These things work, which is not working. I think that we have to recouple or reboot because it doesn't work. I can also use my finger, right? Because my mother was so nice to give me the thing. Thank you. Okay. Well, in the meantime, I say some introductory remark. Well, okay. The title also included the word sustainable future. So, of course, after introducing the UN official definition of sustainability, I would try to say, okay, let's translate sustainability in the field of NUCA. Thank you very much. Okay. What does it mean? It means to have a more sustainable nuclear system in the nuclear field, because sustainability is a very, I mean, a broad concept. And then the other point is that, well, again, we have only one hour, more or less. And it will be mission impossible to present all the interpretation of this sustainability in terms of the different nuclear systems. So for this reason, I will concentrate actually my talk on the fast reactors because they are considered also the most sustainable case if associated with their advanced fuel cycle. But even to respect my colleagues, supporting other reactants, advanced reactor technology, in this slide, you can also find some information regarding these two additional concepts that for sure will not have time to present. Okay. So we are talking about, we are going to talk about these revolutionary designs that as I said many times, they are at the conceptual phase, different, of course, different stage of development depending on the, basically, the coolant technology. So this is the first point that we say, well, first of all, we have to understand what doesn't mean sustainability when we are in the nuclear area. This is the very famous UN official definition. When we talk about the sustainable nuclear definition, I fully agree with this interpretation which has been made by the US Department of Energy. It means that we have to improve significantly uranium resource utilization, maximize the energy generation, minimize the waste generation, improve the safety and limit proliferation risk. However, the system has also to be sustainable from the economic viewpoint. So we cannot just address these five things if the system is not economically affordable because it means that at the end, if it's not affordable, it's not sustainable. So don't minimize, this is also an important goal to be respected for all this system because it's very easy in this world if something is not economically affordable, it will never fly. In very general terms, how to address those six criteria, again, from a general viewpoint and before talk about the specific interpretation in terms of the nuclear power technology? If we wanted to, for instance, we have said that it should maximize energy generation. So the system should have a high efficiency. How to get high efficiency? We need a high operating temperature, higher than the existing reactor. And additionally, in this way, we can also open a big road for non-electrical application, much more than currently, that we have also already some deployment. But when we talk about very high temperature reactor, of course, there are many other non-electrical applications which can be really, I mean, non-electrical industrial applications which can be pursued. Then natural uranium, I mean, we have said that we wanted to have the best use of natural resources, which in nuclear means uranium, and have improved waste management. To do that, I mean, this system normally should be operated in a closing fuel cycle. They also should be related to the advanced closing fuel cycle. There is also the use of advanced fuel, again, also to improve the energy generation. And these advanced fuels are normally mixed uranium-plutonium fuel, also minor active and base the fuel in order to address the problem of the high-level waste, and also, I know, the use of volume for what we have said in the previous lecture. They have to remain, of course, economic compatible, not only with the current reactors, but also with the future energy sources, no nuclear energy sources. They have also to excel in proliferation resistance and physical protection. And while we have a little bit investigated this, I mean, basic safety principle even at the IEA, I would say that in light of what has been done even on the basis of the lesson learned from Fukushima, and what the evolutionary reactor can already offer from the safety viewpoint, I think that the best interpretation of one of the major goals of the Generation 4 International Forum, which was to excel in safety, in my view, the most realistic interpretation is this one. The performance should be at least equivalent to the ones of the most advanced evolutionary reactors. When we talk about the reactor, which is really approaching CDF of 10 to the minus 7, 10 to the minus 8, to say that we want it to be better than that is a little bit realistic. We are approaching the probability of a method hitting the earth, so I don't know if it's really realistic to talk about safety performance even higher than the current evolutionary, most advanced evolutionary reactors. As already said, of course, it's not trivial to address all of these basic requirements. We need in particular advanced materials and fuels whose qualification, I mean for development, test, and qualification can require even decades. As we say, there are uncertainties on the licensing. We have talked about the licensing of SMR and the issue related. You can imagine it for reactors. Even in some, let's say, fast traditional, fast reactor country, like you has, has operated a number of experimental and demo plant, SFR demo plant. The skill and the competence on fast reactors, the level of regulatory is almost zero in this moment. They have really to create a new generation of skilled people in order to license this kind of reactors. Of course, this is not true for other parts of the world, like, for instance, in Russia, India, in China, which, of course, there is, I mean, a consistent number of real experts in the field. And we have said that all of them, they are still at the level of the conceptual phase. And all of them, including the supercritical water cooled reactors, which is, let's say, the natural extension of the current technology, still require R&D, which associated, I mean, investment and, of course, also time before entering the industrial demonstration. And we have also stressed yesterday that depending on the operational experience of the different advanced reactor, at least the basic one, we may need any, even to start from the experimental plant, like in the case of the gas-fast reactor, which has never been operated so far. In other case, a demonstration plant, for instance, a lead-fast reactor, because at least there is a limited experience in Russia, because they operated some eight submarine powered by Lead-B-Smooth fast reactor. And finally, I mean, of course, the most mature fast reactor technology is, as far as said, we have already accumulated worldwide 400-year-old operation. And so at least in the fast reactor country is credible that they can develop immediately the prototype before the first of the kind, I mean, skipping the phase of the experimental demonstration plant. So this, again, to demonstrate that different advanced technology are at a different stage of development and also, of course, they require different R&D and different technology development. Last but not least, also to talk from time to time also of the associated fuel and fuel cycle, I wanted to stress again the fact that the industrial demonstration of the full-closed fuel cycle is still to be achieved. We don't have an industrial demonstration of the full-closed fuel cycle, even if, for instance, as for the recycling of partitioning and of minor activities, there are already industrial pilot facilities, for instance, in France. So we are in a good position, but we still miss a full industrial demonstration, which means that the phases of experimentation, demonstration, and prototype also concern not only the reactor, but also the associated fuel and fuel cycle. So the six, the most known, innovative or Gen 4 reactors out of this one, which I already showed you yesterday, Sodium cooled fast reactor with two different types. The most common type is the pool type, which the layout is very similar to an IPWR, let's say, in a simplified way. While there are other countries pursuing the loop type, which is, let's say, very similar to a PWR as a layout, there are pros and cons of each concept. So we cannot say that one concept is better than another, even from the city view point. Then remaining on the fast reactor, the lead cooled fast reactor, then gas cooled fast reactor, very high temperature reactor, which of course is, I mean, the next step of high temperature reactor for which we have already considerable database of operation, because there were a number of gas cooled reactors in operation worldwide, in particular in the UK. But of course here we are talking about the next generation, so not operated at 700 degrees C, but even 1,000 or more than 1,000 degrees C. This is the final goal of this reactor. Supercritical water cooled reactor, already mentioned, and molten salt reactor, both cases, the one in which molten salt is used just as a coolant, which allow in particular to operate the reactor at a high temperature and low pressure, but also the very case of the molten fuel salt reactor, which is a very innovative solution, even if it was already proved in upgrades in the 60 degrees and experimental reactor. The main parameter of all this concept in comparison, sodium cooled fast reactor, the spectrum is fast, the coolant is sodium, outlet temperature of 500, 550, operated in a closed fuel cycle. The power, well again, here we have to be careful when we talk about the power, because it can be a little bit misleading. We have said that for all of this system, depending on their state of development, we need experimental reactor demonstration plan prototype before the first of all the kind. Well, when we talk about the power in this sense, actually is the final goal of the industrial reactor. What does it mean? That for instance, there are cases in which, for obvious reasons, even to continue the associated cost, the needed demo or prototype reactor, I will have a limited power output of some 100 megawatt electrical, but they are the demo plan in the prototype of industrial sized reactor of higher power. Let's take the case of France, Astrid. Astrid is designed, which is the prototype of the French prototype of a sodium, of a Gen 4 sodium cooled fast reactor. They are designing a reactor of a 600 megawatt electrical, but the goal is not then to have an industrial sized reactor of a 600 megawatt electrical, not to have a medium sized reactor, but they want to operate a prototype in order then in the future to have a fleet of reactor, which most probably will have an electric power output of some 1000 megawatt electrical, a large reactor. So even this one, we have to be careful when we say the goal, if it's the goal of the industrial sized reactor of the prototype of the demo plan. Very high temperature reactor, thermal spectrum, the coolant normally is helium, as you can see, as we have said, the goal is to reach this very high temperature. It means a substantial to have a fuel and structural materials able to withstand this very high temperature up to 1000 degrees C. Novel is an open fuel cycle, even if in principle there are ongoing studies even recycling that fuel balls that were presented if I will remember by Alec this morning. And the power output intrinsically is low. Why? Because helium, I mean, the reactor, because the use of helium, okay? So the reactor is very big. And since the reactor is very big, you have a limit in the electrical power. Lead-fast reactors is a fast reactor. Coolant can be lead, but also lead-bees smooth. The reason for lead-bees smooth is that is a new tactic. So the melting point is lower and there are some advantage to use, of course, for many different reasons, a coolant with a melting point lower than lead, which is 300 and something. Operated at this temperature, close fuel cycle. Again, here there are designed, I