Hi, my name is Jeff Sykes. I'm the director of WebOps at VML. And today my talk is entitled, Escaping the Black Hole of Release Management. So I wanted to pick a subject of serious gravity to talk to you guys. Sorry, I was...  So a few qualifications. First, I'm not an astrophysicist. Second, I'm trying to distill what's been a four-year journey into 20 slides. And then third, your mileage may vary as you go through some of the things that I'm talking about here. None of these experiences end up being exactly the same because we're all in different places. So the problem that we faced was that my team spent about 65% of our time doing release management. That was across five different languages, across 10 enterprise web content management systems and at least five database technologies and probably across 40 to 50 projects running concurrently. If you don't think that release management can be like a black hole, then you likely haven't been responsible for it.  It can, sorry, if there's another joke. It can collapse your team. It can do all kinds of terrible things to you. I found this great, I made up this great quote, manual release management is super fun. I love it and it gives you great joy and a real sense of fulfillment. I love scouring configuration files to make sure I update them correctly. I especially enjoy having my weekends and evenings destroyed, rolling code over and over again. No one ever, right? So the first step is to admit that you have a problem, right? Like if you don't admit that you have a problem, then you're never gonna make any progress, right? Hopefully I'm not insulting anyone here with a slide today. So once you admit that you have a problem, the thing that we have to do is realize that unless you're delivering a CI tool, your release process doesn't have any inherent value working software does, right? So the focus needs to move from how we're delivering to what we're delivering. And the way that you can do that is to begin to standardize how we deliver what we're delivering, not what we're delivering. Because at least in my case, I can't change what languages are in use. I can't change the underlying technologies, but I can begin to standardize how we deliver on those things. So once you start doing that, then you begin to realize really quickly that release management, automating release management is a team sport, especially because there may be times where your administrators, your ops teams don't understand the build tools and then devs and ops end up working together and then QA as well. So a couple common pitfalls that I think you can really fall into. The first one is control, making sure that you have controls around when releases go. The second is around configuration, that will really trip you up. And then the final one that can be really toxic is culture. So when you're keeping it under control, that means that you gotta be careful who gets to push the buttons, right? At the very least, you need to know who's doing that.  Don't forget about configuration. Configuration should be treated like code. Configuration is code and it really does need to be maintained by a wider team. If you aren't accounting for configuration, you'll never be able to get very far in automating releases.  These are the biggest problems to usually work with. Some of those are like, this isn't my job. I don't have time for automation or even factors beyond those like, forgot what that one was. So the automation snowball, oh, I didn't have time for automation is that take one task that you have to do every week and find that task and automate that. Then the next week you begin to use that time that you would have spent using that manual task to automate the next task. And then in suing so you begin to build momentum. One of the things that you'll learn as you go along here is that you will, as you automate things, you'll find new discoveries that you didn't know you had. Your swordsman looks really good until you run up against somebody that has tanks, right? And so you begin to discover things like static code analysis and automate QA. And so we will switch and talk about a couple of lessons we've learned. The first is always attack the bottleneck. Whatever the bottleneck is, is what's gonna prevent you from getting more throughput. And so you always end up attacking that. So the first bottleneck was our team. But then as we automated things, we began to discover other bottlenecks like how we hurt QA. So another thing is that culture is much more important than tools. The tools can be switched in and out. The relationships it takes to build the software, the relationships between developers and operations teams or developers and QA and operations, everyone else are more important. Another one is to keep an eye on the big picture. It's really easy to step in and look really close to that one blue dot that you're seeing. And then never be able to step back and see the whole big picture of what's going on.  Like manual release management is like a six finger man that killed your father and then you're not gonna ever give up on that. You can't ever let that, the setbacks that you will invariably face ever prevent you from continuing to go forward. And finally, to say thank you to you guys and thank you to all the folks at VML that have helped us make this journey of success for us. So thanks.


