This dataset provides hourly resolved estimates of 14CO2 discharge rates from major European nuclear
facilities. The dataset covers the period from 2016 to 2023 and includes a preview for 2024. The
estimates are intended to support atmospheric Delta 14CO2 analyses and inverse modelling
applications by improving the quantification of nuclear radiocarbon contributions. Time series of
14CO₂ discharges are derived for 123 nuclear power plants and, when including nuclear fuel
reprocessing facilities, for a total of 126 nuclear facilities located in or close to Europe. The
methodology combines reported annual radiocarbon discharge data with reactor-specific information
and auxiliary datasets from the IAEA Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) and the Entsoe-E
Transparency Platform (accessible at https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/home.aspx and
https://transparency.entsoe.eu/ respectively) to derive discharge estimates.

The dataset consists of 3 files:
    - “NPP_14CO2_2016-01-01_2025-01-01.csv”: containing the hourly timeseries for all 126 nuclear
        facilities included in this dataset
    -“data_origin_citations.csv”: documenting the data sources of the measured 14C and 14CO2
        discharge data,
    -“facility_metadata.csv”: providing a list of the included nuclear facilities along with their
        geographical locations.

A complete description of the files and the derivation of the individual values, including
references, is given in an accompanying report published through the Copernicus Atmospheric
Monitoring Service with the title “Estimates of 14CO2 Discharge Rates for Major European Nuclear
Power Plants from 2016 to 2023”.

For completeness, an excerpt of the report is given below, excluding graphics introduction and
appendices:

####################################################################################################
### Estimates of 14CO2 Discharge Rates for Major European Nuclear Power Plants from 2016 to 2023 ###
####################################################################################################

2.2 Data Format
    The csv-file containing the time series of 14CO2 discharge rates
    (“NPP_14CO2_2016-01-01_2025-01-01.csv”) has two timestamp columns “date_start” and “date_end”
    marking the respective start and end times of the hourly discharge rates estimate as well as
    six columns per facility (with facility name <facility>):
        - <facility>_discharge_rate_best_estimate_bq_s: Best estimate of the hourly 14CO2 discharge
            rate, expressed in Bq/s.
        - <facility>_residual_discharge_rate_estimate_bq_s: Non-zero only for Pressurized Water
            Reactors (PWR). Continuous representation of discontinuously occurring discharges at
            PWRs,expressed in Bq/s (see Chapter 4.3)
        - <facility _discharge_rate_lower_estimate_bq_s: Best estimate of the minimum discharge rate
            expected at a given time, expressed in Bq/s. This value does not represent an error
            bound or confidence interval.
        - <facility>_discharge_rate_upper_estimate_bq_s: Best estimate of the maximum discharge rate
            expected at a given time, expressed in Bq/s. This value does not represent an error
            bound or confidence interval.
        - <facility>_discharge_interpolation_method: Identifier of the interpolation method used
            (see Table 4.1).
        - <facility>_14c_data_origin: Identifier of the data source from which the 14C or 14CO2
            discharge measurement was obtained (see “data_origin_citations.csv”).

2.3 Report Outline
    This report is organized into two parts: Chapter 3 describes the methodology used to
    disaggregate reported 14C discharge data across individual nuclear reactors. It also outlines
    the approach applied to estimate annual 14C discharges for facilities without reported data.
    Finally, the chapter explains the conversion of total 14C discharges into corresponding 14CO2
    emission estimates. Chapter 4 details the techniques used to interpolate estimated or measured
    14CO2 discharges temporally.
 

3 Estimation of 14CO2 Emissions from Nuclear Facilities

    In Europe, most nuclear facilities report their annual radiocarbon (14C) discharges to the
    European Commission’s RAdioactive Discharges Database (RADD), which can be accessed at
    https://europa.eu/radd/index.dox (last checked 09.12.2025). However, nuclear facilities in
    Belgium and Ukraine do not disclose 14C discharge rates, whereas those in Switzerland and the
    United Kingdom report annual discharges through local authorities or the facilities themselves.
    Recent annual 14C discharge reports, collected up to 2023, have been published in a public
    dataset (Laemmel et al., 2025). We use this 14C discharge collection of Laemmel et al. (2025)
    and extend it with already available data for 2024 reported in RADD (2025) to estimate 14CO2
    discharges for all nuclear power plants specified in Table 7.1.