mean with different power output. Here the limit is the fact that, of course, lead has a density, which is 10 times than water. And of course, if you wanted to, so it means that of course at a certain point, you can pose a problem for the seismic design of the reactor, the big component, I mean with the very heavy coolant under seismic motion, of course, you may have problem to design such a reactor. And as a consequence, this most problem will pose a limit in the maximum power of the reactor, just because of the dimension of the different components like steam generator, pumps, et cetera. Supercritical water-cooled reactor, well, the most said one are actually a thermal spectrum, even if there are some concepts proposing the supercritical water-cooled reactor at least in the epithermal regime due to the fact that the very low density of water used in this reactor. And as you can see, what we have said before, the output, the expected output temperature is much higher than the current light water reactor. If there are thermal reactor, of course, they are supposed to be operated in an open cycle. And even here, we have a very different design with different power-ups. Gas-fast reactor, well, this is really, I mean, the dream to have this kind of performance, but we are very far from that because they require a lot of R and D, and in particular, even an experimental plant, which for sure will have performance much lower than this one and this one because it will be an experimental plant. Please. What's the model? Well, normally it's graphite. So like, I mean, the design is the basic design of an HTGR, of a high temperature reactor. The point is that it should be operated at higher temperature regime, which means, of course, to, for instance, to have different structural materials, okay? Ceramics may be interested for this application. Just the more effective the pitch in the environment. Well, for sure, at least 10 points higher than the current rate. So the most advanced evolutionary design, they can achieve 34% of efficiency. Here, the goal is to go beyond the 4%, okay? And there are design of supercritical water-cute reactor that can achieve a 48%, I mean, theoretically, okay? But the reason is that the supercritical water-cute reactor is like a BWR, is a direct cycle reactor. So these are also the temperature of the steam to the turbine generator, okay? In the other case, the temperature of the primary system and normally associated with the secondary system, of course, the thermodynamic of the secondary system is much lower the entropy than the primary system. And so you can achieve only 42%, 43%. Okay, so now coming back to the question of sustainability. I've already played 15 minutes, my love, my God. So let's come back to the question of sustainability, okay? And let's see how to address, I mean, for more substantial viewpoint, this question of sustainability. Well, when we say sustainability, we have seen before that we talk about, for instance, the best use of the fuel results, which in order to simplify the picture, let's talk about only uranium, even if we know very well that there is some alternative like for example, thorium, okay? But just to limit the picture, let's confine our talk to the uranium resources. It's very well known that if you continue to burn uranium at a certain moment to operate light water reactor in an open fuel cycle, well, at a certain moment, we may have a potential stress on the use of these resources, at least in some part of the world. And here, let me introduce another important concept. When we say uranium resources, Alicja, I hope that you confirm that. I mean, we know that in this moment, we are plenty of uranium. We use the last red book, say, ah, we have our resources for at least 100 year if we consider the fleet overall in the world, okay? However, there are two elements to be considered here, but first of all, these resources are not, the availability of the resources is not homogeneous. It depends on the region of the world, first point. And then the potential stress, the potential stress may happen well before the problem, okay? Why? Because of the intrinsic technology, when we build a reactor, actually, we are committing the uranium fuel not only for today, okay? But the current, the evolution reactor are designed for 60 years of operation and also in perspective, why not 80, 80 years? Why not 100 years? So it means that you are committing uranium resources not only for today, but also for one century, okay? So if we start really to, in some part of the world, let's say China, to build a number of light-water reactor operated in a fuel cycle with a very low efficiency, I mean, one or 3% of the potential energy we are using with light-water reactor in a fuel cycle, you are committing a lot of resources not only for today, but for the next 60 years. So it means that from a market-view point, you may have in some part of the region, you may really have a potential stress, okay? A potential mechanism which gives stress on the uranium resources by ability, even for this mechanism of the committed uranium. The uranium that you committed today for the operation in six, eight years from now. Yeah, but what I mean is that it's like for any other good on the stock market, okay? What is worth in the price of the good is the expectation, it's like with gold, okay? If you think that for some mechanism, someone will be short of some good, the price increase. So my concept here is that what we apply to the normal goods in the stock market also applies to uranium. What we apply to oil or gas, et cetera, it applies also to uranium. With this mechanism, okay, that maybe, I mean, with gold, maybe it's just a question that you wanted to use gold even for a reason today. With the nuclear power plant, it's different because there is the long-term commitment. If I invest the 10 billion euro today, I want to be sure that I have uranium for the next six to eight years, otherwise I will never amortize that. This is the difference with another good, okay? I don't know if it was clear, but it is a unique feature of a good for nuclear power with respect to other goods which are in the stock market. And the mechanism is always the same. The price is not really related to the current situation, is the forecast, is the expectation. This makes the price, I mean, can give a booster to the price. Even if in this moment, well, why? Because the expectation has pretty low, unless we look some part of the world, for instance, China and India. In those regions, there could be this stress, okay? I mean, it's not realistic to think that we will have a stress in the uranium resources in Europe, okay, for the next 30, 40 years. But how about the China? If it's true that the China in a few decades will have a fleet that corresponds to the fleet of the rest of the world, well, let's see the price of the uranium, okay? So, the third bullet, right? So, the potential future scale can be a problem at least in some region of the world in which, for instance, there has been an impact from the Fukushima event, but despite of that, they have confirmed their strong commitment to go nuclear, and they are building 20, 30 nuclear power plant in a country, and they are very much committed on nuclear power even on the long term. The other point, which has always somehow hidden, is that even mining uranium, okay? I don't know what is this state of knowledge of that, but please read some papers. In India, there is a bigger, I've seen recently, something shocking regarding, maybe it's just a journalistic exaggeration, but there is a mine which is very much contested because of the environmental impact of the mine itself. It's nothing to see with the use of uranium, with the extraction of uranium, the mining of uranium. Anyway, it's true that it's not so easy to operate an uranium mine. There are environmental issues. So the less we, despite of the question of radioactivity, et cetera, the less we have to extract the battery, okay? Because it means that we need less mining of uranium. Okay, so this is also another factor to be considered when we use natural uranium, and we consider the life cycle analysis of the use of a particular resources or technology. So finally, last but not least, we know very well that operating a light-water reactor fleet in one through, well, generate a large amount of spent fuel in particular of transuranic plutonium, major and minor actinates, in particular, plutonium and minor actinates, which are the most hazardous nuclear waste and which are, let's say, on the critical path of the high-level waste to be managed even for the very long term. If we summarize, I mean, what is the issue posed by, I mean, which comes from the operation of a light-water reactor in one through fuel cycle is that the low efficiency in the fuel uses 1.3%. Low thermal efficiency, 30, 34% by using water as a coolant. And I want to remember that the gas plant, I mean, the efficiency is 65%. So we have to be competitive with the energy plant which have the efficiency of 60, 65%. Ah, the other point is that, of course, the fact that we have a moderator also, I mean, has as a consequence of the power density of the reactor is pretty low and so, of course, we have big reactors. So let's see how fast reactor can address this sustainability, please. It was not for sure my lecture because I don't have these expertise, but I think that to open a new mind is an issue. I'm not an expert in this sector. By the way, there will be lecture next, Amparo will be here, okay? And so people from the nuclear energy fuel cycle and waste that are in particular responsible for the red book which collected data on all the uranium availability. And I would, I mean, please address this issue. I mean, of course, I have a limited information on that related to the fast reactor technology. For sure it represents an issue, okay? And it's not an easy task to deal with even with the population. Independent, they don't care about the use of nuclear, not because they care about the nuclear power plant. They care because there is an environmental impact in opening an uranium mine and the environment is dirty, okay? I've seen, I mean, again, I'm not an expert. I've seen recently article in newspaper in particular in India, and I asked these people from the other division if it is a journalistic exaggeration or if it's something real. Well, the reality is usually is in between, is an issue, then, of course, the journalist has exaggerated in order to create the case. But is true that uranium mine pose environmental issue. And of course, if there is a way to limit the amount of uranium to be extracted of the mine is an advantage. Well, maybe they should use all the depleted uranium instead of with fast reactor, yes. Okay, so I really needed to, because I'm a fast reactor guy. So my attitude is that people are not, I mean, even above all, you are not supposed the most probably to be involved in a fast reactor program, okay? So to go into the details of the technology really doesn't make sense for that. But at least you should know what are the physical and technical reason why fast reactor can address the sustainability, the criteria of sustainability, okay? And I want to show you in numbers really with looking at the cross section and just explain why. Unless, of course, all of you already know that. Do you know why fast reactor can really be sustainable in term of uranium resurgitation, waste matter? Maybe some of you, but not all of you, okay? So in the following slide, I hope that, okay, some of you, of course, will love that, okay? But in my view, instead of talking about technology and you will never use this because you will never involve in a faster reactor projects or even from the location of you find that the added value is very low, is I think that is better as a future manager that if you are, for instance, even involved in interaction with the population with the other nuclear community, at least you know why a fast reactor can solve the problem of uranium reserve or can minimize the problem of uranium resources and waste management, okay? Because it should be part of your basis knowledge, okay? So let me allow you to go through