Talk:EPR (nuclear reactor)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rallies[edit]

I could really use a peer edit on my contribution. The sources seemed to be contradictory at first, but I think what I'm discovering is that all of these three:

Are all names for the same organization (covered in another section), even though the say 3 clearly different things.

I believe this all comes down to the Sortir du nucléaire organization. Can anyone out there confirm or deny this? Anyone? theanphibian 06:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also want someone to have a look at this from the article in the top of the France section:

Ecologist organisations from the Sortir du nucléaire network sued the french operator EDF to invalidate the construction permit. [13]

I am finding this very hard to verify since the website itself is in French and I can't find anything online for it. I believe it comes down to the fact that the same group that launched the protests against the EPR is the group that had a failed lawsuit, and this needs to be clearly written in the article, but I can't verify the details of the lawsuit. I don't even know if the lawsuit was entertained by the court with the simple language of "sued" and no sources I can read on it. Was it ever entertained by a court or was it just filed once and thrown out? Details people, we need details. theanphibian 06:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed that text, I just couldn't verify the information at all, but believe me, it's not from lack of trying. This is some translated text from the source that was given:

The Network “To leave the nuclear power” and Crilan attack in justice allowed it to build EPR


By request which will be deposited with the administrative Court of Caen on Tuesday August 22, 2006, the CRILAN and the Network To leave the Nuclear power will submit the permit building delivered at EDF by the prefect of Handle on August 4 relating to the preliminary works of the EPR, in Flamanville (Handle).

Associations dispute the conditions of installation of the new engine (section n°3 beside two sections 1 and 2 already existing) in violation of the law of January 3, 1986 relating to the protection of the littoral.

They deplore in addition that the impact study produced by EDF at the time of its request for permit building was not placed at the disposal of the public [1] as well as the “saucissonnage” of the file [2].

They point out in any event their determination to prevent by all means the takeover by force of the government and EDF to impose the EPR on Flamanville:

  • whereas France does not need this engine, its nuclear capacity being usable until at least 2025,
  • whereas the premature realization of the EPR is justified by purely commercial reasons in order to make it possible SIEMENS-FRAMATOME-AREVA to try to sell the EPR abroad,
  • whereas important electoral expiries intervene in 2007 and that it is urgent to finally await a true change of energy policy.

I can't read French, but this seems almost conclusive to say that the reference doesn't give information on a lawsuit. It sound more like the builders wrapped up a standard legal preceding. theanphibian 07:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics[edit]

I want to see more of the politics since this has gotten significant news attention recently. Ségolène Royal is a figure who has made a strong policy statement for new nuclear plants, and was even featured on CBS 60 minutes: http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2661956n Which I imagine has to do with the new construction and rallies. The current material in this article relating to politics is very narrow, with so much more than should be in there. We'll see. theanphibian 05:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added another event, but I also want to note that Nicolas Sarkozy JUST got elected to office, so if we could get some links and notes on his policy regarding nuclear, I think it would be a good addition. theanphibian 04:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is very clear, as stated by new Minister of Ecology Juppé. Example of source "Nuclear is not the only solution [to global warming], but there is no solution without nuclear." Flamanville 3 will be built and you can expect announcement of a few more units in France in the coming years (Tricastin ?).Hektor 05:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a way, it is being built right now. I hope my last edit clarified a few things regarding this. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

revert of Critisism (sic)[edit]

The following phrases were removed for the following reasons:

For some environmental groups like the Regional Collective of Normandy and West of France "EPR, no thanks, neither somewhere else, nor here! " and the french Network Sortir du nucléaire, EPR is a wrong decision from those aspects :

  • Energy : France doesn’t need a big centralized electrical production capacity for the next decades. Nuclear energy represents only 15% of French final energy consumption and 3% of the world’s. It is not a solution to reverse climate change either.
  • Economy : this extremely expensive project (billions of euros) will delay the necessary redeployment of the French industry without addressing its difficulties.
  • Social aspects : the increasing demand for renewable energy will help create many more jobs (up to 5 times more) and will be more adapted to the future than nuclear energy. For the same investment, a wind power program would lead to twice the amount of electricity production, for instance.
  • Environment : EPR is not providing any response to the safety, security and waste management problems which will burden future generations.

Those groups have lauched an International Call to NGOs, groups, personalities, trade unions and political parties against the 'new' generation of nuclear European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) at Flamanville  : No to nuclear reactor EPR , Yes to energy alternatives.