3.1 Redistribution of Facility 14C Data to Reactor Specific 14C Data

    Measurements of 14C discharges from nuclear power plants are typically taken using integrated
    samples, that is, samples collected over extended periods for each reactor, with integration
    times much shorter than 1 year (Knaack, 2025). However, in published 14C discharge records,
    these are usually combined into one total annual 14C discharge value for a complete nuclear
    facility aggregating over all nuclear power reactors from the nuclear power plants (NPP)
    facility (approximately 85% of all active reactors in 2023 reporting 14C or 14CO2 discharges)
    (Laemmel et al., 2025; RADD, 2025).

    Since 14C is primarily produced in reactor cores (EPRI, 2010), reactor-level 14C discharge
    estimates require disaggregation of plant-level reported data.

    In this study, total 14C discharges from nuclear power plants are allocated to individual
    reactors based on their relative electricity production during the reporting period. If a
    facility produced no electricity during a discharge reporting period, the discharge is
    distributed equally among the reactors. This approach does not explicitly account for emissions
    occurring during periods without electricity production. This is particularly relevant for
    Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs), where a notable share of 14CO2 discharges may occur during
    reactor shutdowns due to changes in reactor chemistry (Espic et al., 2025; Knaack, 2025;
    Petit et al., 2013). Nonetheless, in the absence of more detailed information, this method was
    applied throughout the report.

3.2 Estimation of 14C Emissions from Nuclear Power Plants Not Reporting Their Annual Emissions
    For 12 of the 123 nuclear power plants (NPPs), no reported 14C discharge data could be retrieved
    for the period between 2016 and 2023. For an additional 11 NPPs, 14C discharge data are missing
    for at least one year (see Figures 2 to 5). To provide a complete dataset of 14CO2 discharge
    rate estimates, the missing 14C discharges were estimated based on annual electricity production
    available in the Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) (accessible under
    https://pris.iaea.org/pris/home.aspx (last checked 10.12.2025)), following the approach proposed
    by (Zazzeri et al., 2018).

    Where sufficient reported discharge data were available, i.e. discharge measurements for other
    reporting periods, reactor-specific discharge-to-energy factors were derived and applied. For
    reactors without any reported 14C discharge data, reactor-type-specific discharge-to-energy
    factors were used instead. Reactor-specific factors were derived from the 14C discharge datasets
    compiled by Laemmel et al. (2025) and the RADD (2025) database. For each reactor, reported
    discharge values were considered if they (a) could be unambiguously assigned to a single reactor
    type, (b) corresponded to periods during which the reactor was operational, and (c) referred to
    reporting periods after 1995, as higher variability in reported measurements was observed prior
    to that year.

    Missing 14C discharges were then estimated using either the reactor-specific discharge-to-energy
    factors or, where not available, the mean reactor-type-specific discharge-to-energy factor.
    For the remaining reactors (approximately 15%), emission factors from the literature were
    applied. Uncertainty ranges for the emission factors were defined using the 25th and 75th
    percentiles. The reactor-type-specific discharge-to-energy factors applied in this study are
    summarized in Table 3.1.
    
    Table 3.1: 14C Emission factors per Reactor-type as used to estimate 14C discharges for reactors with missing data. Squared Brackets indicate the interquartile range (IQR)
    | Reactor Type                         | 14C Emission Factor (TBq/GWa)   | Basis / Source                                                                                   |
    |:-------------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    | Pressurized Water Reactors           | 0.15 [0.08 – 0.24]              | This work based on Laemmel et al. (2025), RADD (2025) and PRIS (2025)                            |
    | Boiling Water Reactors               | 0.29 [0.21 – 0.48]              | This work based on Laemmel et al. (2025), RADD (2025) and PRIS (2025)                            |
    | Gas Cooled Reactors                  | 0.91 [0.7 – 1.2]                | This work based on Laemmel et al. (2025), RADD (2025) and PRIS (2025)                            |
    | Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors     | 0.16 [0.14 – 0.19]              | This work based on Laemmel et al. (2025), RADD (2025) and PRIS (2025)                            |
    | High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors | 0.6 [0.5 – 0.7]                 | This work based on Laemmel et al. (2025), RADD (2025) and PRIS (2025) including data before 1995 |
    | Fast Breeder Reactors                | 0.12 [0 – 0.48]                 | (United Nations, 2000) with estimated IQR                                                        |
    | Light Water Graphite Reactors        | 1.3 [0.5 – 2.1]                 | (Zazzeri et al., 2018)                                                                           |




3.3 Estimation of 14CO2 Emissions from Nuclear Facilities only reporting 14C Emissions

    To convert total 14C discharges into 14CO2 discharges, reactor- and reactor-specific conversion
    factors were applied. The assumed fractions of 14C released as 14CO2, together with associated
    uncertainty ranges and literature sources, are summarized in Table 3.2. These assumptions represent
    a key source of uncertainty in the derived 14CO2 discharge estimates, particularly for pressurized
    water reactors (PWRs), which is the dominate reactor type in Europe.