some basic concept in order to explain why fast reactor are good for the purpose, okay? Do we agree on that? Just take out an hour to do that. So the first point that should be remembered is about the basic physics, okay? So the microscopic cross-section versus neutron energy. And one of the concepts that we should fix immediately in our mind are from this graph, are two, here we have the microscopic cross-section of the uranium-35, total fission. Uranium-38, there is the famous ratio, okay? There is no fission, uranium-38 is a fertile but can be fissioned if the neutron energy is beyond one MEV. And then we have the uranium-38 absorption and another point, part of the question of uranium-38 that we have to have a clearing in mind is that when we increase the energy, the cross-section normally reduces, okay? The probability is even obvious, okay? If the bullet increases this energy, the probability to hit the target is lower, okay? It's a very simple concept, which is respected even by nature, okay? Good. The other point that we need, the other concept that we need is the concept of conversion versus reading ratio that we have already presented yesterday. But let me remind in another way, which is functional to what I have to say in coming slide, okay? So let's consider the typical chain reaction, okay? In which we burn some fissile material, in this case, plutonium-39, and we generate the same kind of fissile material, again, plutonium-29. So we have a neutron, a neutron, which is known as fission, and then we have fission products, we have heat neutrons, which are the neutrons created per neutron absorber in the fission, okay? And what is the destiny of these eta neutrons? Well, first of all, one of them is used to maintain the chain reaction, okay? Then we have eta minus one and neutrons, of which P are lost, because they are absorbed and not used for other purposes. They are lost because, for instance, absorber in the structural materials or leaking from the system, and they are lost. And so we remain eta minus one pi neutrons, for which we can, for instance, fertilize uranium-38 and generate new plutonium-2339, okay? So eta is just a definition. Then we need also the concept of number of pistile nuclei produced per pistile nucleus destroyed, which is very trivial, is eta minus one, one, which is this one, minus P. These are the number of neutrons which are available to make this job, okay? If this is another definition. If B is less than one, we say that we just convert fertile material into fissile material. If B is greater than one, then the reactor breathes because it produces more fissile material than the one which is destroyed by the system itself. And B is called breathing ratio. Again, just a definition. Okay, now with this very simple definition, let's see things, what happens in a thermal reactor, is a fast reactor with respect of a thermal reactor. These are the spectrum, okay? The neutron, the normalized flux versus neutron energy. The red curve is a typical spectrum of a thermal reactor in which, like in a fast reactor, neutrons are generated around one to one MEV, but then, purposely, they are slowing down. And then, of course, we have this peak at the thermal energy. In the case of a fast reactor, we have the concentration of all the neutrons more or less at the fissile or around the fissile energy. Why? Because we don't have any moderator, okay? So this is very simple. Now, we couple this concept with the eta that we have defined previously, the number of neutrons which are produced per neutron absorption in fission with this spectrum. And we see that the curve of eta is this one versus the energy. The energy line is the same here and here. And we can clearly see here that whatever is the fissile-tortile material, the number of neutrons as the eta, the number of neutron production per neutron absorption in fissile materials is much higher at high energy with respect to low energy, okay? So this is a real typical case of a fast reactor in which what does it mean? That in a fast reactor, we have a larger number of neutrons available. There is an excess of neutrons, okay? And the reason is physical. It comes from here, okay? From the cross section. And here you can see in numbers. Look at for instance the case of plutonium-39. In a thermal reactor, this number is 2.06. In a fast reactor is 2.75. So if we consider that on average, we have one neutron out of that 2.06 or 2.75, one we need to maintain the chain reaction. One more or less one, depending on the system, is lost because of the leakage or because of the absorption. It means that in a fast reactor, more or less for each event, we have more or less one neutron available, extra neutrons, okay? We have an excess of neutrons. This is also confirmed by, if we consider this another very simple concept, which is the ratio of fission over absorption, okay? And here you have the case this perimeter, okay? This ratio, fission absorption. In the case, the blue column is for a PWR. The red column is for a typical sodium-cooled fast reactor. And again, you see that in a fast reactor, this ratio is much higher than a PWR. What does it mean? That in a nuclear, in a fast reactor spectrum, fission pre-vase all absorption, okay? And if fission prevail on absorption, again, is another reason why we have an excess of neutrons, okay? Because at each fission event, we generate new neutron. The other point is that if in a fissile material we absorb a neutron, the radioactive capture is such that we generate a higher mass radioisotope. So it means that we generate other minor actinides just for absorption. If we have a fission, we don't generate this higher actinide, but we generate the fission products. So the advantage of the fast reactor is that we have excess of neutrons and less higher actinide generated with respect to the thermal reactor. And this gives the possibility, in particular the excess of neutrons, allows to be very flexible in the design of a fast reactor. As already, I mean, observed by Rico Fermi in 1944, fast reactors allows to design a reactor depending on your needs. Even to address if you want different policy needs, okay? And then I will give you some example, even practical example worldwide. Because of this excess of neutrons, I can use this additional neutrons to breathe and to generate, to have a breathing gain, to have more fissile material with respect to the one which is burnt. But with, my goal is not to, I mean, to breathe the fissile material, to reduce, for instance, the nuclear waste. I can use that extra neutrons to burn through or minor actinides. And then I can also address both issue, of course, with a trade-off. I can design a reactor which is, for instance, in the driving part of the core is a breather and in the blanket is a burner. So I can also design, because of this particular feature, a breathing burn reactor. And finally, I can also design a so-called self-sustaining cyber or iso-generator system in which the commercial ratio is one. And it's a system very simple in which I fit the reactor with the fissile material. The reactor, since the CR is equal one, the reactor just generates the same amount of fissile material that it needs, okay? And the only output are fission products, okay? So, I mean, this is the big advantage to operate the nuclear power plant as in the past spectrum. Very much related to that is the doubling time, which is important for a particular, for some countries. And let me say very simple things which really demonstrate that this flexibility of a fast reactor can address different needs and even different energy policy. Let me get the case of Europe, okay? In Europe, we don't really forecast a big growth just to be optimistic. We don't, and this is a big growth of nuclear power plant in the coming decades. So, of course, uranium is, I mean, is available, okay? We are plenty of uranium, even at low price, okay? We have also a lot of plutonium as a con because we have operated the reactor for decades, okay? Look at the case of the UK. UK have 200 tons of plutonium, okay? So, well, to say, well, I would, I am going to propose a breather to UK you laugh at me, at least, in case you want one. I have a problem to get rid of 200 tons of plutonium you want to generate other plutonium, for what, okay? And on top of that, I don't have, okay, I have a new program that you will see in the future, but at the moment, I really don't need to generate other fissile material. The same also for the rest of Europe. France may have, maybe an exception because of their large fleet, okay? So in such a case, does it make sense to design a fast reactor with the breathing gain of 1.4, which means that it generates 40% more fissile material than the one, but I would say no, okay? But maybe I can design a fast reactor to burn both the plutonium and the mineral actinates, okay? So in this case, I mean, I have my energy policy and my nuclear policy and they can use a fast reactor in order to address my problem, which is to convince people to decrease the requirements of the geological repository. So I wanted to have a fast reactor, but most probably a burner or maximum iso-generator system, okay? Maybe iso-generator system is the best in perspective so that I don't need to mine any other uranium because it's self-sufficient in term of fissile and the only output is fissile products, 300 years, 300, 700 years, and I'm done with a high-level waste, okay? But if I am India, I'm completely in a different picture. First of all, because I have expectation of a nuclear power plant deployed much larger than any. I want to reach Europe, okay? Now I'm just a few nuclear power plants, but in the future, I wanted to have a very large fleet so the derivative is very big, okay? So I have big plans for nuclear power plant deployment and in the meantime, I'm short of uranium, okay? And I don't have to generate all that plutonium that other countries have generated, okay? So in such a case, I have completely different picture, different, even different needs and there's a constant with different policy. In such a case, I'm interested, first of all, in breeding, okay? Because I don't have the fissile material, so I need the breeding and if I want even to have, I mean, a quick deployment of these reactors, I also need short doubling time because what is the purpose? The purpose is that we want to generate extra fissile material with a breeder. You know why? I mean, I don't need an extra generation for that reactor. For that reactor, I need like an iso generator. I wanted to have an extra generation to feed another reactor, okay? So I not only have sufficient fissile material for that reactor, but even I generate the fissile material needed for a second reactor. In which time I want to do the job? If the physics allow me to do that only in one century, I'm not very interested. I'm not interested to feed a second reactor in one century. But if the physics allow me to go faster, okay? Well, there are systems studied in India with a doubling time of a few years, okay? So it means that in a few years, they may, thanks to the fast reactor technology, they can feed, they can have, without touching any mine, without touching any run, they can feed a second reactor, okay? And even this one is due to the property of the fast reactor. So if we, let's see, please, please, not necessarily because I mean, to have a, there are problem with the safety. So it's always better to put some uranium because otherwise, as the beta is too low and, you know, yeah. Yeah, that's true, but that they can use it, depleted uranium. It's not, they don't need, I mean, enriched uranium. And we are, you know, the stock pile that we have from the back stream of the enrichment. We have a lot of the material, which is even less sensible that enriched uranium or plutonium, okay? So I can do that, and actually, no one is proposing a pure plutonium, a few. Well, there are concepts which propose a fertile free reactor if you don't want to have debris or generation of other actinates. But in general, they propose uranium, plutonium. Both oxide and metal is also nitride because they have a different performance. But the point is to use, of course, because