CLIC Curated Life cycle Inventory Collection

Nuclear electricity

steam generator primary EPR

Reference product Steam generator primary EPR RER

Published Version 1.0.1 Latest published

Stable dataset identity steam-generator-primary-epr

Download Export BibTeX Log in to clone Back to catalog
Unit
unit
Reuse license
CC BY 4.0
Published
2026-11-03
Version
1.0.1
Technology maturity
See quality profile

Published inventory

Overview

Process description and catalog context. View scientific metadata

Description

Equipment-supply reference for 1 unit of steam generator primary EPR. It provides the recorded material, processing and linked equipment inputs for the EPR construction supply chain.

Dataset details

Classification, keywords, bookmarks and download counts.

Classification
Nuclear electricity (energy/electricity/nuclear)
Bookmarks
0
Raw file downloads
0
Generated export downloads
0

Classification path: Energy > Electricity > Nuclear electricity

Keywords

  • electricity
  • nuclear electricity
Log in to bookmark
Metadata & sources Methods, scope, reference years, publications, contributors, projects and funding.

Source

Source documentation, background profiles and references.

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

Scientific metadata

Reference years, modelling and allocation methods, contributors, publications, projects and funding.

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 steam-generator equipment represented by chromium steel, hot rolling, pipe drawing and freight. Thermal power and steam conditions are not independently specified by the construction reference.
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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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
TRL scale Higher is more mature. 9: routine commercial deployment 8: commercial, but still niche or scaling 7: first-commercial or advanced demonstration 6: engineering-scale demonstration 5: pilot or large prototype 4: bench or lab validated 3: research-stage concept Technology readiness level
1 to 5 scale Lower is better. 1: strong market- or operating-data basis 2: commercially plausible, but still somewhat specific 3: partly representative, with modelling or adaptation bias 4: pilot, proxy-based, scaled-up, or prospective 5: weak representation of the real technology state Technological representativeness
1 to 5 scale Lower is better. 1: geography matches the claimed scope well 2: regionally credible, but broader or less exact 3: generic regional or global proxy 4: weak proxy or clear geographic mismatch 5: geography is effectively unsupported Geographical representativeness
1 to 5 scale Lower is better. 1: current for that technology class 2: slightly dated, but still good 3: dated enough to need caution 4: stale, pilot-era, or prospective relative to current practice 5: clearly not representative of the current state 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 6 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.

Climate change 2.3739e+06 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 11653.3 mol H+-Eq / unit
Climate change 2.3739e+06 kg CO2-Eq / unit
Freshwater ecotoxicity 8.0388e+06 CTUe / unit
Freshwater eutrophication 849.181 kg P-Eq / unit
Marine eutrophication 2146.72 kg N-Eq / unit
Terrestrial eutrophication 22843.5 mol N-Eq / unit
Human toxicity, cancer 0.0357486 CTUh / unit
Human toxicity, non-cancer 0.110447 CTUh / unit
Ionising radiation 535517 kBq U235-Eq / unit
Land use 9.9593e+06 dimensionless / unit
Ozone depletion 0.040145 kg CFC-11-Eq / unit
Particulate matter 0.16696 disease incidence / unit
Photochemical ozone formation 8068.98 kg NMVOC-Eq / unit
Resource use, fossils 2.8638e+07 MJ, net calorific value / unit
Resource use, minerals and metals 61.0574 kg Sb-Eq / unit
Water use 632323 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.

Dataset contents

Reference flows, emissions, technosphere inputs, and natural resources in this published snapshot.

Outputs

Reference flow 1 row Reference production exchanges extracted from the uploaded inventory.
Exchange Reference / categories Amount Unit Metadata Climate change contribution
steam generator primary EPR
RER
Steam generator primary EPR
Axpo NH 5b / year technologies
1
unit
Metadata (1)
Allocation
100
 Reference flow

Inputs

Technosphere inputs 5 rows Linked foreground or background product inputs used by this dataset.
Exchange Reference / categories Amount Unit Metadata Climate change contribution
market for drawing of pipe, steel
GLO
drawing of pipe, steel
Materials/fuels
3.86e+04
kilogram
Metadata (4)
Loc
38600
Product
drawing of pipe, steel
Simapro name
Drawing of pipes, steel U
Uncertainty type
0
16630.3 kg CO2-Eq / unit 0.7% of total
BAFU:2025
market for hot rolling, steel
GLO
hot rolling, steel
Materials/fuels
4.61e+05
kilogram
Metadata (4)
Loc
461000
Product
hot rolling, steel
Simapro name
Hot rolling, steel U
Uncertainty type
0
76584.3 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
5.00e+05
kilogram
Metadata (4)
Loc
500000
Product
steel, chromium steel 18/8
Simapro name
Chromium steel 18/8, at plant U
Uncertainty type
0
2.2102e+06 kg CO2-Eq / unit 93.1% of total
BAFU:2025
market for transport, freight train
Europe without Switzerland
transport, freight train
Materials/fuels
1.10e+05
ton kilometer
Metadata (4)
Loc
110000
Product
transport, freight train
Simapro name
Transport, freight, rail U
Uncertainty type
0
1840.31 kg CO2-Eq / unit 0.1% of total
BAFU:2025
market for transport, freight, lorry, unspecified
RER
transport, freight, lorry, unspecified
Materials/fuels
5.50e+04
ton kilometer
Metadata (4)
Loc
55000
Product
transport, freight, lorry, unspecified
Simapro name
Transport, van <3.5t U
Uncertainty type
0
68583 kg CO2-Eq / unit 2.9% 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.

Reuse and provenance

Downloads & files

Add this version to your basket, inspect original uploads, or reuse it in your LCA software.

Add to download basket

Original source files are currently unavailable, but you can still add this version to your basket for generated package export.

Log in to add to basket
Raw uploaded files 0 files preserved with this version.
Original uploaded files were not included in the inventory archive. Generated inventory exports remain available.
Versions & changes 2 versions · change rationale, release notes and comparisons.

Version history

Published versions are immutable and remain available.

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

  • Version 1.0.1 revises version 1.0.0.
  1. Version 1.0.0
    Published

    First published inventory; no earlier version is available for comparison.

    Superseded
  2. Version 1.0.1
    Published

    Activity and product names for steam generator primary EPR now use consistent catalogue spelling across the inventory and its supplier references. The physical recipe…

    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 steam generator 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 steam generator 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 steam generator 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
steam generator primary EPR (production / RER / unit) Name Steam generator primary EPR steam generator 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 steam generator 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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-2228. 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 steam-generator equipment represented by chromium steel, hot rolling, pipe drawing and freight. Thermal power and steam conditions are not independently specified by the construction reference.
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 Steam generator primary EPR steam generator 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.

Public discussion

Questions and comments are public. The dataset submitter is notified.

Log in to participate
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