  1. The first line is heavily POV.
  2. No cite, let alone a reliable one, is given stating what France does or doesn't need.
  3. No authoritative cite is given stating that nuclear is not a solution to climate change - since it doesn't emit Greenhouse Gases, it very well may be a viable solution.
  4. "extremely" and "necessary" are extremely POV. Who says French industry needs to be redeployed? Provide a cite.
  5. As to rising demand for renewable energy, state who determined that.
  6. EPR is a reactor, not a waste site, so I don't see how this comment fits. According to a major Time Magazine article, France has a successful and popular waste disposal policy.
  7. The last paragraph is extremely POV. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.
  8. The nuclear power controversy is discussed in the Nuclear Power article, so the above belongs there.

Simesa 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another spoil-sport ruining perfectly good rhetoric with the truth 70.49.63.162 01:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simesa, as a former nuclear engineer now retraining into accounting, your are also not neutral when you say that nuclear may be a viable solution to climate change. I think nuclear is not a solution to climate change, because electrical power supply emit just 20% of geenhouse gases in the world! the rest, 80% are emitted by cars, trucks, planes... which cannot all be runned by nuclear reactors --Enr-v 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our opinions are not included in Wikipedia. Nuclear reactors may produce hydrogen for vehicle fuel - the IFR to be built in the Idaho National Laboratory is to do just that - so you may well be wrong that nuclear is not a viable solution. Please try to back assertions with quality cites. Simesa 00:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

revert of EPR building plans[edit]

The following phrases were removed for the following reasons:

A first EPR reactor in France should be built in Flamanville in the Manche département and be operational in 2012. There is a bidding in process to build four new EPR reactors to China, and an intent to market EPRs in the US with Constellation Energy.

  1. The first line is heavily POV.
  2. The paragraph is extremely POV.
  3. French population is opposited to EPR project : see [1]

--Enr-v 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write those sentences, but I restored them with cites. I can see how the first paragraph was misphrased, but the second is a simple statement of two facts - and your own cite confirms one of them. As to whether the majority of the French population is opposed to nuclear, we certainly can't tell that from your cite. Simesa 00:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is outdated, 2006 is over and what are the results ?Hektor 07:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The French population is overwhelmingly pro-nuclear, every poll shows this. There has been some opposition to the Flamanville build, but there is no evidence that there is majority opposition to it.

216.203.27.99 11:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)dwaltersMIA[reply]

Spelling[edit]

Is the name really spelled with a 'z'? Using American English for a European project is rather odd. What is the official spelling? DirkvdM 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, that is the spelling Areva use. So I guess we have to go along with it. Rwendland 11:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From American and British English spelling differences#Greek-derived spellings: The -ize spelling is often incorrectly seen as an Americanism in Britain. However, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) recommends -ize and notes that the -ise spelling is from French: "The suffix...whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Greek -ιζειν, Latin -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic." The OED lists the -ise form separately, as an alternative.--46.223.21.230 (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete Containment[edit]

The strength of the concrete containment of the EPR was designed to withstand a Steam explosion containing 5% of the energy contained in the corium of a complete core meltdown. This is a safety factor of more than 2 since experiments have shown that the energy released in such an event can only be 2% as a worst case.

