EPR
About
The EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) is a large Gen III+ PWR with an electrical output of approximately 1,600 MWe. It is intended for large-scale baseload electricity generation, but it is also capable of cogeneration, especially desalination and district heating.
| Developer | Électricité de France and Framatome |
|---|---|
| Country of Origin | France |
| Size | Large |
| Type | Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) |
Jump To:
Analysis
4
Deployment Timescale
Score Justification
The EPR has been licensed and constructed in multiple countries, with operating units in France, China, and Finland and units under construction in the United Kingdom. The design is fully mature from a regulatory standpoint, but construction relies primarily on extensive on-site civil works.
By indicator
- 4/4 Regulatory Engagement
To what extent has the reactor developer engaged with a recognized nuclear regulatory authority in the licensing process? (30% of total score) - 6/6 Technology Precedent
Has the reactor design, or a sufficiently similar design, been certified anywhere in the world? (10% of total score) - 1/3 Modularity
What share of total reactor systems can be manufactured off-site in controlled factory environments rather than constructed on-site? (15% of total score) - 2/4 Specialization
To what extent do construction activities and components require lengthy qualification processes? (15% of total score) - 5/5 Supply Chain
How mature and available are suppliers for key reactor components and fuel services? (30% of total score)
1
Overnight Cost
Score Justification
As a GW-scale reactor, the EPR’s large footprint drives up construction costs, as does its extensive containment and civil works. It has, however, fewer exotic components that require long-lead qualification processes than more novel reactor designs.
By indicator
- 1/4 Component Cost
What is the expected cost of the reactor’s major components? (40% of total score) - 2/6 Construction Cost
To what extent does the design reduce construction cost and risk through modular fabrication and limited nuclear-grade specialization? (60% of total score)
2
Operational Cost
Score Justification
The EPR’s Operational Cost is driven by high maintenance, staffing, and decommissioning costs — largely derived from its sizable footprint. Its use of traditional LEU UO₂ fuel, however, leads to relatively inexpensive fuel costs and moderate waste management costs.
By indicator
- 3/3 Fuel Cost
What is the estimated cost of nuclear fuel per unit of electricity generated, including enrichment, fabrication, and back-end costs? (15% of total score) - 1/4 Maintenance Cost
What is the expected annual maintenance cost for the reactor and balance of plant systems, including consumables? (25% of total score) - 1/5 Staffing Level
How many full-time personnel are required to safely operate and maintain the reactor unit? (40% of total score) - 3/5 Spent Fuel & Radioactive Waste Management Cost
What are the expected operational costs associated with managing spent fuel, including interim storage, transport, disposal, or recycling? (10% of total score) - 1/5 Decommissioning Cost
What are the total lifetime contributions required for decommissioning, regardless of funding mechanism? (10% of total score)
3
Cost Predictability
Score Justification
Multiple EPR units have been constructed and operated, providing real project experience beyond first-of-a-kind deployment. However, the high percentage of on-site construction can add to cost overruns, depending on the deployment location.
By indicator
- 4/5 Prototype
To what extent has the reactor design been built, demonstrated, or commercially deployed in practice? (75% of total score) - 1/3 Modularity
What share of total reactor systems can be manufactured off-site in controlled factory environments rather than constructed on-site? (25% of total score)
5
Security
Score Justification
The EPR uses standard-assay LEU fuel and its thermal spectrum is not optimized to produce weapons-usable nuclear material. It incorporates design basis security features, such as minimized access points and hardened and steel-reinforced structural elements.
By indicator
- 3/3 Fuel
What is the enrichment level and composition of the reactor fuel? (40% of total score) - 4/4 Nuclear Material Production
What is the potential for the reactor to produce weapons-usable nuclear material? (40% of total score) - 1/1 Security by Design
Has the reactor developer built in security by design? (20% of total score)
4
Safety
Score Justification
The EPR has an approved safety case from national regulators. The design includes multiple shutdown systems, redundant active safety trains, a core catcher for severe accidents, and a high-pressure reactor system enclosed by double containment. Decay heat removal relies primarily on active systems supported by emergency power. It has not commercially adopted accident-tolerant fuel.
By indicator
- 2/2 Safety Case
How mature and publicly established is the reactor’s safety case with the regulator? (40% of total score) - 1/2 Shutdown Mechanism
How diverse, independent, and passive are the reactor’s shutdown systems? (20% of total score) - 0/1 Fuel With Safety Characteristics
Does the reactor use fuel with accident tolerance or inherent safety characteristics? (10% of total score) - 3/4 Pressure & Containment
How well does the reactor’s containment strategy protect from the release of radioactive material? (10% of total score) - 1/3 Passive Heat Removal
How long can the reactor remove core heat without operator intervention? (10% of total score) - 3/4 Coolant Reactivity
How chemically reactive is the reactor coolant? (10% of total score)
3
Spent Fuel & Radioactive Waste Management
Score Justification
The EPR uses standard–assay LEU UO₂ fuel, which has been licensed and qualified for disposal in multiple countries. This familiar spent fuel form can usually be transferred to interim storage within five years. The reactor does not introduce novel waste streams that require separate treatment and handling beyond past practice.
By indicator
- 1/1 Spent Fuel Licensing Precedent
Has the spent fuel form been previously licensed for disposal? (20% of total score) - 3/4 Waste Streams
How many distinct waste streams require separate conditioning or handling pathways? (20% of total score) - 1/3 On-Site Storage
How much on-site area is required for interim spent fuel storage? (10% of total score) - 2/3 Spent Fuel Volume
What volume of spent fuel is produced per unit of electricity generated? (15% of total score) - 1/2 Decay Heat
What is the decay heat output of spent fuel at the 50-year interim storage milestone? (20% of total score) - 2/2 Time to Interim Storage
What is the average time until spent fuel can be transferred to interim storage? (15% of total score)
5
Supply Chain
Score Justification
The design benefits from a highly developed manufacturing base for major components. Fuel enrichment and fabrication are supported by established commercial facilities, providing a robust and scalable supply chain.
By indicator
- 2/2 Key Component Availability
To what extent are commercial or pilot-scale suppliers available for the reactor’s major components? (60% of total score) - 4/4 Fuel Availability
Are suppliers available for both fuel fabrication and enrichment required by the reactor design? (40% of total score)