of, for safety reasons, okay? For the bit, it's not also the bit that are even other safety parameters which are affected, of course, by the fact that we use a higher actinates. Okay, so let's translate all this concept in some numbers. But this is really a fewer theoretical exercise because there is a big assumption in that. The assumption is that we consider that the word is completely homogeneous, okay? So it means that all the reactor fleet of the world would be composed by typical PWR, okay? With a certain burn up and power, et cetera. Of course, it's an assumption. It's an assumption to give some numbers which are not the numbers, but our figure of merit to understand the difference between operating a fleet as a light-water reactor in an open fuel cycle instead of a fast reactor in a closed fuel cycle, okay? So don't keep these numbers as a number from the Bibles. But keep this number in order to understand the concept, okay? Well, what is this graph? This graph showed, first of all, these two horizontal lines which represent the conventional resources in terms of uranium, the non-conventional resources and the sea water. You know that there is a lot of the, I mean, there is a uranium in the sea water, but the PPM are so small that at the moment it's not convenient to extract the uranium from sea water. But one day, maybe, and if it's possible, the problem of uranium availability is solved, okay? Because then we are really plenty of uranium if we can extract all the uranium in the sea. But this is not the case. What are the conventional resources? The conventional resources sum up all the uranium resources that we already know, right? So it means that, of course, with geological inspection, we know how much uranium we have. And also, the prognosticated, we don't know exactly where they are, but we know that there are these resources. The amount of that recently estimated is 1.5, 10 to the 7 tons, okay? It's a number. It doesn't matter what. These are the non-conventional resources. For instance, phosphate. Phosphates, they contain a lot of uranium, but again, it's not so simple to extract it for teaching this uranium. So at the moment, they're not used, okay? We prefer to use these conventional resources, okay? Which are available. But, of course, the resources that are possible is feasible. Well, now to extract the uranium from sea water is almost unfeasible. There are some innovative techniques but they are really a preliminary state. This we can do it. Of course, increasing, for instance, the price of uranium in the stock market, okay? So we can say that more or less are there, okay? The moment is not convenient, but maybe one day will be convenient also to extract these resources. And so that we jump from 1.5 to four, okay? Good. Then we compare these available resources with this theoretical Nuka power plant fleet, homogeneous Nuka power plant fleet in the world, which I repeat myself, it's not the case. It's not true, okay? But just to make an assumption, okay? If we consider such a kind of 499 reactor, all of them all equal, all PWR of a certain type, we see that over the time, the needed uranium is this one, okay? So with this assumption, we cross the conventional resources more or less at the end of this century, okay? Actually it's not, just to say that we are not, it's not an exact number because it has been estimated in a different way that the uranium resources are available in the red book is already more than one century, okay? So we immediately understand that this number is not completely true, but does it make a lot of difference to say end of the century or 21, 20, okay? It means that at the end of this century, we may have a stress in the uranium aviability, okay? Good occurs if we consider also the non-conventional resources, the situation is much better even with this hypothetical nuclear power plant fleet because we cross this red curve more or less at the mid of next century, okay? So, well, whatever is the situation is that at a certain point with, I mean, light water reactor operated in a fuel cycle, we may have a stress in the uranium resources. This is not at all the case if, for instance, if we have iso-generator, iso-generated means the CR equal one, okay? The, we destroy as much fissile material as we generate. The situation is much better, okay? We reach the non-conventional resources at the end of next century, but if we operate faster reactor with a high breathing gain and also with the very low, I mean, doubling time, then we have resources available. We even don't cross the conventional resources, okay? So this is a very practical way to demonstrate that fast reactor in a close fuel cycle address one of the criteria of sustainability of uranium, of best use of uranium resources. How about the waste management? We have just five minutes I think to talk about this waste management and we are done. Okay, so let's start from the very beginning. We know that when we have fission, we generate fission product and then we have this chain for the plutonium generation from uranium-38, but then we also produce a minor actinates in particular. These are three guys, plutonium, americium and curium and these minor actinates are actually the responsible for the management of the high level waste. In particular, the long-lived waste that they remain at the radioactivity higher than the natural background even for more than 1,000 years. So they are highly radioactivity and they also are, they are also be intermittent, okay? With consequences on the store, on their storage, in particular in the geological repository. Let me also, I mean, just to be honest, we have also to remember that in any case, these parts of the waste represent really a tiny fraction of the waste because we are talking about, in the case of minor actinates, 01%, okay? And in the case of plutonium, 0.9%, okay? So we have anyway to have in mind the numbers. They are the most hard of those, but anyway, they represent, in any case, a tiny fraction of the spent nuclear fuel. But when we operate a large fleet, this small fraction can become big numbers in terms of overall amount of material to be disposed of. So what we can do with, well, let's come back to the question of fast reactor and how to address the other point of the sustainability that is to facilitate the waste management. Well, the long-term radiative activities is driven, is dominated by these three isotopes. Plutonium, 2041, Amorition, 2041, and Newtonium, 237. So of course, what we have to, and of course there are chains, there are decay chains. So of course, if we wanted to facilitate the management of the high level waste, these are the guys to be targeted, to be destroyed, okay? But to be destroyed in which way, not without absorption and radioactive capture, because otherwise we generate other minor actinists which are also highly radioactive, okay? We have to destroy that. And to destroy them, they have to be fission, not absorption, okay? Because with fission, from that guy, we generate the fission product, okay? Which decay in between three and 700 years and not new minor actinists, okay? And then I can show that in numbers what is mean. Ah, sorry. And what is the system in which fission prevail on absorption, fast reactors for the cross-section, for the data that I've shown before, okay? The, you remember, the ratio between fission and absorption which is much higher in a fast reactor than in a thermal reactor. And these are the consequences. If you look at the guy, one of the most, because of the human, all the chain, we said is plutonium 241. Okay, this is, when we are at equilibrium, this is the normalized value of plutonium 241 in a fast spectrum. And this is in a thermal spectrum. It's five times more than here. And look at the coulomb, coulomb is almost zero and we have some coulomb in the thermal reactor. So, for this reason, just because we destroy with fission in a faster spectrum, the most harder was a radioisotope, which are responsible for the radio toxicity at long term, we can improve dramatically the waste management. And this curve translate this concept, I mean, this basic concept in, again, in numbers. Let me explain the relative radio toxicity. So, I mean, it doesn't matter, it's a normalized value of the natural uranium, okay? Let's say one, okay? These are the curve of the radioactivity, or better, the radio toxicity, okay? Indifferent fuel cycle scenario. What is the goal of sustainability? I think that even from a, let's say, philosophical view point, the best job that they can make is the following. Well, I have the nature in front of mind, okay? I extract from the earth some material, okay? Which has some radioactivity, radio toxicity, okay? I make whatever, I mean, I produce something good for the humanity, I produce electricity, or I can facilitate the production of some industrial product. And then I put again the same amount of radioactivity inside the earth. I think that from a sustainable view point, this is the best job that you can do, because it's like, at the end of the day, I untouched the nature because I extract some radioactivity, and then I put again the same radioactivity, the result is zero, in terms of environmental impact. But I did something for the humanity, I produce electricity, I've addressed the non-electrical application and so on and so forth. So our goal is this one, is to extract the natural uranium from the mine and then have at the end on the earth the same radioactivity that I have extracted from the earth, but having doing something, produce electricity. Is it possible, but in a very different way, is it possible with any kind of nuclear power plant? But in a different, in a very different way, if for instance, I use a light water reactor operated in an open fuel cycle in which so I've just used uranium, but I have to manage plutonium, mineractin and fissure products. I can't make the job in how much time? Well, in even a, I mean a one million years, okay? I can do that, but in a very long time. If we burn not only uranium, but also plutonium, which is responsible for the long turbidity of the fuel, then the situation is better and they need just 10,000 years to make the job done. So if I recycle plutonium, like for instance, I do with some of the light water reactor operated in France, the situation is much better and they can do the job in some 10,000 years. But if I use a fast reactor in a closed fuel cycle in which I recycle not only plutonium, but also the miner actinates, then I can do the job in some 100 years. And on top of that, there is a dramatic volume reduction of the waste, okay? So using fast reactor, we can do that. We can manage the high level waste in this time frame 100 of years instead of even millions of years and with a much lower volume to be managed. There is also another effect, which is very important, that has very well no, the decay means also it's emitter, okay? And if we reduce the radioisotope, which are responsible for the emission at long term, of the radioactivity at long term, we also dramatically reduce the heat generated by this waste, which means that not only I reduce the volume of the waste, but I reduce dramatically also their heat generated and which means that I can compact the nuclear waste in the geological repository much more than using a light water reactor in an open fuel cycle. And this is the numbers associated with that, there is a study which was conducted in the US, but similar study was also conducted in Europe, in Japan, which shows that the factors of reduction of volume in the geological repository adopting advanced the fuel cycle like the one of fast reactor in a closed fuel cycle, okay? I think that we can stop here. However, in my presentation, you can find many other information, not only on the other advanced reactors, but also on fast reactors, okay? For instance, there is a long list of all the fast reactors which have been operated over the years even from the beginning of the nuclear era. There are all the fast reactor that are in operation today, as well as the ones that are considered in the frame of the generation four international law. That's it. I'll thank you for your attention. Thank you very much.