We are going to listen to our colleague from the IEA, Mr. Stefano Monti, who is the section head of NPTDS. NPTDS is Nuclear Power Technology Development Section about nuclear power technology evolution. So we will have the excellent opportunity to get into this current state of nuclear power on its technological side. I tried a little bit to tell you something about the political side, but very carefully, because one has to be careful with politics, because politics are interpreted differently in different parts of the world. But let's listen to Mr. Monti on the technology part. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Stefano. So good afternoon, everyone. I'm really pleased to be here with you and presenting, well, I have three lectures actually during the week. One is a general one on nuclear power technology evolution. And let me start immediately with a disclaimer. Actually, in the evolution there should be also included the fuel, the fuel cycle, the technology, etc. But you know, I'm a nuclear engineer and all the nuclear engineers are basically burrowing to nuclear power plant. So we'll see the evolution of nuclear power technology actually through the evolution of the nuclear power plant, which actually is only a piece of the whole cake, because we should also talk about the evolution of the fuel, the evolution of the fuel cycle, and the materials, etc. But for that, for that next time, you should also involve materialist or chemical people. And people are actually skilled in chemistry and materials and so on and so forth. So when possible, I will also touch the associated fuel and fuel cycle, but very, very likely. The second disclaimer that I was here during the previous lecture. Well, some overlap are really unavoidable. And I hope that you don't mind. The other side, this is the first day. And if we repeat some basic concept, which should, I mean, be fixed in your mind is not is not bad. Okay. Oh, I hope that the police will not be in contradiction. So the concept are more or less the same and even with the different approach. So say that I prepared for today presentation based on these four or five lines. Well, first of all, basic nuclear concept here, of course, we have something overlapping with the previous one. And that, I mean, specifically, we will see the evolution of the reactor even through their classification. I will explain you shortly why the classification actually of the reactor is somehow related also to their evolution. Then some status and prospect of nuclear power in the world. If we have to put things in perspective in the timeline, well, we should see what is the status today and then what is the forecast for the nuclear power deployment in the world. And then the evolution through the different type of reactor. So what are called the reactor, both the current nuclear power plant and the so-called evolutionary reactors. The let's say the transition system between the current technology and the future technology, which is nowadays is represented by the so-called small, medium-sized or modular reactor that you have heard about this particular reactor technology. And then we jump very quickly to the innovative nuclear energy system that someone who was saying that we should talk about the revolution in Ukraine. Well, these innovative reactors are also called, I mean, just in contraposition of the evolution, they're called the revolutionary reactor because they are really very different. I mean, at least in some part of the technology with respect to the current reactor. Part of evolution is also the fact that the nuclear power is not only used for electricity production, but also for, for instance, cogeneration and other industrial application. So I will also touch briefly on just a few slides, at least to introduce the topic which is not specific of this nuclear energy management. So I took the occasion to also introduce some slides regarding this different use of nuclear power with respect to what is commonly used for electricity production. Good. So first of all, let's talk a little bit about the main drivers. I mean, the previous lecture really talked about that. The drivers, I talk about the drivers because the drivers are the same since ever. The main motivation to adopt nuclear power for a country are always the same security of energy supply. The fact is that since ever, I mean, the fuel price are volatile. In this moment, are very low. That's true. Which makes, of course, some difficulties for nuclear power to be competitive. But it's a matter of fact that if we look back, there are very volatile fuel, fossil fuel prices. And of course, this has immediate, I mean, impact on the economy of the countries which are heavily based on this fossil fuel. Well, demand for clean energy, even that is there since ever. I mean, since the beginning of the nuclear power era. Maybe what is new is the fact that with the nuclear power, we can address the very problem. In this moment, it's a more sensitive problem for the population, the question, to mitigate climate change. Well, I didn't put there in the slide because, as I said before, we should avoid political issues in this context. But consider that all these points, at least the first of two points, have also a number of political implications. And this is true since ever. I remember there was a famous entrepreneur in our country, Matti. I come from Italy, which is a disaster from the deployment of Luca Pasci, not to be considered as an example. But at the beginning, it was a very good example. There was a guy who was the CEO of ENI. ENI