    Table 3.2: Assumed fractions of 14C discharged as 14CO2 by reactor type, including associated uncertainty ranges and literature sources. (1Boiling Water Reactor; 2Gas-Cooled Reactor; 3Fast Breeder Reactor; 4Heavy Water Gas-Cooled Reactor; 5High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor; 6Steam-Generating Heavy Water Reactor; 7Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor; 8Light Water Graphite Reactor; 9Pressurised Water Reactor; 10Water-Water Energetic Reactor)
    | Reactor Type                                   | Assumed 14CO2 fraction   | Uncertainty range   | Source                                                                                    |
    |:-----------------------------------------------|:-------------------------|:--------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    | BWR1, GCR2, FBR3, HWGCR4, HTGR5, SGHWR6, PHWR7 | 1                        | –                   | (EPRI, 2010; Knaack, 2025; Laemmel et al., 2025; SOHN et al., 2003; Zazzeri et al., 2018) |
    | LWGR8                                          | 0.75                     | 50 – 100%           | (Gaiko et al., 1985)                                                                      |
    | PWR9                                           | 27% (median)             | 14 – 51% (IQR)      | This work based on Laemmel et al. (2025) and the RADD (2025)                              |
    | VVER10                                         | 6% (median)              | 5 – 9% (IQR)        | This work based on Laemmel et al. (2025) and the RADD (2025)                              |
    | Shutdown reactors                              | 1                        | –                   | Assumed                                                                                   |
    | Nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities           | 1                        | –                   | (Laemmel et al., 2025)                                                                    |
     
4 Interpolation of Reactor-Specific 14CO2 Discharges

    Since the 14CO2 discharge patterns of nuclear power plants are highly dependent on the type and
    design of the plant (Knaack, 2025), three interpolation methods were used to estimate hourly
    discharge rates, depending on the reactor type and the availability of hourly electricity
    generation data from the Entsoe-E Transparency Platform (accessible under
    https://transparency.entsoe.eu/ (last checked 18.12.2025)). 

    Table 4.1 provides an overview of the interpolation methods used, together with the corresponding identifiers used in the final dataset. These identifiers are used in the “<facility>_discharge_interpolation_method” column of the “NPP_14CO2_2016-01-01_2025-01-01.csv” time series file for each facility included in this report. The application of the different interpolation methods across all reactors and nuclear facilities is illustrated in Figures 6 to 9.

    Table 4.1: Applicable 14CO2 Interpolation Methods Depending on the Reactor type
    | Interpolation Method            | Applicable Types of Nuclear Facilities   | Dataset Identifiers                                                                                                                                                                      |
    |:--------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    | Constant Interpolation          | All                                      | constant; constant_sub_annual_discharge                                                                                                                                                  |
    | Energy Production Interpolation | Boiling Water Reactors (BWR)             | energy_redistribution; energy_redistribution_zero_production; zero_production_with_median_ef_redistribution                                                                              |
    | Reactor Outage Interpolation    | Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR)         | reactor_outage_data; constant_non_outage_discharge; non_outage_sub_annual; q25_based_estimate; outage_data_based; constant_sub_annual_discharge; high_sub_annual_release_annual_fallback |

4.1 Constant Interpolation

    Due to a lack of temporally high-resolved 14CO2 discharge data and corresponding high-resolution
    data, which might be correlated to the 14CO2 discharge, we assume for non-PWR and non-BWR
    (approximately 15% of the in 2023 active reactors located in or close to Europe) constant and
    continuous 14CO2 discharge. As this assumption is associated with high uncertainty, e.g. for
    nuclear fuel reprocessing sites, we know that 14CO2 discharge typically only occurs in the first
    processing steps, therefore leading to high temporal variability in the 14CO2 discharge
    (Fontugne et al., 2004; Hou, 2018), we thus assume 100% uncertainty on those discharge
    estimates. In cases where only 14C is measured and constant interpolation is used to estimate
    the 14CO2 discharge time profile this thus can lead to asymmetric uncertainties with the upper
    end being more than 100% higher as the best discharge estimate at a specific point in time due
    to the additional estimation of 14CO2 discharge, (see Chapter 3.3). Time series values derived
    using this interpolation approach are annotated in the “discharge_interpolation_method” column
    with the identifier “constant” or “constant_sub_annual_discharge”, depending on the temporal
    resolution of the measured discharge data.