So I'm going to just jump in and ask the first question to the representatives on the panel. So Kami Griffiths, who's the founder and director of the Community Technology Network, often says that many companies are working to spread the internet connectivity to the underserved and thanks to Kami Blackstone for being here with us too. So they're doing work to spread this connectivity but access to technology is only a partial solution. Because it's like merely, what do you say Kami? It's like giving a car to someone who doesn't know how to drive. What are your companies doing to address this question and to meaningfully close the digital divide, especially among isolated seniors and disabled people and low-income families? And we could just start with, actually maybe Scott. Okay, great. Well, just thank you Supervives and Mar for all of the work you've done to champion, you know, the work around the digital divide and digital inclusion. Thanks to all of you all here and to the folks who work to put this together. We're really, Comcast is really proud to participate. So to answer your question, you know, our digital divide program Internet Essentials was created about six years ago. And at the time it focused on families with students eligible for free and reduced launch. And it was a comprehensive program to provide low-cost Internet, Internet-ready computer at affordable cost and then training. And so, you know, that's been our marquee effort around digital inclusion nationwide. And we've seen great success with that. But what we've done here in San Francisco because there's such a unique ecosystem and social infrastructure around advocacy for seniors and disabled folks is that in concert with Mayor Lee's administration and the Department of Aging and Adult Services, SF Connected, and some of the non-profits you mentioned, CLC, CTN and self-help, we expanded our program to low-income seniors 62 and over and also provided significant funding about $150,000 and funding to go towards really ramping up and doing more training throughout the SF Connected computer training labs throughout the city. Part of that was an idea that we borrowed from your report in 2015. The way we worked, it was just, it's been just a transformational experience for us to partner with, you know, the government agencies with the CBOs and the private partners including our employees who volunteer their time to really go out, talk about the importance of being connected, overcoming those obstacles of, you know, barriers and costs to service, barriers and costs associated with devices, but really tackling that third piece which is, you know, this whole bucket of training, of fear, of lack of perceived need. And we've been able to, in chorus with a lot of people in this room, work together to have a significant impact with seniors in San Francisco. I should have said it would be good if each of these panelists could talk a little bit about themselves briefly and your company as well. Scott, do you want to just... All right, well, so I'm Scott Adams, Director of Government and External Affairs for Comcast in San Francisco and the West Bay. I handled the implementation of our broadband adoption program here in San Francisco but also have been the lead implementer in California and now for the West Division. So a lot of my work has been to work with my company and members of the community in the state at a broad level to deploy our program to get people connected. Thank you. And thanks for your support of the Richmond District Organizations and, Rudy, kind of a new addition to the Richmond District as well from Monkey Brains. Yes, thank you, Eric, for organizing this panel and recognizing that access is an important part of the digital inclusion and for Comcast, AT&T, Webpass and Monkey Brains, we're all happy to be here representing our companies and discussing how we can make internet more inclusive in the city of San Francisco for small businesses and residents. And to address your question about how are we doing... Your question was how are we helping adoption of the internet we provide? We're doing two things basically. We're working on a project in Hunter's Point right now. We're wiring up about 200 units to Hunter's Point East-West departments. And what we're doing is we're installing a hard line internet connection so people will have a gigabit ethernet jack in their units or some units will only have 100 megs based on the wiring but our goal is to get rid of the divide of some people only getting a Wi-Fi handoff. Sometimes that's proposed as a solution. We've done a bunch of projects in the Tenderloin with ECS and the Episcopal Community Services and getting other low-income housing wired up and we do wireless handoffs and there's still a barrier there. So what we're doing is we're with this apartment complex we're going to give people an ethernet handoff so they'll have more autonomy to configure the internet how they want to and access it in the way that everyone else does and also to have faster speeds. We're also working with CTN. One of the Monkey Brains employees Preston who's here is on the CTN board and we're going to work with them on getting education to the people in the Hunter's Point East West housing projects so they can use the internet connection. So we're figuring out how to partner with other organizations basically. Great. And now more about WebPass. So my name is Charles Barr. I'm the founder of WebPass and we provide internet service in seven cities. We're founded here in San Francisco and we reach about 10% of the San Francisco households. So if you look around in San Francisco roughly one out of ten people can sign up for WebPass tomorrow. We were recently acquired by Alphabet. You probably know them as Google. So we kind of split the responsibilities between those two organizations. WebPass as an organization our goal and our charter is to go out and to make sure that the internet is available for everyone. So we are a building organization basically the construction arm to go out and make sure that everyone has access to that. Our parent does a ton of digital inclusion work for us. Part of the transaction for WebPass being acquired by Alphabet we volunteer to do a thousand training sessions with nonprofits low income individuals all across California so in San Francisco and the entire state. There is a division of folks at Alphabet. Their whole job is to make sure that we respond to organizations like this that we provide the tools and resources available to bridge this digital gap and it works really well. So it's been a good partnership today. Thanks Charles. And Kami Blackstone. Hi I'm Kami Blackstone Director of External Affairs for San Francisco for AT&T. And AT&T like all of these companies feels a certain responsibility to make sure that we include everyone in this digital revolution. Some of the things that we've been doing as we have like Comcast has their internet essentials AT&T has access which provides free equipment free installation of the equipment for internet service to people who qualify. And then that service is ten dollars a month. We've also introduced our Trek program which provides a tablet that once you sign up for it it's about a dollar a day for them to have a tablet. And then we also do our Digital U program which is we partner with different nonprofits. It's particularly we do it mostly with seniors but we can do it with just about any nonprofit. We've worked closely with Self Help for the Elderly with 30th Street Senior Center and other senior focused organizations on doing tablet training, internet safety, social responsibility on the internet and that kind of thing. So those are kind of some of our programs that we have and we also do a lot of contributions that fund larger outreach programs. We just gave a fifty thousand dollar investment grant to hack the hood that helps kids develop different, give them some sort of internet training but also teaches them different ways that they can participate. Thank you. The next question is I think over the past maybe ten years in San Francisco we've had a lot of dialogue about the city government and municipalities really playing more of a role in coordinating and working with the private sector to have different types of municipal networks whether it's a hybrid one public private or municipal networks like Chattanooga Tennessee or hybrid ones like in Austin. We've had studies from the Tom Almiano era to now looking at the challenges of this and I think only now with the San Franciscans for municipal fiber coalition are we kind of raising these issues but I think we need input from the private sector big and small. What do you see as challenges for accomplishing a municipal network in San Francisco and what can your companies do to build that kind of partnership with our coalition and others so that we might be able to achieve this in the future and anyone can start it doesn't have to be Scott. I forgot to introduce myself my name is Rudy Rucker I'm the founder of Monkey Brains and we're a local ISV in San Francisco but I'd love to jump in on this one. As a small business we are very flexible and we'd love to work with the city on any municipal project. It might be a little bit harder for Comcast and AT&T because it could be a direct competition but we see it as an opportunity to bridge the digital divide. There are some neighborhoods where the internet connections are very slow and there are only the options of Comcast and AT&T and they have older infrastructure there. Your companies are constantly upgrading but there are still areas where the infrastructure is much older and we're able to shoot a wireless signal in there and do high bandwidth solutions for people but if the city provided a ring of fiber around through core neighborhoods and allowed access to various companies Monkey Brains and others to access that and partner with the city we'd be able to increase our throughput and connectivity to various neighborhoods especially other areas with older infrastructure. The digital divide in our minds isn't only the, there's a cost issue for paying for the service and then there's also the divide of can you even get the internet a fast connection in your house maybe you can only get one or two megabits per second and that's regardless of income level there's a divide there and people are excluded and we're always looking for ways to solve that problem. I could talk about this one all day. This is my bread and butter and I very much appreciate the opportunity to talk about it. So municipal networks are great and there has to be a way for us to find a partnership that works together there but one of the things I always find interesting about municipal networks is the challenges that web pass faces building a network are the same challenges that a city is going to face building a network or it's going to be the same challenges that AT&T faces building a network. It's the actual building that takes time. It's the permits. It's the structure sharing. It's the pole access. It's all those things that people assume that the city will have no trouble with but it will have all the same barriers that we have. So you have to address that environment first before you can execute upon a municipal network. And my apologies for calling AT&T and Comcast elephants along with Google. We never forget. To reiterate what Charles is saying, if there were legislation passed to allow micro trenching or other newer ways of deploying fiber in the city, it could be easier for web pass, monkey brains, Comcast AT&T for all of us to deploy fiber. Yeah. Kim, you're Scott. I'll say, yeah, the city does set up a lot of barriers to entry for fiber deployment. I know that AT&T is facing that big time and we're trying to work through that as well. The public private partnership or a municipal rub in is sounds awesome. And maybe it has been awesome in a couple of places, but I think some of the pitfalls that are out there are real. And I think that I know that AT&T and I'm sure with everyone else we're looking forward to having a conversation with the city about a possible public private partnership where we can use, you know, everyone up here were the experts on how this is done. And so I think being able to utilize some of our expertise and our infrastructure would be probably the best move. Scott? Yeah. Well, so I think I'll answer your question. I guess first it's about the partnership piece but break it down in terms of deployment of infrastructure and then adoption to the maximum benefit for the community. And I would say, you know, you folks touched on it pretty well. All of you that the challenges with our business is just physics and finances and that it's costly to build a network. It's costly to maintain and upkeep it. You know, we're absolutely committed to providing the best possible