is our major gas supply enterprise, actually the biggest enterprise in Italy. That in the 50s, even if he was the guy, buying the gas and the oil for the country, and then distributed it in the country. We are too much heavily relied on a very unstable part of the world. We should introduce a new energy sources, which somehow allow us to get rid of these volatile prices, of these political crises, even a world which sometimes exploded in some part of the world. Let me also stress that Nuka Power, since ever, has also addressed this political issue. And it's not a minor one, above all, if you consider in this moment how, let's say, the instability, at least, we can say that we are living in this moment, in some part of the world, and which have also an impact from the energy production viewpoint, the energy security viewpoint. But there is, of course, something to pay for that. Very good, Nuka Power, but Nuka Power is a unique, already concept which has been already stressed. It requires all of that. At least, all of these are requirements for a country to go Nuka. First of all, there should be a long-term commitment by the government, even in a state in which, I mean, the energy sector and the electricity sector is based on a liberalized energy market, even in this case. So it means that, in principle, Nuka should not be subsidized or should not be helped by the state. Despite of that, there must be anyway a big commitment from the government, because, for instance, there are a number of associated issues going nuclear, that even if you are not the owner of the plant, but you are the state, you have to support, first of all, of course, education and training of people. People have to be educated. They should acquire a safety culture without touching the question, of course, of the Nuka waste management, which means commitment to 400 of the year. And actually, it's the second long-term Nuka waste management. The third point is a capital-intensive investment. We know that in this moment also is a weaker point of Nuka power. We have to admit that Nuka power, at least nowadays, is characterized by the fact that, I mean, the cost of a kilowatt hour is heavily depending on the cost of the reactor, of the technology itself. The fuel represents only 10, 15 percent. So it means that we have to invest a lot of money in the moment in which we start the Nuka program. It will take a while even to build the reactor, minimum five, six, and we have seen, unfortunately, that for some first-of-a-kind reactor, even 10 years to be built, which means that there should be a context, an environment in which there should be an investor able to provide a lot of money, a Nuka power program, because in the order of 10 billion euros, just to give a figure of merit. It gives you 10 billion euros and it will start getting back of this money only in 10 years from now. This means capital-intensive investment and it is an issue. Above all, in the current liberalized energy market, to find a private investor, what is the position to put at risk such a lot of money? With a return from an investment, so long-term investment is a problem, is a clear problem, and maybe one of the triggering factors that have promoted the technology of SMR that we will explain later on. Well-trained human resources. Well, you are an example. There is a Nuka without a big investment on very well-trained human resources. Please consider that the IA has more or less evaluated how many years we need to have a real expert in nuclear safety, both at the level of the operator or at the level of the regulatory body or the technical support organization. After education, after university, after being graduated, it takes at least 15 years to get really a real expert in nuclear safety. So, just this only element clearly demonstrates the, I mean, really the big commitment of the country. What does it mean in terms of education and training of human resources? It is a commitment and of course, also somehow, I mean, something to be paid by the country. But please consider that there are also a number of, let's say, connected to the good things because if you, I mean, nuclear really requires to increase the level of education of the country, okay? And we're not talking about only nuclear engineers. As I said before, actually nuclear engineers represent only 10, 20 percent of the of the workers that you need for a nuclear power program. Then you need mechanical engineer, you need electrical engineer, you need very specialized technical personnel. This means creating, this requires a lot of effort from the education and training viewpoint. It creates education in the whole country. It really raises the level of education in the country. This is one of the benefits that normally is not really stressed, but it's really important because it's not only the factors that you generate base load, energy, affordable price. It's also the fact that you have somehow spread out the need of education in many other sectors. And there are other economical sectors which benefit of what the state have done to support the nuclear power programs. The other very, of course, particular things is the high level of safety and security. Also the aspect of security has been touched by the previous lecture. There is a problem of control of nuclear materials. It's a matter of fact that you don't have this issue with another energy. So it's really unique of the technology. And we know, we have a problem with