4.2 Energy Production Interpolation for BWR

    About 5% of the active European NPPs are Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs), which, however, are
    responsible for 15% of the total NPP 14CO2 discharges (in Europe and western Russia in 2023).
    In Knaack (2025), it was shown that the 14CO2 discharge rate from BWR is linearly correlated
    with the produced energy, however, with a small but non-negligible 14CO2 discharge during outage
    periods (called zero-production discharge hereinafter).

    Thus, if hourly electricity from the Entso-E Transparency Platform was available we
    redistributed the BWR 14CO2 discharge of a measurement or estimate over time using the time
    profile of the electricity production while applying an uncertainty of 30% in the estimated
    discharge rates. For outage periods, a zero-production discharge rate of 283 Bq/s  with an upper
    and lower estimate of 635 Bq/s  and 144 Bq/s  based on Knaack, (2025) was applied. For reactors
    for which the available 14CO2 discharge measurement dataset contains sub-annual reporting
    periods during which the reactor was shut down, or where shutdown periods accounted for more
    than 50% of the measurement interval, these data were used to derive the zero-production
    discharge rate. In such cases, the non-zero-production discharge was estimated using the median
    emission factor, defined as the BWR 14CO2 discharge per unit of energy generated over the nine
    months preceding and following the measurement period. Time series values derived using this
    interpolation approach are annotated in the “discharge_interpolation_method” column with the
    identifier “energy_redistribution” or “energy_redistribution_zero_production”, depending on
    whether the zero-production discharge rate was applied or not.

    During 14CO2 discharge reporting periods where the zero-production discharge is expected to be
    greater than the non zero-production discharge, rather than using the emission factor derived
    from the discharge measurement, it was replaced by the median emission factor of the entire
    discharge dataset for this reactor. The undistributed 14CO2 discharge was then used to estimate
    the zero-production discharge rate during this reporting period. These situations are annotated
    as “zero_production_with_median_ef_redistribution”.

    In cases where hourly electricity generation data were not available, a constant interpolation
    method was used (see Chapter 4.1).
 

4.3 Reactor Outage Interpolation for PWR

    The 14CO2 discharge rate of Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR), which account for approximately
    80% of the operational reactors located in or close to Europe in 2023, is primarily dependent
    on the reactor’s operational state. The continuous 14CO2 discharge of PWR is at its maximum
    during reactor outages, i.e. when no energy is produced, and is relatively low during active,
    non-outage, periods (EPRI, 2010; Knaack, 2025).

    Following the strategy outlined in Knaack (2025), for each PWR and year with an available annual
    14CO2 discharge measurement or estimate, we derive two distinct 14CO2 discharge rate estimates,
    one for outage and one for non-outage periods. These are estimated using scaling factors of the
    annual average 14CO2 discharge rate. This yearly average discharge rate is defined as the total
    annual 14CO2 discharge divided by the duration of one year. Using monthly 14CO2 discharge
    measurements from four PWRs, we derived a fraction of 14% of the annual average discharge rate
    as the best estimate of the continuous 14CO2 discharge rate during non-outage situations. As
    this value is derived from a limited set of four PWRs, we use 5% and 100% of the annual average
    discharge rate as lower and upper estimates for the non-outage, continuous discharge rate,
    respectively. In the time series generated for this report, values using these estimates are
    marked by the “constant_non_outage_discharge” identifier in the “discharge_interpolation_method”
    column. It shall be noted that these factors are also applied to VVER Reactors, despite the set
    of four PWRs used for derivation not including any VVER Reactors. For outage periods, a value of
    200% was chosen, although this value is only poorly quantified (Knaack, 2025). We thus choose to
    use 400% as an upper estimate of the annual average discharge rate. The lower estimate of the
    non-outage period, is also used as the lower estimate of the outage period, as it could be that
    the reactor is still in operation while not generating electrical energy. Since Espic et al.
    (2025) observed a spike, which was 50 times higher than the annual average discharge rate in
    14CO2 at the start of a reactor shutdown, we increased the upper estimate of the outage
    discharge rate to 5000% of the annual averaged discharge rate in the first two weeks of any
    outage. In cases where the combination of the best estimates of outage and non-outage discharge
    is greater than the total annual discharge of a reactor, the outage discharge is reduced to fit
    the annual 14CO2 discharge of a reactor. Time series values using the outage discharge rate are
    marked by the identifier “reactor_outage_data” in the “discharge_interpolation_method” column in
    the corresponding files.