service to our customers across the nation. And particularly, you know, in the communities we serve and we just know it's costly. There's the regulatory regime. I think it's the same hurdles that we face the city would face. And, you know, so I would, you know, say that point, but we're always willing to partner with the city. And I think we've shown that in any way that we possibly can to bring more people into the digital world that I would cite, you know, again, our partnership with the city with the senior pilot. I think that there's a tremendous amount of opportunity. Now we've expanded our Internet Essentials program to HUD and Section 8 housing. So working with the RAD partners, working with the Housing Authority to get, you know, Internet service out to folks. And it's not just Internet service. It's the, you know, low-cost Internet service, the free Wi-Fi, the affordable equipment, the access to training and, you know, in language and really going to them and utilizing some of the techniques that we've developed in partnership with the community like on-site registration events and facilitated adoption processes and things like that. So, you know, two challenges, both are equally important. And, you know, it's why we're all here. Yeah, and there's an urge amongst all four of the panelists to build networks in San Francisco. Yes. It's not like we don't want to do it. We want to do it. And that's our business and we strive to do it every day. But the challenges are real. So the first question really hit on the point. You can give somebody a car, but if they don't want to drive, we build the car. But there's still what's missing is the, how do you drive? And the city will face those same challenges. I mean, if you asked every panelist, they would have an issue, they would have an example of an obstacle like AT&T as an example, brought U-verse to San Francisco last in the whole city, not because they didn't want to, because they couldn't get street furniture in, because there was problems with that, because all these regulatory issues slowed them down. Well, if the city goes and builds a municipal fiber network, they're going to need the same things that AT&T is going to need to build that fiber network. I mean, the technology is the same. So there has to be an understanding that we want to build, and we will build, and we are building. And I would add to that that other cities right here in the Bay Area make it possible. It's just San Francisco.  I just wanted to add, that's a key point that we are building, and that we have been building, and that we are here. And I think our company has a tremendous amount of pride for the amount of, you know, funds in physical infrastructure. We've been invested here, and, you know, we're committed to this community, and we'll continue to, you know, improve our network, expand that increased speeds as we've done almost, you know, 17 times over the last, you know, X amount of years to make sure that we address the needs of our customers here.  Okay, so in terms of building the infrastructure, we've recently secured about half a million dollars in funding through several grants through the CAF, and we're going to be able to provide high-speed internet to 1% of the 150,000 people that were mentioned that were under-served in the city. So we'll be able to turn up roughly 1,500 units. And we're hoping... That's in Bayview? That's all over. It's actually 13 different, or 13 or 14 different buildings, 15 different buildings. And it's not just the Hunters Point Projects, but other ones as well. Senior housing, low income. And during the course of getting this funding, we've had some meetings with the San Francisco Department of Housing Corporation, SFDHC, and we're hoping to figure out how to get a fiber connection from the city through Brian Roberts at DT, or someone else at DT will be able to partner with us so that we'll be able to use existing city infrastructure for this project. There is unlit fiber in the streets that the city has that we would love to use for digital inclusion. And then there's... Right now, we can't... There's no policy in place where we can purchase fiber or lease fiber from the city. And we also can't purchase fiber from Comcast or AT&T really, or Webpass as far as I know, anywhere in the city. So we're building all of our infrastructure through wireless links. There's a wireless radius now that will do 5 gigabits per second over the air. So that's one thing that's making the fiber less necessary in our minds. We're figuring out how to get around that through wireless links. And we're still hoping to build fiber. But right now, we just do a high-end fiber link to a campus and then do... We do a wireless link to a campus and then do fiber within that campus. So we don't have to be on city properly again because of the regulations. Thank you. I should say that I know I've worked closely with Scott and Comcast and Cammie and AT&T. And your direct involvement in communities is something that's extremely well acknowledged by many of the community-based groups. And I've seen it kind of in my neighborhood, but also throughout the city. The last question before we go to questions and answers from the public. I know from the Community Living Campaign to the Community Technology Network that we've been having lots of dialogues about small nonprofits from self-help for the elderly and immigrant and low-income community organizations. The so-called public housing or housing projects, residents and others. And there are tremendous challenges of connectedness, but also building capacity and educating people about the use of technology. And within our San Franciscans for Municipal Fiber Coalition, a lot of these issues are bubbling up and very common among many organizations that assist low-income residents and communities. And culturally sensitive trainings and support systems that have been needed from the days of CompuMentor to TechSoup to new entities. I think it's always been there. What are your companies doing to help build up that capacity, especially in low-income neighborhoods, whether it's faith-based groups, community organizations and residents of public housing, for example? Well, so I'll answer that question. Our national blueprint for Internet Essentials began as you create a partnership with the main governmental agency that is the best advocate for the population that you're working with. So school districts, then you partner with the CBOs that are providing services with the constituents that you intend to impact. And then you create an echo chamber. So you provide funding for training. You provide materials and language. We provide our Internet Essentials materials in 14 different languages. And so that was our model. And as we saw with the senior pilot, partnering with DOS made great sense, partnering with SF Connected, because that created the city-wide infrastructure to give a network that people, that low-income seniors in some cases in their dwellings, could go down and receive training where it's close to them in many cases from a volunteer that speaks their primary language. And so that's how we go about approaching these new demographics. And so the way we help build capacity is first you identify the right partners, and then you seed them with a fair amount of funding to support their efforts to educate folks about the importance of being connected to help facilitate adoption, but really connect them to training. And so I think some of the really interesting and unique things we did were around going to the on-site registration events and going to places like Eastern Park Apartments or Rosa Parks or Valencia Gardens and the Mission, and bringing this group of Comcast employee ambassadors and community-based organization volunteers and SF Connected staff. And we would have folks in four different languages, so English, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, and to really communicate to people the value proposition of being connected, utilizing a program like Internet Essentials, but doing it in a way that's sensitive to their needs. And as we transition not away from the senior pilot, but more towards the HUD and Section 8 space, we've pulled in new partners this year, so Chinatown Community Development Center, Mission Housing Development Corporation, Felton Family Institute, and Bayview Senior Services. And that's going to continue to be the approach that we take to get people connected to address capacity, to address specific needs that are sensitive to certain demographics, be it their language or their technological needs and move forward that way. And I know it's much harder, thank you, it's much harder for smaller ISPs to have multilingual reach lots of staff and others, but I'm wondering if Charles or Rudy have any remarks about what you do to help build up that capacity in low-income communities. Well, historically, WebPass did very little. I mean, historically, our job was to just go and get as many customers as we could, but post-acquisition, we're focused very intently on it. So we have a whole group that goes out, makes offers to community, reaches out to the city to make sure that we can participate in these matters. So it's really been a change for us in the past nine, ten months to try and reach out and serve those communities worse before we did. We have several staff members that are fluent in Spanish. And we just recently hired two new employees from META, the Mission Economic Development Agency, and they both speak Spanish very well. And our base is more in the mission area, so we recognize that we need to have Spanish-speaking on our support staff and new service team. And one of our staff members is translating our documents into Mandarin at home, or Cantonese, I'm not sure which one he's doing. But we're aware of the language barrier issues, and we're primarily a word-of-mouth company, so we don't do a lot of advertising. Once people find out about us in a community, it spreads, and we'll get more people in an area interested in our service, and we're hoping to break in more into Chinatown and get more customers than people served over there. Thank you. And Cami? Well, like I said, we focus a lot on our digital U where we work with, partner with different organizations trying to get people to understand how to use technology. We also partner with Community Technology Network on funding some of their efforts. We've worked with, well, I mentioned self-help for the elderly, but a number of different nonprofits throughout the city and the greater Bay Area. We did work with Mission Economic Development Center as well, or agency as well, letting them know about the access program, trying to get as many students who qualify access to the Internet as possible. And continuing that, we also offer in language, we have our materials. I think it's about 12. Language is not 14. But we do try and be as culturally competent as possible to let everyone know about what we offer and what they can take advantage of. Thank you. And now let's open this up for questions or comments from the public. And I think we're a small enough group that we don't need microphones, so if you could just speak loudly and hopefully the panelists can hear you. Questions or comments? They tried to spoon some kind of similar project about Internet Broadband Municipal Project where partnering with Google and Earthlink, but it did go nowhere. So private public industry could be sometimes, it's not an easy straightforward path and I wish we could learn from that lesson and put the lesson in the context of our San Francisco Municipal Broadband Project. The second point, so it's maybe for the city, the second point for this project is we all know if we think about Google, that's a pretty innovative company and I don't need to comment on that. With the Google Fiber was a very interesting project that started two or three years ago that we're trying to bring one gigabit fiber-based Internet access. It is installed, it's going nowhere for many legitimate reasons to just confirm how hard it is from a regulatory standpoint, from an architectural standpoint, from an infrastructure standpoint. So one thing that I wanted to invite the bypass and the other gentlemen is that maybe we should also look at innovation in the Wi-Fi and in the first mile Wi-Fi mesh, Wi-Fi gig, improve the quality of service protocol that is not anymore that bad like used to be, instead of looking stubbornly how to bring a fiber to the home. So let's focus, let's use all the fiber on the metro there in the underground, the metropolitan stuff, in the munitation, munitray, and so we have a lot of fibers. Let's focus on Wi-Fi innovation and that probably could solve it. Third point, we should launch a software-based community engineer in San Francisco using technology like software-defined network, using