public perception. I think that here the nuclear sector should really put a lot of emphasis and effort. It's not only the question to educate grown-up people that are already part of the society. I think that there should be really a basic education, not only on nuclear, on energy and environment at large. Even again, I can put forward an example of my country, which is considered without country. We have the third economy in Europe. Well, I'm a biker. So since I am a mountain biker, every Sunday and Saturday I go out with a group of biker. And it's a group of biker. There is any kind of person. There are doctors, but there are also workers, there are engineers, there are everyone. It's a group of biker. I mean, we enjoy the fact that we share this passion for the biker. So I mean, sometimes I want to test their level of education in general on technical matter. And I ask a doctor, a medical doctor. Maybe it was not the best of the words. In your view, what is the primary energy sources still used at large nowadays? What is the main energy sources, electricity fuel for your car and so on and so forth? What is still, nowadays, the most used primary energy source? The reply was electricity. Electricity. And this is a doctor. So I think that we have a problem here. The problem is that it's not the nuclear. It's the basis, the fundamental basis of energy and technology. If I ask someone in my country to say something about our father Dante, they know. They can even say something about the Divina Committee. But if I ask, what is the most important primary energy source? Are people still thinking that electricity is a primary energy source? So a clear public perception comes also by this situation, which is, of course, has a number of consequences in nuclear, but is really pervasive in many countries, even in developed countries. Say that. Let's come to the main topic of this lecture, starting with some basic nuclear concept, which are functional then to introduce the question of reactor classification and the evolution. So first of all, I don't know exactly what is at the level of the knowledge of these people, because you are considered to be in the future manager of nuclear energy. So not necessarily, I mean, subject matter experts. But I suppose that you know more or less what is this guy. So that any type of nuclear power plant is basically composed of two main pieces. One is the nuclear steam supply system, which is also called the nuclear island, which is there to produce any as any other energy plant for increased production, is there to produce a main steam. This main steam goes to this part of the plant, which is called the balance of plant. The steam drives a turbine generated and produce electricity to the scheme is like any other, I mean, typical energy plant. And then also, I mean, produce heat that in this case is dumped into the heat sink. But as we will see, we can also use it. Then, of course, this steam, when it is at low enthalpy, has to be condensated in a condenser and then comes back to the nuclear island as liquid water, part of the feed water, which feed the sea. So all the systems that we will discuss in this day, more or less respect this layout with many, many different options, of course. And as the characterization is for neutron, nuclear fission, well, I give for granted that you know what is nuclear fission. Okay, so we have a big, I mean, a large characterization between a thermal reactor and faster reactors. Thermal reactors, of course, you have to slow down the neutrons in order to be good to heat the fissile material and have fission. The good news is that there are two positive aspects in a thermal reactor. The first of all, that there is a large fraction of delayed neutrons, you know, without the delayed neutrons. If someone doesn't have this basic principle, please raise your hand. So they have a large fraction of delayed neutrons, which is very useful for the reactor period. So it really helps in control the reactivity of the system. And the other good point is that, as you can see from this graph, which is nothing, then the cross section, fission cross section versus the energy, the cross section of fission in a thermal in a thermal spectrum are very high, much higher than in a fast reactor. And so the flux is in the order of 10 to the 13th and to the 14 newton per square centimeter per second. Fast reactor, of course, there is no moderator because we use a high energy neutron underneath fission. The point is that they have a small fraction of delayed neutron fraction. So of course, even the system is more sensitive to the change of power. So they are more rapid rate of power change in a fast reactor with respect to the thermal reactor. And as we can see here, for instance, the urine to 35 fission cross section is much lower than in a thermal spectrum, which is here. And of course, as a consequence, what we need, well, what is the power? The power of the reactor is very simple. The product of the microscopic section times the number of, I mean, the per cubic centimeter of the piecyl isotopes times the flux. So we have three parameters to play to have a certain level of power. In principle, if, for instance, the sigma, the microscopic cross section is 10 times less in a fast reactor than in a thermal reactor, it means that more or less in a fast reactor will have a neutral flux, which is 10 times than in a thermal reactor. There is also another parameter, the third one, which is the