    Outage periods were detected based on hourly energy generation data, specifically, if the
    produced electricity per hour is less than 10 MWh for two consecutive days. If hourly energy
    generation data is not available, we used the non-outage 14CO2 discharge rate (14% of annual
    averaged discharge rate) as the default and used the outage discharge rate (200% of annual
    averaged discharge rate) as the upper estimate.

    We expect that the now undistributed 14CO2 discharge of the annual reactor discharge is either
    not correctly accounted for in the outage discharge or is additionally discharged in
    discontinuous release events throughout reactor operation. Since we did not find data to
    estimate the timing of such events, we cannot advise when those discharge events occur. However,
    analysis derived from nuclear power plant design and communication with power plant experts
    reveals that it is likely that discontinuous release events can occur between every other day to
    every other month and should last for a few hours or less (Bolz, 2024; IAEA, 1987; Knaack, 2025;
    Laemmel, 2024; Neeb, 1997). To still provide an estimate for this additional non-continuous
    14CO2 discharge we calculated the annual 14CO2 discharge based on our interpolation and
    calculated the missing fraction based on annual 14CO2 discharge measurements or estimates. Based
    on this result, we then estimated a continuous discharge rate that, when integrated, yields the
    missing fraction. In the timeseries, this additional discharge rate is given in the column
    “residual_release_rate_bq_s”. When the time series are used to estimate the nuclear contribution
    to sparsely sampled atmospheric Δ14CO₂ spot measurements, it may be preferable to exclude the
    residual release rate, as the probability that a short-term release event affects an individual
    spot sample is low. In contrast, for applications targeting integrated atmospheric Δ14CO₂
    signals over multi-year periods, inclusion of the residual release rate is necessary to avoid
    underestimation of the total nuclear Δ14CO₂ contribution. 

    As the dataset from Laemmel et al. (2025) includes measurements of 14C and 14CO2 with sub-annual
    time resolutions, we included them as far as possible in the PWR estimates. However, we limited
    the inclusion to only measurements that were not aggregated over multiple reactors and are only
    slightly influenced by discontinuous 14CO2 discharge events. To identify measurements that are
    likely influenced by discontinuous 14CO2 discharges we applied two different strategies
    depending on if information on the timing of outages was or was not available. 
    If outage data were available, we used the 25th percentile of the available discharge rates of a
    specific reactor, serving as an estimate of the continuous 14CO2 discharge rate. If a measured
    14CO2 discharge rate, which did not include a reactor outage, was higher than 150% of this 25th
    percentile discharge rate or the measurement did include an outage period, it was replaced with
    the 25th percentile discharge rate, as we assume that the measurement is significantly
    influenced by a discharge event. Discharge estimates using this technique are annotated by the
    identifier “q25_based_estimate” in the “discharge_interpolation_method” column if the value is
    replaced, otherwise “non_outage_sub_annual” is used. Further, if a sub-annual discharge rate
    measurement has taken place during a reactor outage, and the outage time fraction is 80% or
    higher, the outage discharge rate is then set to this measured discharge rate. These time series
    estimates have the identifier “outage_data_based“ in the “discharge_interpolation_method”
    column. In cases where outage data is not available, we only replace values that are higher than
    150% of the median 14CO2 discharge rate retrieved from the sub-annual measurements. In these
    cases, we replace the discharge rates with those derived from annual data for the time period in
    question. These values are annotated by “high_sub_annual_release_annual_fallback”. In cases
    where a measured discharge rate is used, it is annotated by “constant_sub_annual_discharge” in 
    the “discharge_interpolation_method” column.

4.4 Forward Extrapolation

    For Reactors where no annual energy production data was available in the PRIS database and no
    radiocarbon measurements were provided (e.g. Ukrainian Reactors since 2022) we extrapolate 14CO2
    discharge time series using the median 14CO2 discharge rate of the last year where data was
    available. This is annotated in the datafiles as "forward_fill_median”. After a permanent
    reactor shutdown, extrapolated values are set to 0 (annotated as “reactor_shutdown_assumed_zero”
    ).

5 Conclusions

    This deliverable documents the methodology and resulting time series used to estimate temporally
    resolved Δ14CO₂ discharge rates from major European nuclear facilities. By combining reported
    radiocarbon discharge data with reactor-specific information and auxiliary datasets, a
    consistent and transparent dataset has been produced.