software tools giving to the community of San Francisco the ability to create firewall policy to establish which one has to go first, the underground community, migration, the immigrant community. We could build a community network using a software-based approach going to the community college and hire very using open source technology our smart kids and try to build a network on from the layer three and the layer two and the layer one. Could you state your name, sir? My name is Sergio. Okay, let me just step back and say thank you for the great question. There is a community panel of experts from Susan Crawford, from Harvard to others that are looking at the experience from ten years ago to other cities as well and different models and we're hoping that community panel of experts with people from Stanford and SF State and many of the institutions in the Bay Area as well to come up with different recommendations and options but let me just ask if anyone from the panel wants to address that great question. Well, WebPass was purchased by Google as you all know and it completely validated all the work Charles and I have been doing for the past decade and so I'll let Charles take this one. Okay, first I'm Sergio, that's a great question and the way you broke it down was 100% correct, right? So there were a lot of lessons learned from that experiment ten years ago and they've basically been forgotten because we have a new generation of people trying to do the same thing. We can't let that happen and that's a whole other topic. The second point is spot on, right? Wi-Fi improvement is how you refer to it as, I would refer to it as point to multi-point non-line of site technology. You need to have point to multi-point non-line of site technology to really blanket a city but when you get that you're going to run smack into regulatory issues because point to multi-point non-line of site technology you would refer to as cellular. So that changes the whole game about how you deploy a network but you have to have that and my new parent is fantastic with technology and we are very focused on finding that technology and refining it. We have lots of irons in the fire all over the place trying to make that work and when it does work it'll come a lot faster. And then the third point is about software defined networking or using community assets to bring a fiber network out. 100% correct but we'll take a lot of coordination. I mean then you're talking about how structure works inside the city, who owns what, what you can get into, what you can't, who owns this and what would be great is if they would simplify that whole process. Of the four panelists on the stage, only one AT&T has structure that we can share. Comcast has structure that we can't share, the city has structure that we can't share and getting into those agreements takes two and a half, three years. It takes a long, long time. So that is the path that WebPass is going. We are going straight down that path, point to multi-point non-line site technology to bring service to single-family homes, expansion of the fiber footprint as quick as we can. Others? I mean I would say that AT&T, like he was saying, we work to try and make things, we work for everyone, we're trying to partner with the city, we are open to conversations to see how we can be a part of this municipal broadband effort. I think it's going to require a lot of different things to make all of this happen between, I don't know, they need to make some policy changes, probably at the city level, incentivize some of the, you know, private investment and that sort of thing. But we are totally open to working with the city and anyone else to try and create a network that's available to everyone. Rudy Scotton? Well, I would say just in general in terms of the industry, you know, the technology changes so rapidly. I mean I've been with Comcast for a relatively short time, but I always hear the story of, you know, how Comcast started as a cable, you know, company that had a one-way 11-channel system and that was, you know, very limited and through a lot of that, you know, some of that basic infrastructure with a whole lot of investment and technological changes on the hardware and on the software, we've been able to provide the kind of services that we do. And we're going to continue to innovate and try to, you know, address the needs of the population. So that's our commitment. Right now, there's, you know, a wireline connection to the home provides, you know, a pretty solid and consistent service level. And, you know, we've invested not only here in the city, but across our footprint a great deal of, you know, time, money, effort to make sure that happens. So we're looking and in the near future we're really excited about some of the developments that are coming with speed increases and, you know, what that's going to mean not only for folks here in San Francisco, but across our national footprint. Rudy? I agree that the wireless for the last mile is a quick and fast way to deploy it. But as the city continues to rip up the streets to redo the sewage and water throughout the city or to redo PG&E gas lines, that's an opportunity where the city should be putting conduit in place for installing their own fiber so that they can eventually lease it to other companies or build that municipal network. So once the streets open, the piece of plastic tube is pretty cheap. I think one thing that I missed that I would address in your point was really valid is that whatever all of us do, it should be done in a very democratic way in a way that treats all constituencies the same. So it makes a great deal of sense to place as much priority in those low-income areas that are going to benefit from this technology as some of the other more affluent neighborhoods. I think we might have time, Mariko, for about maybe two questions if we kind of keep it moving. Other questions? Actually, is there... Okay, go ahead, sir. Okay, you talk about adding the fiber and everything to the network. I live in Hayes Valley. I'm on the board of directors for the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association. We battle AT&T all the time. Now, it's not me, because I live in an apartment, but there's a lot of people in the neighborhood who want the AT&T boxes there, the cellular boxes. And right now, for the next year, the entire length of Hayes Street is going to be dug up and new pipes are being put in right there. Hopefully, maybe they thought ahead and added that fiber around that. But there's a real problem. We're not someplace. We're not a low-income neighborhood at all, even though we do have some housing developments in the neighborhood. But the thing is, there are people who don't want AT&T boxes and other boxes in there in front of their homes. And so they've been battling it all the time. As I said, it's not necessarily something that I'm opposed to at all. I live in an apartment building and so forth, but there's an awful lot of battle right there. And if you talk about the regulations and so forth, you also got to talk about the community that might be battling it at the same time. So we got to figure out a way to do this and not tear up trees and put in AT&T boxes or whatever boxes are in there and for the neighborhood so they can survive. So let me just ask if Cami or anyone wants to respond. Thank you, sir. Thank you for the question and it's timely. So we talked about the U-verse boxes, which is what you were talking about, that were big. And there was legislation passed in 2014 that had some regulations around what AT&T would need to do to deploy any more boxes. Technically, legally, we're allowed to do that because it is in the public right of way. We want to work with San Francisco and with the community groups and we have the newer technology with the one gig service and the fiber is a much smaller box. And so we are hopeful that through some pending legislation at the board right now that we'll be able to work with communities, work with the supervisors to find locations that are appropriate, replace the bigger boxes with the smaller, much smaller boxes and reskin some of the other ones so that we're able to deploy the one gig service and the fiber that everyone's been waiting for but not create a larger footprint of those boxes that nobody likes. Everybody got on that? First up, I love Hays Valley, it's great neighborhood. Secondly, the network is a physical thing, right? It is a physical thing. You're going to see it in some way, shape, form or fashion. It is our responsibility as your service providers to make sure that that is as minimal as it can be and that we're not tearing up streets and that we're doing this in as least invasive a way as possible at times of the day that don't bother you. And that is a very strong mandate from San Francisco and that comes through loud and clear in all the regulation. And we acknowledge that and want to behave that way. But at the same time, we as a community have to recognize that if one person wants to stand up and scream and say, this is terrible, we have to put that in the context of serving the greater community. And what happens when you're building your network is you just go away from those areas. So if I'm trying to go into Hayes Valley and I'm running up against a community organization or somebody who is disgruntled with it, I go to another neighborhood. I still try and do it, but it's delayed. And the majority of people want network connectivity. The majority of people want their phones to work, they want their computers to work, they want this stuff. So I think we just have to look at it through the proper lens and we can get through that. Other comments? It's like a bus stop. You're going to have to have a bus stop in every neighborhood that takes up the right of way. And you're going to have to have some equipment. Some of it can be, the city could pass some legislation to require new development, new buildings to include a small easement in the corner of a, if there's a big blocky building, there could be a panel accessible from the street where you just open the door and there's Comcast and AT&T web pass and monkey brains equipment off the street. That's something the city would have to do. Talk to your supervisor. Thank you. So besides city bureaucracy, dealing with neighborhood concerns, I think this shows the complexity of a lot of what we're trying to do. Last question, anyone? Yeah. Thank you. I was asking if you have somebody here enrolling for low-cost internet essentials or access? So we will have someone here at the expo, but if you would like information about that and some assistance, I'd be glad to work with you on that afterward. Thank you. Any other? Actually, let me just ask, wrap up comments really quickly for any of you. And thank you so much for being here, you guys. Go ahead, Scott. We'll start with that. Kami? Okay, thanks. Well, first of all, sorry I was late. But second of all, and I'm really excited to participate in this, I think that Kami has done a great job with this whole digital inclusion week, and it's very exciting. AT&T is really proud to be involved, and I can leave some information here if you had more questions on following up about the access program or any other program that AT&T offers. From my side, just thank you for coming. Thank you for being a webcast customers. I mean, a lot of you are, and I appreciate that very much. That's what makes everything go. And we are very focused on digital inclusion. We'd love to assist any way we can. We're excited to be bringing more and more units online, working with various programs at the PUC. And all of us here are providing the infrastructure and the educational part is, you know, CTN and others will hopefully work on that. Yeah, just on behalf of Comcast, thank you to all of you, to the organizers. I'm not sure I heard Win-Win's name mentioned much, but I know she's done a tremendous amount of work to help put this together. I think the parting words from Comcast would just be that we're honored to be a part of this collective effort that we've been here in the community for a long time and will continue to be, will continue to invest and improve our network. But on issues of digital inclusion and digital divide, we want to work with you, we want to hear from you. And we're proud to have worked with so many of you in this room and look forward to getting those of you we haven't worked with together with you and seeing how we can partner. And as we wait for the community organization's panel to come up, I'll just say that thanks to Mariko for convening kind of as MC and as Luis Herrera, our librarian, said it's going to be a fun, full week with all kinds of interactive stuff, films, learning, empowering work. But I just wanted to thank Scott, Rudy, Charles, and Kami for joining us this week. Thank you.


