence: medium curator judgement with explicit scope limits. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Technology characterization Scale, utilization, production, lifetime, technology readiness and representativeness.

Commercial maturity stage: Early commercial

Design capacity: Not provided

Design capacity unit: Not provided

Capacity factor: Not provided

Annual production volume: Not provided

Annual production volume unit: Not provided

Annual production volume year: Not provided

Plant lifetime: Not provided

Technology readiness level

Technological representativeness

Geographical representativeness

Temporal representativeness

Missing exchange uncertainty generation: Not requested

Representativeness scores use a 1–5 scale when provided. Lower scores indicate a closer fit to the modeled technology, geography, or time period.

Inventory & impacts 7 exchanges · exchange table, supply-chain graph and environmental screening.

Precalculated screening profile

Environmental impacts

Results per unit, using UVEK 2025 and the ecoinvent 3.10 biosphere. Exchange rows are shaded from green to red by relative contribution to the selected indicator.

Exchange impact indicator (EF v3.1)

Climate change 551676 kg CO2-Eq / unit

Screening result

This screening result uses Brightpath mappings from the source background to UVEK 2025; mapped suppliers are not claims of scientific equivalence.

Show all 16 indicator totals

Acidification 7593.02 mol H+-Eq / unit

Climate change 551676 kg CO2-Eq / unit

Freshwater ecotoxicity 2.1184e+06 CTUe / unit

Freshwater eutrophication 305.491 kg P-Eq / unit

Marine eutrophication 549.753 kg N-Eq / unit

Terrestrial eutrophication 5808.7 mol N-Eq / unit

Human toxicity, cancer 0.00763366 CTUh / unit

Human toxicity, non-cancer 0.0258107 CTUh / unit

Ionising radiation 131681 kBq U235-Eq / unit

Land use 2.5019e+06 dimensionless / unit

Ozone depletion 0.00956019 kg CFC-11-Eq / unit

Particulate matter 0.0415186 disease incidence / unit

Photochemical ozone formation 2264.76 kg NMVOC-Eq / unit

Resource use, fossils 6.7503e+06 MJ, net calorific value / unit

Resource use, minerals and metals 13.6644 kg Sb-Eq / unit

Water use 179124 m3 world Eq deprived / unit

Calculation details

Profile uvek-2025-ef-v3-1-4e70d56a85b1 · artifact 4e70d56a85b1 · calculated 2026-11-03 09:13 UTC. These screening results do not replace a reviewed comparative LCA.

Reference flow 1 row Reference production exchanges extracted from the uploaded inventory.

Exchange	Reference / categories	Amount	Unit	Metadata	Climate change contribution
pump primary EPR RER	Pump primary EPR Axpo NH 5b / year technologies	1	unit	Metadata (1) Allocation 100	Reference flow

Technosphere inputs 6 rows Linked foreground or background product inputs used by this dataset.

Exchange	Reference / categories	Amount	Unit	Metadata	Climate change contribution
market for copper, cathode GLO	copper, cathode Materials/fuels	5600	kilogram	Metadata (4) Loc 5600 Product copper, cathode Simapro name Copper, at regional storage U Uncertainty type 0	47653.7 kg CO2-Eq / unit 8.6% of total BAFU:2025
market for hot rolling, steel GLO	hot rolling, steel Materials/fuels	1.06e+05	kilogram	Metadata (4) Loc 106000 Product hot rolling, steel Simapro name Hot rolling, steel U Uncertainty type 0	17609.4 kg CO2-Eq / unit 3.2% of total BAFU:2025
market for steel, chromium steel 18/8 GLO	steel, chromium steel 18/8 Materials/fuels	1.06e+05	kilogram	Metadata (4) Loc 106000 Product steel, chromium steel 18/8 Simapro name Chromium steel 18/8, at plant U Uncertainty type 0	468572 kg CO2-Eq / unit 84.9% of total BAFU:2025
market for transport, freight train Europe without Switzerland	transport, freight train Materials/fuels	2.46e+04	ton kilometer	Metadata (4) Loc 24600 Product transport, freight train Simapro name Transport, freight, rail U Uncertainty type 0	411.56 kg CO2-Eq / unit 0.1% of total BAFU:2025
market for transport, freight, lorry, unspecified RER	transport, freight, lorry, unspecified Materials/fuels	1.23e+04	ton kilometer	Metadata (4) Loc 12300 Product transport, freight, lorry, unspecified Simapro name Transport, van <3.5t U Uncertainty type 0	15337.6 kg CO2-Eq / unit 2.8% of total BAFU:2025
wire drawing, copper RER	wire drawing, copper Materials/fuels	5600	kilogram	Metadata (3) Loc 5600 Simapro name Wire drawing, copper U Uncertainty type 0	2091.1 kg CO2-Eq / unit 0.4% of total BAFU:2025