density of the nuclides. And so we can, of course, also play with the enrichment. In fact, normally a fast reactor has an enrichment, which is higher than in a thermal reactor. Okay, now the categorization is also based, let's say, on the neutron, the physics of the system. The fact that unless you have a fertile free system, every system has some fertile, for instance, urine 38, typically. So, of course, since there are neutrons, and there is the usual decay reaction, we can generate other piecyl material from the fertile material. And so we have defined the conversion ratio, which is the rate at which new piecyl material is being created with the respect to the one which has been loaded and burned. Okay, it's a very simple definition with a number of consequences. Normally, in a so-called light-water reactor, heavy-water food and moderated reactor, in gas reactor, this ratio is less than one. So it means that we destroy more piecyl material than the one that we generate for conversion. And so this ratio is called, the system is called converter. In some reactors, and tomorrow we'll see why, the ratio may be even greater than one, even much greater than one. It's possible even to design, for instance, a fast reactor, even with conversion ratio 1.5, 1.6. And in such a case, the system is called the breeder, because it breads piecyl material, and it produces more piecyl material than the one part of the system. Another categorization which is very useful is by coolant. Actually, this is considered the most, I mean, common categorization of looker reactor. And I like this graph because it gives not only the possible option of the coolant, but also the consequences in terms of operation. So we have four main coolants, which are water cooled, okay? So the water, the coolant is water, water cooled reactors, then we have gas cooled reactors, then metal cooled reactors, and molten salt cooled reactors. And because of the thermodynamic property of this coolant, in the case of water cooled reactor, we have temperature, the operating temperature of the reactor around 250-300 degrees C, the output temperature, but in order to withstand with this temperature we need very high pressure. In the case of gas cooled reactors, the temperature can be much higher in the order of 700 and in the future also 1000 degrees C, but even here we need high pressure. In the case of metal cooled reactor, we can reach output temperature of the order of 500-600 degrees C, and because of the the metals, they have a very high boiling point, we can keep the system at atmospheric pressure. In the case of molten salt cooled reactor, we may build a reactor with a very high output temperature and operating, even in this case, at atmospheric pressure. So if we combine all these different features, and we also consider the possible fuel which can be used in a reactor, we generate the multiplicity of the different reactor options. And here you can see, for instance, if we have as fuel a low-enriched uranium or uranium or plutonium oxide, and we use water as a moderator and also as a coolant, this generated two different types of reactor, which are the pressurized water cooled reactor with this version BBR developed in Russia, and the boiling water cooled reactor. If we wanted to use a natural uranium in such a case, you know that we should enrich not the fuel, but the the moderator, so we use heavy water as a moderator. There are concepts to using also the coolant is also heavy water, or maybe also light water, and in such a case, we generate the case of the pressurized heavy water reactor. Let's take also, again, the case of LU or MOX with graphite as a moderator, and gas, for instance, as a coolant, it generates the case of a gas cooled reactor. If we have graphite as a moderator and light water as coolant, there is the very case of mk, which is very known because of the Chernobyl accident. And finally, if we don't have any moderator, we have a fast reactor. A typical fast reactor is a liquid metal cooled fast reactor. There are, we can also use molten salt, both in thermal and in fast spectrum. For all of them, of course, we'll investigate a little bit more with a lecture tomorrow, which one are devoted one to the different water cooled technology, and another one on liquid metal cooled the fast reactor. Okay, but the most common classification of reactor is according to their generation. So when they were developed and then deployed for the first time, this is another graph which was already shown by the previous lecture. The early prototypes of Nuka power plant comes back to the 50s and were built and operated between the 50s and also the 90s. Then on the basis of the experience gathered during the operation of this early prototype, large scale power station were developed and they represent the current fleet, called the current fleet, also generation two reactors. Then on the basis of the experience gathered on the operation of these reactors, and also why not the less alert from some big accident like the Three Mile Island in the U.S. and the Chernobyl accident in the former Soviet Union, there was another class of reactor which is heavily based actually on the experience of the generation two, because the technology is more or less the same. Most of them are again water cooled reactor, which are called evolutionary or even advanced passive design. Passive because they have introduced the concept of pacifist, in particular safety system, in particular