That the building is capable to withstant any airplane crash is just an implied result of the above safety concern. --Dio1982 14:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? This engineering assesment [2] says the EDF assessment is for an accidental military fighter aircraft strike rather than a deliberate commercial passenger aircraft crash. It also argues that probabilistic reasoning adopted for the safety and design of nuclear plants isn't well suited for evaluating malevolent acts. Rwendland 21:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requirement of the TÜV (German technical safety watchdog). I have no idea how the technical requirements report was called. But the containment building was specifically designed to withstand the quoted steam explosions. It just so happens to be sufficiently strong enough for airplane crashes. And military airplanes are the worst case to design for. Civil airliners are only kerosene ladden egg shells in comparison.
BTW, what is the difference between a malevolent act and a gross error from a technical point? Short of bunker busting bombs and a successfull bombing of both control rooms, the starting points (damage/failure of the reactor) for safety analysis are identical to all kinds of acts of sabotage. --Dio1982 16:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should a small military fighter be worst case? Civil airliner has far greater mass at impact, more fuel to burn, and each large engine is probably about as hard as a fighter. Also I don't see that a containment to resist a roughly even internal over-pressure should necessarily offer good resistance to an external point force. Do you have a ref?
Malevolent act/accident difference is in the probability analysis toward target core melt failure < 10-5 for each reactor-year. Hard to ascribe reasonable probability to malevolent act, and assumptions like even probability of crash anywhere within nuclear site are no longer valid. Rwendland 20:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno which is worse, but when airplanes crash into these things it is not really appropriate to think of them as one massive body. Rather, they tend to shatter into pieces. Thus the extra weight beyond the nose of the plane doesn't really make as much difference as you would think since the structural material is not strong enough to pass on the momentum throughout the entire plane. While doing an actual test with an airliner would be a bit expensive, tests have been done directly with fighters. See: http://youtube.com/watch?v=96phB4fIk7E as an example. Keep in mind that this test was quite a while ago with a much thinner wall. The EPR has two layers using state of the art materials, with a total thickness in excess of 2 metres. Finally, if you are going to crash something like a 747 into a building, you would cause a lot more deaths and damage if you did it in a large population centre, rather than in a nuclear reactor. Even Chernobyl didn't cause as many deaths as the WTC attacks, and that is pretty much the absolute worst case scenario. 85.224.78.193 04:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe civil airliner is worst-case normally. I've seen more than one reference to how EPR was "crash-resistant" from an earlier stage, but had to further strengthen containment in Finland to meet airliner-crash requirements. I'm not sure that this is essential to the article, but if others feel it is, I found the information through public sources - and probably could again if needed. Revr J (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title is disconcerting[edit]

The title of this article is different from the phrase used in the first sentence which uses "Evolutionary Power Reactor". I think that either the first sentence should be changed to "European Pressurized Reactor" and then have a note saying that it's also called "Evolutionary Power Reactor", or the title of the article should be changed to "European Pressurized Reactor". I know nothing about this topic but when I first started reading the intro I thought a vandal had changed the first sentence, until I read the whole thing. Something should be changed to reduce confusion. --Wizard191 (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a nose around the official websites and could neither see "European Pressurized Reactor" nor "Evolutionary Power Reactor" in use now. The simply use "EPR", or "EPR nuclear reactor" now. eg the PDF Press Kit, which you would hope would be athiratative, just uses "EPR".[3] I think we should migrate the article to "EPR nuclear reactor" (since "EPR" is taken), or at least unwind the "Evolutionary Power Reactor" name for now which only seems to have had a short life in use, and is now abandoned. Rwendland (talk)
Areva is constantly changing the name of this reactor...
The reactor built France as well as Flamanville is most certainly called "European Pressurized Reactor". The "z" in pressurised is no mistake. The reactor currently up for licensing in the US is constantly changing its name. I guess that they are fearing some kind of political backlash due to having "european" in the name of that reacor.--Dio1982 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be putting it lightly. You're not going to build a nuclear reactor with "European" in the name in the US. Also, I think pressurised is the English spelling. The correct spelling would be pressurized ;) -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this article to find out how an EPR works, the title is wrong, the page should primarily be about the reactor type and how it works,instead it is predominantly about what power stations are being built. "protests" should be under a controversy heading and "lost opportunities" - WTF, did nuclear sales people write this???? Correct title more like "List of European Pressurized Reactors" RandomGuy August 2014

EPRTM an AREVA Trademark[edit]

Just as AREVA is properly expressed in all-caps, EPRTM is properly expressed with a little superscript TM, for trademark.[1].Ratherthanlater (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.areva.com/servlet/cp_30_01_09_epr-c-PressRelease-cid-1233262804383-en.html

AmerenUE plans put on hold[edit]

I believe AmerenUE has put their reactor plans on hold due to the state of Missouri not allowing pre-construction rate increases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?_r=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.6.118 (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Construction started i China[edit]

The contruction site at Taishan has seen activity for months and the working at the site was officialy announced at the 21st dec 2009. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/6849430.html