Parameters 0 source definitions · values, formulas and uncertainty.

Read-only definitions preserved with this inventory version. Values are supplied by the source; CLIC does not evaluate formulas or recalculate exchange amounts and impact scores from them.

No parameter definitions were supplied with this inventory snapshot.

Versions & changes 2 versions · change rationale, release notes and comparisons.

Oldest to newest. Arrows show recorded revision links; each node describes the change introduced by that version.

Version 1.0.0
Published 2026-07-15

First published inventory; no earlier version is available for comparison.
Superseded
Version 1.0.1
Published 2026-11-03

Activity and product names for pump primary EPR now use consistent catalogue spelling across the inventory and its supplier references. The physical recipe is…
Published · Viewing · Latest

Show full version history table (2 versions)

Version	Published	Reason for this version	Link
Version 1.0.1	2026-11-03	Activity and product names for pump primary EPR now use consistent catalogue spelling across the inventory and its supplier references. The physical recipe is unchanged.	Current view
Version 1.0.0 Superseded	Published 2026-07-15	First published inventory; no earlier version is available for comparison.	Open version

Back to browse

About this version

Why this version changed

Activity and product names for pump primary EPR now use consistent catalogue spelling across the inventory and its supplier references. The physical recipe is unchanged.

Release notes

Source: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549.

Declared foreground licence: CC-BY-4.0. Source publications and external supplier inventories retain their own terms.

Changes from version 1.0.0 Compare this version with its predecessor. Exchanges are grouped by type and change; biosphere labels include their environmental compartments. Open the base version. Show changes Hide changes

Why this version changed

Activity and product names for pump primary EPR now use consistent catalogue spelling across the inventory and its supplier references. The physical recipe is unchanged.

Public revision record

This comparison is permanently visible with the published version so users can assess every detected change before reuse.

Modified exchanges: 1
Added exchanges: 0
Removed exchanges: 0
Inventory metadata: 0
Version metadata: 12

Reference flows modified 1

Reference flows modified
Exchange / scope	Field	Previous value	Revised value	Reason
pump primary EPR (production / RER / unit)	Name	Pump primary EPR	pump primary EPR	Activity and product names now follow consistent catalogue spelling, so the intended inventory and its supplier references remain identifiable.

