Description
Equipment-supply reference for 1 unit of valve, average, NI EPR. It provides the recorded material, processing and linked equipment inputs for the EPR construction supply chain.
Nuclear electricity
valve, average, NI EPR
Reference product Valve, average, NI EPR RER
Published
Version 1.0.1
Latest published
Stable dataset identity
valve-average-ni-epr
- 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
Dataset details
Classification, keywords, bookmarks and download counts.
Classification path: Energy > Electricity > Nuclear electricity
Log in to bookmarkMetadata & 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
These are the stored source profiles for this version. Foreground methodology is recorded in Scientific metadata.
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
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.
Acidification
2.53077
mol H+-Eq / unit
Climate change
249.606
kg CO2-Eq / unit
Freshwater ecotoxicity
907.014
CTUe / unit
Freshwater eutrophication
0.116562
kg P-Eq / unit
Marine eutrophication
0.245395
kg N-Eq / unit
Terrestrial eutrophication
2.59692
mol N-Eq / unit
Human toxicity, cancer
3.4845e-06
CTUh / unit
Human toxicity, non-cancer
1.1402e-05
CTUh / unit
Ionising radiation
58.3103
kBq U235-Eq / unit
Land use
1133.42
dimensionless / unit
Ozone depletion
4.9298e-06
kg CFC-11-Eq / unit
Particulate matter
1.8047e-05
disease incidence / unit
Photochemical ozone formation
0.972736
kg NMVOC-Eq / unit
Resource use, fossils
3059.47
MJ, net calorific value / unit
Resource use, minerals and metals
0.00612704
kg Sb-Eq / unit
Water use
81.2865
m3 world Eq deprived / 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
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.
Outputs
Reference flow 1 row Reference production exchanges extracted from the uploaded inventory.
| Exchange | Reference / categories | Amount | Unit | Metadata | Climate change contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
valve, average, NI EPR
RER
|
Valve, average, NI EPR
Axpo NH 5b / year technologies
|
1
|
unit | Reference flow |
Inputs
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
|
1.5
|
kilogram |
1.36197
mol H+-Eq / unit
53.8% of total
12.7644
kg CO2-Eq / unit
5.1% of total
110.139
CTUe / unit
12.1% of total
0.0304973
kg P-Eq / unit
26.2% of total
0.0242681
kg N-Eq / unit
9.9% of total
0.246829
mol N-Eq / unit
9.5% of total
1.3465e-08
CTUh / unit
0.4% of total
5.2906e-07
CTUh / unit
4.6% of total
4.44854
kBq U235-Eq / unit
7.6% of total
100.491
dimensionless / unit
8.9% of total
2.7502e-07
kg CFC-11-Eq / unit
5.6% of total
1.6134e-06
disease incidence / unit
8.9% of total
0.142921
kg NMVOC-Eq / unit
14.7% of total
167.605
MJ, net calorific value / unit
5.5% of total
0.000130518
kg Sb-Eq / unit
2.1% of total
11.403
m3 world Eq deprived / unit
14.0% of total
BAFU:2025
|
|
|
market for hot rolling, steel
GLO
|
hot rolling, steel
Materials/fuels
|
48.5
|
kilogram |
0.0109887
mol H+-Eq / unit
0.4% of total
8.05713
kg CO2-Eq / unit
3.2% of total
36.2429
CTUe / unit
4.0% of total
0.00135386
kg P-Eq / unit
1.2% of total
0.00407044
kg N-Eq / unit
1.7% of total
0.03931
mol N-Eq / unit
1.5% of total
9.7966e-09
CTUh / unit
0.3% of total
1.4646e-07
CTUh / unit
1.3% of total
5.89358
kBq U235-Eq / unit
10.1% of total
24.3353
dimensionless / unit
2.1% of total
3.0735e-07
kg CFC-11-Eq / unit
6.2% of total
3.7855e-07
disease incidence / unit
2.1% of total
0.0333627
kg NMVOC-Eq / unit
3.4% of total
175.865
MJ, net calorific value / unit
5.7% of total
7.6406e-06
kg Sb-Eq / unit
0.1% of total
6.86826
m3 world Eq deprived / unit
8.4% of total
BAFU:2025
|
|
|
market for steel, chromium steel 18/8
GLO
|
steel, chromium steel 18/8
Materials/fuels
|
48.5
|
kilogram |
1.08837
mol H+-Eq / unit
43.0% of total
214.394
kg CO2-Eq / unit
85.9% of total
717.749
CTUe / unit
79.1% of total
0.0799364
kg P-Eq / unit
68.6% of total
0.191878
kg N-Eq / unit
78.2% of total
2.04942
mol N-Eq / unit
78.9% of total
3.4547e-06
CTUh / unit
99.1% of total
1.0500e-05
CTUh / unit
92.1% of total
44.7412
kBq U235-Eq / unit
76.7% of total
875.123
dimensionless / unit
77.2% of total
2.7460e-06
kg CFC-11-Eq / unit
55.7% of total
1.5584e-05
disease incidence / unit
86.4% of total
0.707471
kg NMVOC-Eq / unit
72.7% of total
2505.29
MJ, net calorific value / unit
81.9% of total
0.00588765
kg Sb-Eq / unit
96.1% of total
46.9624
m3 world Eq deprived / unit
57.8% of total
BAFU:2025
|
|
|
market for transport, freight train
Europe without Switzerland
|
transport, freight train
Materials/fuels
|
21.7
|
ton kilometer |
0.00158941
mol H+-Eq / unit
0.1% of total
0.363043
kg CO2-Eq / unit
0.1% of total
0.956149
CTUe / unit
0.1% of total
0.000219205
kg P-Eq / unit
0.2% of total
0.000528431
kg N-Eq / unit
0.2% of total
0.00529501
mol N-Eq / unit
0.2% of total
4.3714e-10
CTUh / unit
0.0% of total
4.6180e-09
CTUh / unit
0.0% of total
0.355872