This might be a good time to update the article to include Taishan 1+2 in the same manner as Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.63.19.26 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move Request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Pressurized Reactor → European Pressurised Reactor — UK spelling would be more appropiate than US. -- Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason it is "European Pressurized Reactor" is that is the spelling Areva chose - essentially a trademark. Now Areva uses "EPR" (tm). If we are to rename, I think something like "EPR (nuclear reactor)" would be the best choice as it would reflect the current trademark. Rwendland (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rwendland, if the company used "z", this should use "z". Further the OED says "z", IIRC. As there seems to be no EPR units in the UK, it's less appropriate to use UK spelling than that of the company. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too. Areva list the reactor as European Pressurized Reactor too, see http://www.areva-np.com/scripts/info/publigen/content/templates/show.asp?L=US&P=1655&SYNC=Y A another reason is the rename of the reactor. International the reactor is marketed as Evolutionary Power Reactor, because it's a more neutral description of the plant. I more see an option to move the article to Evolutionary Power Reactor. Best Regards ChNPP (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to "EPR (nuclear reactor)" proposal[edit]

Now that Areva has been using EPR (tm) as the name for this reactor for many years, since 2005 or earlier, I propose we rename this article "EPR (nuclear reactor)". Areva has entirely purged names like "European Pressurized Reactor" from use, eg see [4]. This seems broadly in line with the views in the previous move discussion. Rwendland (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there are no adverse comments, I will move to "EPR (nuclear reactor)" tomorrow, unless anyone objects beforehand. Rwendland (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there was no consensus for another (different) move just a few months ago, I don't think this move should be performed absent a formal move request. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting up the "future plants"[edit]

Right now the "future plans" is a mix of confirmed construction plans(UK), Blocked construction plans(US) and MoUs resulting in no orders(UAE), and MoUs that has resultet in firm contracts(India)

We need to find a way to filter out MoUs or include the all. There is Finland, Poland and so on who has MoUs.

I Suggest moving the UAE-case to its own section or simply removing it. It is not future. The remaining cases I would list by relevance. The most firm plans first and loose MoUs last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaarrss (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italy[edit]

John Quiggin edited my elaboration on the Italian referendum. I believe this is cutting away valuable information. Im all for better information. So how do we keep the information but remove the "speculative" part?

Personally I dont se it as speculative. Berlusconi himself recommended "not to vote", just as any italian law maker does when they want to avoid the risk of oosing a referendum. By just leaving the result of 94% in favour of banning nuclear power is misleading and can misinterpreted as 94% of all Italians are against nuclear power. Which is clearly NOT the case! I suggest reverting John Quiggins editions.Llaarrss (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support what JQ has done. I couldn't believe it when you introduced material about "sex with an underage prostitute" and other unsourced info that had no relevance to this article. Please keep your future contributions on topic and make sure they are supported by WP:RS. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont trust me. Trust Wikipedia! Follow wikipedias link for berlusconi and read the parts about his sex scandals. The most recent one I mention are the one about Ruby. Ruby also has her own wiki-page. Go read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Rubacuori Otherwise let me quote: "The Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, is being accused of paying Moroccan nightclub dancer Karima El Mahroug – also known by the stage name Ruby Rubacuori (Italian for "Ruby Heartstealer") – for sexual services between February and May 2010 when she was under the age of 18" It is all documented at wikipedia!

This is very relevant information and it need to included since the 94% against vote can be misinterpreted. And we dont want that. Right?

I acknowledge the new for more qutes and links. And I will add this. But leaving valuable information out on the voting strategy for italian referendums are just silly and causes misinterpretation. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Pressurized_Reactor&action=edit&section=14# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaarrss (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What response to safety concerns[edit]

Article claims : "On November 4th 2009, the nuclear power regulatory authorities in France, Finland and the United Kingdom issued a joint letter to Areva, citing serious problems with the EPR's digital Instrumentation and Control systems (I&C)" but there is no indication of how Areva responded. What can we say ? - Rod57 (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32365888 "In a joint statement, Areva and EDF said new tests were under way on the "reactor vessel head and bottom". It said this followed initial tests which had shown "greater than average carbon content" - something French regulators said caused "lower than expected mechanical toughness" in the steel."81.156.186.154 (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on EPR (nuclear reactor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EPR (nuclear reactor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on EPR (nuclear reactor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on EPR (nuclear reactor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cost Flamanville[edit]

French newspaper Le Monde made a nice info-graphic [5] about the evolution of the evolution cost of the cost of the French EPR plant in Flamanville. The last update is € 19.1 billion and an expected completion date of 2025. I tried to put this info in the article but it was quickly edited out. warpozio (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't edited out, but I added the source to the first paragraph of the Flamanville-section. Information on the way the €19.1 billion was calculated could already be found there. Buxtehude (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:EPR_(nuclear_reactor)&oldid=1220534710"