Metadata changes 12

Metadata changes
Exchange / scope	Field	Previous value	Revised value	Reason
Version metadata	Description	Simons A, Bauer C. Life cycle assessment of the Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy. 2012;226(3):427-444. doi:10.1177/0957650912440549	Equipment-supply reference for 1 unit of pump primary EPR. It provides the recorded material, processing and linked equipment inputs for the EPR construction supply chain.	No explanation was recorded for this change.
Version metadata	Geographical representativeness	1	3
Version metadata	Methodology and allocation explanation	The source is a 2012 prospective assessment of Swiss/French EPRs in 2030, using mixed-vintage fuel-cycle and infrastructure data. Table 4 distinguishes CH 1500 MWe from FR 1530 MWe; the common 1500-MWe description is not valid for the French scenario. The regional RER copy is not a separately tabulated source scenario. The paper's normal-operation boundaries exclude nuclear accidents. Equipment membership is traced only through unambiguous declared foreground links; underlying bills of materials and supplier/biosphere adaptations remain incompletely verified.	Simons and Bauer (2012) is the primary source for the prospective Swiss/French EPR study. Earlier inventory work by Roberto Dones and Roth et al. (2009) is acknowledged in that study. The component bill of materials and its adapted suppliers are retained from CLIC; the paper's aggregate technology table does not independently verify this equipment recipe. Study year 2012 and scenario year 2030 do not date every material or background input.
Version metadata	Source	Simons, A., & Bauer, C. Life cycle assessment of the Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy. 2012;226(3):427-444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549	Simons, A., Bauer, C. (2012). Life cycle assessment of the European pressurized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 226(3), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Version metadata	Contributors, publications, projects and supporting evidence	Funding: 1. Project: Url: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Funding: 1. Project: Name: Life cycle assessment of the European pressurized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies Funding: 1. Project: Acronym: Not set Funding: 1. Project: Relation: source_study Funding: 1. Project: Grant identifier: Not set Funding: 1. Organization: Ror: Not set Funding: 1. Organization: Url: Not set Funding: 1. Organization: Name: Axpo Holding AG Funding: 1. Award identifier: Not set Evidence: 1. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 1. Target field: data_origins Evidence: 1. Qualification: Exact documented origins; no claim that every flow is measured. Evidence: 1. Source location: source Evidence: 1. Source reference: Existing published CLIC inventory documentation Evidence: 2. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 2. Target field: intended_application Evidence: 2. Qualification: Source-linked modelling context; no 2030 component year or measured manufacturer inventory is inferred. Evidence: 2. Source location: source Evidence: 2. Source reference: Existing published CLIC inventory documentation Evidence: 3. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 3. Target field: publications Evidence: 3. Qualification: Bibliographic details refer to this explicitly cited DOI. Existing citation text is retained, including any additional sources. Publication year does not establish the inventory reference year; publication authors are not assigned as inventory compilers. Evidence: 3. Source location: DOI registration: title, publication dates and byline Evidence: 3. Source reference: https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F0957650912440549 Evidence: 4. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 4. Target field: publications Evidence: 4. Qualification: Canonical institutional identity only. Preserve historical declared spelling, departments, attribution and funding relationships; identity verification alone does not verify an award or its scope. Evidence: 4. Source location: Organization identity and registered names Evidence: 4. Source reference: https://api.ror.org/v2/organizations/03eh3y714 Evidence: 5. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 5. Target field: publications Evidence: 5. Qualification: Canonical primary and legacy citations are aligned without changing freeform source, inventory source text or inventory contributors. Publication year is not a measurement/reference year. EPR underlying inventories are acknowledged to Roberto Dones and Roth et al. (2009); component quantities are not all printed in the 2012 article. Preserve each declared source role and historical affiliation. Evidence: 5. Source location: Original paper/SI byline; pinned DOI registration and institutional identity evidence Evidence: 5. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 6. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 6. Target field: methodology_notes Evidence: 6. Qualification: Distinguish electricity, dedicated plant equipment and fuel-cycle supply roles. Only CH/FR electricity nodes receive the explicit 2030 model year. No component measurement year, capacity factor, numeric TRL or accident-risk result is inferred. Evidence: 6. Source location: Table 4, source scope and acknowledgements; foreground equipment paths Evidence: 6. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 7. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 7. Target field: funding Evidence: 7. Qualification: Axpo Holding AG funded the cited study. The project declaration is labelled by the paper title with relation source_study; no formal grant/acronym is invented and no funding of the CLIC adaptation is inferred. Evidence: 7. Source location: Source funding statement immediately before acknowledgements Evidence: 7. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Projects: 1. Url: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Projects: 1. Name: Life cycle assessment of the European pressurized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies Projects: 1. Acronym: Not set Projects: 1. Relation: source_study Projects: 1. Grant identifier: Not set Publications: 1. Doi: 10.1177/0957650912440549 Publications: 1. Url: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Publications: 1. Title: Life cycle assessment of the European pressurized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Name: Andrew Simons Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Orcid: Not set Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Affiliations: 1. Ror: https://ror.org/03eh3y714 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Affiliations: 1. Url: Not set Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Affiliations: 1. Name: Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Name: Christian Bauer Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Orcid: 0000-0002-1083-9200 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Affiliations: 1. Ror: https://ror.org/03eh3y714 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Affiliations: 1. Url: Not set Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Affiliations: 1. Name: Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland Publications: 1. Citation: Simons, A., Bauer, C. (2012). Life cycle assessment of the European pressurized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 226(3), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Publications: 1. Relation: primary_source Publications: 1. Source type: scientific_journal Publications: 1. Publication year: 2012	Funding: 1. Project: Url: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Funding: 1. Project: Name: Life cycle assessment of the European pressurized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies Funding: 1. Project: Acronym: Not set Funding: 1. Project: Relation: source_study Funding: 1. Project: Grant identifier: Not set Funding: 1. Organization: Ror: Not set Funding: 1. Organization: Url: Not set Funding: 1. Organization: Name: Axpo Holding AG Funding: 1. Award identifier: Not set Evidence: 1. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 1. Target field: data_origins Evidence: 1. Qualification: Exact documented origins; no claim that every flow is measured. Evidence: 1. Source location: source Evidence: 1. Source reference: Existing published CLIC inventory documentation Evidence: 2. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 2. Target field: intended_application Evidence: 2. Qualification: Source-linked modelling context; no 2030 component year or measured manufacturer inventory is inferred. Evidence: 2. Source location: source Evidence: 2. Source reference: Existing published CLIC inventory documentation Evidence: 3. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 3. Target field: publications Evidence: 3. Qualification: Bibliographic details refer to this explicitly cited DOI. Existing citation text is retained, including any additional sources. Publication year does not establish the inventory reference year; publication authors are not assigned as inventory compilers. Evidence: 3. Source location: DOI registration: title, publication dates and byline Evidence: 3. Source reference: https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F0957650912440549 Evidence: 4. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 4. Target field: publications Evidence: 4. Qualification: Canonical institutional identity only. Preserve historical declared spelling, departments, attribution and funding relationships; identity verification alone does not verify an award or its scope. Evidence: 4. Source location: Organization identity and registered names Evidence: 4. Source reference: https://api.ror.org/v2/organizations/03eh3y714 Evidence: 5. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 5. Target field: publications Evidence: 5. Qualification: Canonical primary and legacy citations are aligned without changing freeform source, inventory source text or inventory contributors. Publication year is not a measurement/reference year. EPR underlying inventories are acknowledged to Roberto Dones and Roth et al. (2009); component quantities are not all printed in the 2012 article. Preserve each declared source role and historical affiliation. Evidence: 5. Source location: Original paper/SI byline; pinned DOI registration and institutional identity evidence Evidence: 5. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 6. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 6. Target field: methodology_notes Evidence: 6. Qualification: Distinguish electricity, dedicated plant equipment and fuel-cycle supply roles. Only CH/FR electricity nodes receive the explicit 2030 model year. No component measurement year, capacity factor, numeric TRL or accident-risk result is inferred. Evidence: 6. Source location: Table 4, source scope and acknowledgements; foreground equipment paths Evidence: 6. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 7. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 7. Target field: funding Evidence: 7. Qualification: Axpo Holding AG funded the cited study. The project declaration is labelled by the paper title with relation source_study; no formal grant/acronym is invented and no funding of the CLIC adaptation is inferred. Evidence: 7. Source location: Source funding statement immediately before acknowledgements Evidence: 7. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 8. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 8. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 8. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Design capacity: Unspecified. Basis: No new independently verified plant/component output, utilization or life value; retain qualified existing equipment labels. Do not transfer whole-reactor characteristics to components or fuel factories. Evidence classification: guarded source table and reference boundary review. Confidence: high for retained source assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 8. Source location: fields/design_capacity; source Tables4–5 and exact component scope Evidence: 8. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 9. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 9. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 9. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Design capacity unit: Unspecified. Basis: No new independently verified plant/component output, utilization or life value; retain qualified existing equipment labels. Do not transfer whole-reactor characteristics to components or fuel factories. Evidence classification: guarded source table and reference boundary review. Confidence: high for retained source assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 9. Source location: fields/design_capacity_unit; source Tables4–5 and exact component scope Evidence: 9. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 10. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 10. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 10. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Capacity factor (%): Unspecified. Basis: No new independently verified plant/component output, utilization or life value; retain qualified existing equipment labels. Do not transfer whole-reactor characteristics to components or fuel factories. Evidence classification: guarded source table and reference boundary review. Confidence: high for retained source assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 10. Source location: fields/capacity_factor_percent; source Tables4–5 and exact component scope Evidence: 10. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 11. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 11. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 11. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Annual production volume: Unspecified. Basis: No new independently verified plant/component output, utilization or life value; retain qualified existing equipment labels. Do not transfer whole-reactor characteristics to components or fuel factories. Evidence classification: guarded source table and reference boundary review. Confidence: high for retained source assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 11. Source location: fields/annual_production_volume; source Tables4–5 and exact component scope Evidence: 11. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 12. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 12. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 12. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Annual production volume unit: Unspecified. Basis: No new independently verified plant/component output, utilization or life value; retain qualified existing equipment labels. Do not transfer whole-reactor characteristics to components or fuel factories. Evidence classification: guarded source table and reference boundary review. Confidence: high for retained source assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 12. Source location: fields/annual_production_volume_unit; source Tables4–5 and exact component scope Evidence: 12. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 13. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 13. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 13. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Annual production volume year: Unspecified. Basis: No new independently verified plant/component output, utilization or life value; retain qualified existing equipment labels. Do not transfer whole-reactor characteristics to components or fuel factories. Evidence classification: guarded source table and reference boundary review. Confidence: high for retained source assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 13. Source location: fields/annual_production_volume_year; source Tables4–5 and exact component scope Evidence: 13. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 14. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 14. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 14. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Plant or represented-asset lifetime (years): Unspecified. Basis: No new independently verified plant/component output, utilization or life value; retain qualified existing equipment labels. Do not transfer whole-reactor characteristics to components or fuel factories. Evidence classification: guarded source table and reference boundary review. Confidence: high for retained source assumption not measured performance. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 14. Source location: fields/plant_lifetime_years; source Tables4–5 and exact component scope Evidence: 14. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 15. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 15. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 15. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Commercial maturity stage: early_commercial. Basis: Retain the legacy early-commercial assessment as EPR supply-chain/scenario context, not independent proof of this exact component's market stage. The 2012 prospective model and a source inventory package do not establish present-day deployment or procurement qualification. Evidence classification: source scenario and exact process boundary assessment. Confidence: medium curator judgement with explicit scope limits. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 15. Source location: Study scope and Tables4–5; exact retained EPR component/fuel-service review Evidence: 15. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 16. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 16. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 16. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Technology readiness level: 8. Basis: Retain the legacy EPR-context curator rating with an explicit component-scope limitation. It is not a publisher-assigned score for every cable, fuel-cycle or procurement helper and does not certify the material bill or nuclear qualification. Exact own-component readiness remains a source-scope question. Evidence classification: source scenario and exact process boundary assessment. Confidence: medium curator judgement with explicit scope limits. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 16. Source location: Study scope and Tables4–5; exact retained EPR component/fuel-service review Evidence: 16. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 17. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 17. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 17. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Technological representativeness: 4. Basis: The paper models prospective 2030 EPR pathways with mixed-vintage background information. Exact component inventories contain material/processing proxies and incompletely verified source bills. They meet the prospective/proxy representation category4, rather than a claim of observed industrial operating data for each item. Evidence classification: source scenario and exact process boundary assessment. Confidence: medium curator judgement with explicit scope limits. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 17. Source location: Study scope and Tables4–5; exact retained EPR component/fuel-service review Evidence: 17. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 18. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 18. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 18. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Geographical representativeness: 3. Basis: RER is an archived regional proxy and is not a separately tabulated scenario in the source paper; category3 reflects generic regional transfer. CH/FR labels retain their source scenario matching, without claiming a measured manufacturing site or operating reactor sample for each component. Evidence classification: source scenario and exact process boundary assessment. Confidence: medium curator judgement with explicit scope limits. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 18. Source location: Study scope and Tables4–5; exact retained EPR component/fuel-service review Evidence: 18. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Evidence: 19. Origin: editor_verification Evidence: 19. Target field: technology_description Evidence: 19. Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2227. Temporal representativeness: 4. Basis: The 2030 date is a scenario horizon in a 2012 prospective study, not a future measurement year or a refresh of underlying manufacturing inputs. The retained scenario/proxy inventories meet category4 for prospective or stale representation; source publication and plant-life assumptions do not supply measurement coverage. Evidence classification: source scenario and exact process boundary assessment. Confidence: medium curator judgement with explicit scope limits. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan. Evidence: 19. Source location: Study scope and Tables4–5; exact retained EPR component/fuel-service review Evidence: 19. Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Projects: 1. Url: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Projects: 1. Name: Life cycle assessment of the European pressurized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies Projects: 1. Acronym: Not set Projects: 1. Relation: source_study Projects: 1. Grant identifier: Not set Publications: 1. Doi: 10.1177/0957650912440549 Publications: 1. Url: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Publications: 1. Title: Life cycle assessment of the European pressurized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Name: Andrew Simons Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Orcid: Not set Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Affiliations: 1. Ror: https://ror.org/03eh3y714 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Affiliations: 1. Url: Not set Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 1. Affiliations: 1. Name: Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Name: Christian Bauer Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Orcid: 0000-0002-1083-9200 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Affiliations: 1. Ror: https://ror.org/03eh3y714 Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Affiliations: 1. Url: Not set Publications: 1. Scientific authors: 2. Affiliations: 1. Name: Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland Publications: 1. Citation: Simons, A., Bauer, C. (2012). Life cycle assessment of the European pressurized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 226(3), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549 Publications: 1. Relation: primary_source Publications: 1. Source type: scientific_journal Publications: 1. Publication year: 2012
Version metadata	Technological representativeness	2	4
Version metadata	Temporal representativeness	3	4
Version metadata	Intended application	Foreground modelling of the declared EPR hardware, fuel-cycle or electricity-production configuration.	Equipment supply within the linked EPR infrastructure model, using the declared procurement unit and supplier profile.	Apply reviewed discovery metadata and change explanations from the curated release.
Version metadata	System boundary	Not set	Declared equipment or procurement package and its recorded upstream materials, forming, freight and component suppliers. Whole-plant operation, replacement schedule and decommissioning are separate from this supply reference unless explicitly represented by an exchange.
Version metadata	Technology description	Not set	Primary-pump equipment represented by chromium steel and copper, hot rolling, wire drawing and freight. Pump head, coolant flow, motor rating and operational efficiency are not separately specified.
Version metadata	Limitations on use	Not set	The bill of materials is not independently validated by the paper's aggregate plant characteristics. Plant capacity, 60-year reactor life and fuel-cycle assumptions do not automatically specify this component's rating, service life or production volume. Supplier/biosphere adaptations, package completeness and freight ownership remain qualified.
Version metadata	Name	Pump primary EPR	pump primary EPR	Activity and product names now follow consistent catalogue spelling, so the intended inventory and its supplier references remain identifiable.

Review & discussion Publication provenance, scientific review and community discussion.

Public review record Curator-led bulk import. Public evidence is shown without participant accounts, assignments, recommendations, or private editor notes. Show review Hide review

Publication route

Curator-led bulk import

This inventory was restored from a public CLIC archive. Its original publication route is Curator-led bulk import; private review and workflow records were not transferred.

No public review transcript is available for this version.

Discussion 0 public comments · questions, context and problem reports.

No public comments yet. Start the discussion if you have a question about this inventory.

Report this dataset or version

Use this form to report a problem with this dataset or version. To report an individual public comment, use “Report this comment” beside that comment. To propose better numerical inventory data, use “Suggest an inventory improvement” in the inventory section.

Log in to report content

pump primary EPR

Overview

Description

Dataset details

Keywords

Source

External references

Scientific metadata

Environmental impacts

Supply-chain graph

Downloads & files

Add to download basket

Version history

Why this version changed

Release notes

Why this version changed

Public revision record

Curator-led bulk import

Description

Dataset details

Keywords

Source

External references

Scientific metadata

Environmental impacts

Dataset contents

Supply-chain graph

Add to download basket

Version history

Why this version changed

Release notes

Why this version changed

Public revision record

Curator-led bulk import

Public discussion