    The resulting Δ14CO₂ discharge estimates provide a coherent basis for accounting for nuclear
    radiocarbon emissions in atmospheric analyses and inverse modelling applications. The dataset is
    publicly available via the ICOS Carbon Portal and can be readily used in the context of
    CAMS-related studies requiring temporally resolved nuclear 14CO₂ discharge information.
 

6 References

    Bolz, M. (2024). Personal Communication.
    EPRI. (2010). Estimation of Carbon-14 in Nuclear Power Plant Gaseous Effluents (Technical Report
        1021106). EPRI. https://www.epri.com/research/products/1021106
    Espic, C., Laemmel, T., Henne, S., Purtschert, R., & Szidat, S. (2025). Atmospheric 14CH4, 14CO2
        and 37Ar measurements around a Swiss pressurized water reactor during an annual revision
        period. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 281, 107576.
        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2024.107576
    Fontugne, M., Maro, D., Baron, Y., Hatté, C., Hebert, D., & Douville, E. (2004). 14C Sources and
        Distribution in the Vicinity of La Hague Nuclear Reprocessing Plant: Part I—Terrestrial
        Environment. Radiocarbon, 46(2), 827–830. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200035852
    Gaiko, V. B., Korablev, N. A., Solov’ev, E. N., Trosheva, T. I., Shamov, V. P., Umanets,
        M. P., & Shcherbina, V. G. (1985). Discharge of14C by nuclear power stations with RBMK-1000
        reactors. Soviet Atomic Energy, 59(2), 703–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01122497
    Hou, X. (2018). Tritium and 14C in the Environment and Nuclear Facilities: Sources and
        Analytical Methods. Journal of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology(JNFCWT),
        16(1), 11–39. https://doi.org/10.7733/jnfcwt.2018.16.1.11
    IAEA (Hrsg.). (1987). Design of off-gas and air cleaning systems at nuclear power plants: Report
        of an Advisory Group Meeting on the Design of Off-gas and Ventilation Air Cleaning Systems
        at Nuclear Facilities organized by the Internat. Atomic Energy Agency and held in Vienna,
        21 - 25 Nov. 1983. Meeting on the Design of Off Gas and Ventilation Air Cleaning Systems at
        Nuclear Facilities, Vienna. IAEA.
    Knaack, T. (2025). Improving Capabilities of 14CO2-Based Fossil Fuel CO2 Estimates in Europe
        [MA Thesis]. University of Heidelberg (can be requested from the author).
    Laemmel, T. (2024). Personal Communication.
    Laemmel, T., Knaack, T., Heckel, A., Wenger, A., & Szidat, S. (2025). Compilation of nuclear
        industry’s gaseous radiocarbon emissions from 1950 to 2023 [Dataset]. Zenodo.
        https://zenodo.org/records/15034663
    Maier, F., Levin, I., Gachkivskyi, M., Rödenbeck, C., & Hammer, S. (2023). Estimating regional
        fossil fuel CO2 concentrations from 14CO2 observations: Challenges and uncertainties.
        Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences,
        381(2261). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2022.0203
    Neeb, K.-H. (1997). The radiochemistry of nuclear power plants with light water reactors.
        Walter de Gruyter.
    Petit, L., Bachet, M., & Schneider, H. (2013). Study of the speciation of carbon-14 in the
        primary circuit of pressurized-water reactors. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear
        Chemistry, 295(1), 755–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-012-1835-6
    PRIS. (2025). Power Reactor Information System (PRIS). International Atomic Energy Agency.
        https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/home.aspx
    RADD. (2025). European Commission RAdioactive Discharges Database [Dataset].
        https://europa.eu/radd/
    SOHN, W., KANG, D.-W., & KIM, W.-S. (2003). An Estimate of Carbon-14 Inventory at Wolsong
        Nuclear Power Plant in the Republic of Korea. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology,
        40(8), 604–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.2003.9715397
    United Nations (Hrsg.). (2000). Sources and effects of ionizing radiation: United Nations
        Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation: UNSCEAR 2000 report to the General
        Assembly, with scientific annexes. United Nations.
    Zazzeri, G., Yeomans, E. A., & Graven, H. D. (2018). Global and Regional Emissions of
        Radiocarbon from Nuclear Power Plants from 1972 to 2016. Radiocarbon, 60(4), 1067–1081.
        https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.42

 

 