kBq U235-Eq / unit
0.6% of total
6.71209
dimensionless / unit
0.6% of total
8.8264e-09
kg CFC-11-Eq / unit
0.2% of total
1.6357e-08
disease incidence / unit
0.1% of total
0.00168868
kg NMVOC-Eq / unit
0.2% of total
7.01778
MJ, net calorific value / unit
0.2% of total
8.1353e-07
kg Sb-Eq / unit
0.0% of total
0.205676
m3 world Eq deprived / unit
0.3% of total
BAFU:2025
|
|
|
market for transport, freight, lorry, unspecified
RER
|
transport, freight, lorry, unspecified
Materials/fuels
|
10.8
|
ton kilometer |
0.0576293
mol H+-Eq / unit
2.3% of total
13.4672
kg CO2-Eq / unit
5.4% of total
37.877
CTUe / unit
4.2% of total
0.00126642
kg P-Eq / unit
1.1% of total
0.0237946
kg N-Eq / unit
9.7% of total
0.246621
mol N-Eq / unit
9.5% of total
4.5211e-09
CTUh / unit
0.1% of total
1.0233e-07
CTUh / unit
0.9% of total
2.588
kBq U235-Eq / unit
4.4% of total
123.309
dimensionless / unit
10.9% of total
1.5786e-06
kg CFC-11-Eq / unit
32.0% of total
4.2715e-07
disease incidence / unit
2.4% of total
0.0831617
kg NMVOC-Eq / unit
8.5% of total
194.133
MJ, net calorific value / unit
6.3% of total
3.2092e-05
kg Sb-Eq / unit
0.5% of total
15.608
m3 world Eq deprived / unit
19.2% of total
BAFU:2025
|
|
|
wire drawing, copper
RER
|
wire drawing, copper
Materials/fuels
|
1.5
|
kilogram |
0.0102243
mol H+-Eq / unit
0.4% of total
0.560115
kg CO2-Eq / unit
0.2% of total
4.05015
CTUe / unit
0.4% of total
0.00328886
kg P-Eq / unit
2.8% of total
0.000856046
kg N-Eq / unit
0.3% of total
0.00945026
mol N-Eq / unit
0.4% of total
1.5761e-09
CTUh / unit
0.0% of total
1.1905e-07
CTUh / unit
1.0% of total
0.283137
kBq U235-Eq / unit
0.5% of total
3.45239
dimensionless / unit
0.3% of total
1.4014e-08
kg CFC-11-Eq / unit
0.3% of total
2.7341e-08
disease incidence / unit
0.2% of total
0.00413085
kg NMVOC-Eq / unit
0.4% of total
9.55763
MJ, net calorific value / unit
0.3% of total
6.8323e-05
kg Sb-Eq / unit
1.1% of total
0.239122
m3 world Eq deprived / unit
0.3% 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.
Supply-chain graph
Direct technosphere and natural-resource inputs appear on the left; emissions appear on the right.
Current dataset
Technosphere inputs
Environmental resource inputs
Emissions
1 CLIC node and 6 background boundary nodes shown. Direct inputs appear to the left of the current dataset, while emissions appear to the right. Hover an arrow to inspect its amount and unit, click a blue supplier node to reveal up to three upstream steps, or click an emissions node to open its biosphere flows, then scroll or drag the canvas to navigate.
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.
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.
-
Version 1.0.0
Published
First published inventory; no earlier version is available for comparison.
Superseded -
Version 1.0.1
Published
Activity and product names for valve, average, NI 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 valve, average, NI 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 |
About this version
Why this version changed
Activity and product names for valve, average, NI 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 valve, average, NI 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.
Reference flows modified 1
| Exchange / scope | Field | Previous value | Revised value | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| valve, average, NI EPR (production / RER / unit) | Name | Valve, average, NI EPR | valve, average, NI EPR | Activity and product names now follow consistent catalogue spelling, so the intended inventory and its supplier references remain identifiable. |
Metadata changes 12
| 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 valve, average, NI 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-2248. 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-2248. 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-2248. 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-2248. 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-2248. 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-2248. 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-2248. 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-2248. 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-2248. 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-2248. 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-2248. 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-2248. 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 | Average nuclear-island valve represented by chromium steel and copper, metal forming and freight. The average material reference does not independently specify bore, pressure class, flow coefficient or operating duty. | |
| 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 | Valve, average, NI EPR | valve, average, NI 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
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