Hello and welcome to another edition of Frightfully Forgotten Horror Movies and today we're going to be talking about a very forgotten horror movie that goes by two names. This movie came out in 1990 and it's known as either Baby Blood or The Evil Within. But before we get started, what are we drinking today? We're drinking Mr. Grimsdyke's Revenge, an English IPA. This movie was written and directed by Elaine Roback, Emanuel Escuro, isn't it? So this movie kind of starts off in Africa where all these people are trapping these animals and putting them in this cage and you don't really see what the animal is, you kind of see it from the animal's POV. The animal gets transported to the circus where it's being sold to be a circus animal. We get introduced to our main character here, Yonka, and she's a circus performer and you can tell right away she's on the scale because she's got to stay thin and healthy and taking these pills.   Yeah, he's all beating a lot and pushing them against the trailer. You see all this blood dripping out of the animal cage and we see the animal and it's almost like exploded from the inside. You see this kind of weird snake thing get into Yonka's trailer through like the window and the vents and everything. She's sleeping and it goes into her bed and goes up in between her legs and Yonka flees the circus. She takes off and we find her a month later living in this weird abandoned building, this weird apartment. It's all running down and these weird people are living there. That woman with teeth are all rotten. Yeah, and she's all laughing.  She lets him in, pulls out this knife and stabs him in the gut and then you can hear this entity start talking to her. I need the blood, I know you don't want to do it, but I need it to be born.  Yeah, she just goes wild, packs up and flees again, flees the scene and she comes across this bum sleeping and the entity is I need the blood, you need to kill him for me. I need the blood to be born.  The entity won't let her. Yeah. What are you doing Yonka? I need you. Sometime later we see that Yonka's become a waitress now. There's this guy that's, he's all eating there.  He's dating the cash here. When he's kind of gets the hots for Yonka and starts kind of pursuing her, Yonka's on the street and she starts talking to the entity that's inside her and they're kind of starting to bond a little bit at this point. If I move around like this, is that pleasurable for you? But the entity still needs her to kill for him. Find somebody in the subway, trying to kiss him a little bit and when he gets closer she takes a knife and stabs him right in the neck from like above and those people walk in and she starts kissing him while all the blood's coming out. Yonka starts going out with that loser guy, not looking at her eyes, he's looking somewhere else.  Yonka's in the kitchen. The boyfriend guy comes in and wants to like marry her, he's like, I think we have something good here. He's all in his gitch and everything, he's handling his underwear, he's tidy white, he's... This is only like the first date, y'all want to marry her?   Yonka has become a cab driver now and she picks somebody up on the street and then she sees somebody jogging and she just runs right into him like against a brick wall. The guy in the cab takes off, he ends up getting hit by a truck. Later it cuts to Yonka sitting on a bench and she's having like a heart to heart talk with the entity and the entity is starting to say well it's getting close now Yonka, I'm gonna be born soon but I need to get to the sea but I need blood too to stay strong and healthy, you still need to get me blood and she notices a blood bank bus and she steals this gun from this little bastard, this fake gun, gets onto the bus and hijacks the whole bus while this guy is still all attached to all the blood equipment and she takes all these like bags full of blood and starts drinking them and then she gets an idea to drive the entity to the sea in the bus and that's where we're gonna end the plot because it gets crazier yet. Yeah I guess pretty wild, the final act in this movie is, you found this movie actually just by chance on VHS at the flea market and picked it up on a complete whim. Yeah it was a lucky find, I wasn't gonna do it either because the back kind of looks a little cheesy. It's kind of hard to find. Yeah, yeah. It's not in any streaming service that we can find, I think it might be on Amazon Prime and Shutter but we don't have those. So I borrowed the VHS to you to do the review. You refused to give it back. I was gonna give it back. Didn't mean yet to hijack all my beer and hold it hostage. Yes it did. There's my man! Where is the tape? What? Where is the tape? I said only you inside Adam!   I said only you inside!  What's going on? Only you inside! You're gonna make the rules here today baby. You're blowing it Adam. You're gonna blow the deal man. Come on baby, mind your daddy. I just want to show you who's gonna watch this VHS here today. The rules?  Those are the rules Adam. What am I supposed to swallow that bullshit?  What? Well we're killing each other.   Come on passion fruit. And I got these babies down here. Martinis. Mixed with your gin and your vermouth.  It's like napalm. I'll get Mundo here to sneeze baby. Who loves your baby?   You don't have it in you baby.     Kiss the first beer goodbye Daddy-o.    Put down the beer.  I'll cut it loose. I ain't got a sober day to lose.  This is what happens when you put a sober man in a position he's not gonna win anyway man. Hold on a second. I'm gonna cut it loose.  This one's done man.   So why should you check out baby blood aka the evil within? Well one of the best things about this movie is that it actually has a extremely simple plot. The plot just revolves around Yonka getting victims to feed the entity inside her. How the movie revolves around her. It's visually a very interesting movie makes this very simple plot very interesting.  And all those side characters are great. Yeah.  The other boyfriend guy the mustache guy. He's a funny character like all the characters are quirky and funny. Things evolve too in the movie where at first she doesn't want to kill but then later as she starts to get the symbiotic relationship with the entity and then she ends up almost liking killing. Wants to kill herself over it all but then later on she's kind of fine with it. She's at peace with giving birth to this whatever it is. You don't know what it is until the end. Another neat thing about this movie too is like how Justin said it's yeah it's a one-woman show but she doesn't do much talking which is interesting. Mostly silent. Yeah. And reacting to the entity who you don't see but you always hear. So you always hear the entity and always see Yonka. The visuals for this movie are really good. Very interesting. It's dark and gritty. It's a really gritty movie but then when there's a kill and it's this magnificent colorful bloodbath it kind of like makes it a really bright colorful movie at times so it's really neat how it does that. The grittiness it all makes sense too because it's not like Yonka's rich here.  Yes. It all ties in. All the settings are really gritty and disgusting and like poor type settings gives the movie that gritty feel to it. The kills for this movie are awesome. They're all awesome and they're all different and inventive too. Every kill is shot completely different.  And the cool thing about that kill it's not like it's a big gore fest. Well it's gory but you don't see much effects. It's all in her performance of how she's going crazy while stabbing this guy losing her mind. As she starts to warm up to killing it sort of flips right where she's almost calm about it. There's a great kill where she strangles this old lady with a phone cord. It doesn't sound all that elaborate or cool but it's just the way it's shot which is neat because it comes out of nowhere.  And just out of nowhere as soon as she picks up the phone the cord's around her neck and she's strangling her. It's all in the way it's shot and delivered. Yeah.  There's another great killer. She's in the back of this ambulance and she takes like the oxygen mask and puts it over this guy's face and holds it there.  It's awesome that entire paramedic ambulance scene is great. The final act of this movie is great that takes place on this bus with all these football players and it's basically just a massacre and it gets way out of hand. That final scene is a magnificent blood bath. Perfect send-off for this whole movie really. How well it's paced. It starts off kind of small and simple and it the pacing just keeps getting better and better and it ramps up and it never lets go either. The way it starts off is nowhere close to the way it ends in any shape or form. No the characters are different by this point everything.  Like there's a dream sequence where Yonka is dreaming of giving birth to this entity and these hands come out of her sides and they're all reaching for the sky.  After the baby gets born it kind of sheds its skin or something and then she looks in the car and sees this weird baby skin all bubbling and like it looks really cool. Yeah yeah I love that too because it's like okay so now if it shed that baby skin what does it look like now? Yeah yeah what is it now?  Yeah it's a great practical puppet style effect. The humor in this movie is actually really good too and it's subtle.  And that's another thing about this movie is it really seems to be commentary on men.  Wants to take advantage of her. Wants her just for her body. There's not one redeeming male in this movie. That's right yeah and you don't actually feel bad for any of the victims to be honest. That's why right? They're supposed to be idiots, losers. They have what's coming to them. So if you're in the mood for like a really gritty but exciting bloodbath of a movie definitely check out The Evil Within aka Baby Blood. It's a great French movie. Not one of those movies where it's like oh this awful dubbing. I'm completely fine with the way this movie's dubbed. Yeah it doesn't sound foreign really or anything. It sounds great. Super complex for the type of movie that it is right? And it'll keep you on the edge of your seat. It did have a sequel called Lady Blood which we haven't seen but we've heard is horrible. This is a really hard movie to find and if you do find the VHS and borrow it out please give it back and until next time keep drinking.


Whenever any work needs to be completed on a machine, the equipment must be de-energized prior to performing any maintenance on the equipment. A safety procedure known as Lockout Tagout is performed to ensure that hazardous machines can in no way be turned on prior to maintenance, preventing any unintended movement during such service. An employee will place a lock and tag on the equipment's energy source so the equipment can't be energized while the work is being performed on the machine. Failure to follow these procedures could result in injury to you or a fellow employee.