to remove the decay heat from the reactor. It means safety system that I mean simplified where they don't require the intervention, the actuation of active system or the intervention of the operator, they're based on physical natural phenomena, like gravity, like evaporation, condensation and so on and so forth. So they are physical phenomena which are there, natural, and they are heavily based on passive safety system. These are reactor which are already some of them are already in operation under licensing, under construction. After this generation, we have the so-called generation four, the generation four reactors, which we have revolutionary design, and our reactor which are at the moment under the development, let's say design, sometimes also advanced design, but none of them is in operation and also under construction. They are supposed to be put in the first of the kind of this reactor is supposed to be put in operation, let's say in the next two decades. It's very difficult in this even economic and political context to take, I mean real commitment when this reactor will be really available at least as the first of the kind, for sure they may represent an important part of the fleet of the nuclear power plant in the world, only in the second half of this sample. Please consider that whatever is, this was true also for the previous reactors. To have a fleet is a very long, long process. It's not possible to develop above all a new technology, jumping immediately to the industrial reactor. Actually, this was true also at the very early phase of the nuclear power period. We started with prototypes. Before the prototypes, they were experimental and demonstration plans because first of all, you have to prove that the technology stick together, the technology works. Then with the demo plant, they are also to demonstrate that you are able to generate net electricity in an affordable way. Then you have a prototype, this one which are already connected to the grid, but still you need to collect the lesson learned from their operation. Only after the prototype, you have the first of the kind of the real industrial size, the reactor and then the fleet. All of that, if you consider this timeline, takes more or less half a century. You have these numbers. It's important. When people propose, I'm a fast reactor guy, so I've been working on fast reactors since the beginning of my career. But I have to be honest. When they say, when a fast reactor will really represent a large fraction of the current fleet, I repeat myself, not before the second half of this century, at best. Why? Because if we consider the generation for fast reactor, we are at the level of the design, sometimes also advanced design. Some of the fast reactor technology have been already proved. For some fast reactor, particularly the solid cool fast reactor, for which we have already 400 reactor year of operation, we can say that most probably we don't need a demonstration plan. We can jump from the demo plan to the prototype. Let's have a prototype, let's say it's under design. In this moment, that it will be operated under commissioning not before 15 years from now, because they are at the conceptual design and there is a detailed design and so on and so forth. Then construction. Then they have to be operated in order to gather information on the operation of this kind of reactor and the associated fuel and fuel side, which means other 20 years. So we will have the real industrial size, gen four fast reactor, not before that the middle of this center. And as a consequence of the fleet, we'll be able to replace the current fleet of light world to reactor only in the second half of the of the century. And let me open I'm an enthusiast of nuclear fusion. First of all, because from the scientific viewpoint, it's a big challenge to recreate, I mean, plasma, the sun condition on the earth is a real very fascinating thing. But let me see as a technical person that just to propose that fusion can really contribute significantly to the electricity production of this center is a dream. Even supposing that that ether, you know, the one that the ether is before is an experimental plan. Okay, so if we consider the step that we have talked about about the fusion, so experimental plan, demonstrator, prototype, first of the kind, we are we are in country a lot of difficulties in building the first experimental fusion plant that at best will generate the first they call fake plasma at mid 20 in 2025. Okay, so there will be the real plasma only in 2035. And they will try to collect experience only in the first half of this century at best. So it's not credible that fusion will contribute significantly. I mean, to the electricity production of the center may be in the next century, even supposing that they are now respecting their roadmap, which was not the case so far as also mentioned by this important because one should be a realistic your future manager of nuclear energy. I mean, we have to be very realistic and base our knowledge and our and also our belief, let me say on real things, not on wishful thinking. Otherwise, we risk to take a big, big risk. Okay, and we have to rely on reactor which are proved and have a significant operation in order to demonstrate that they are safe, and affordable from the economic view point. Please, please. Good point. When I talk about fast reactor, I say, well, there is a particular technology of fast react which is the sodium cooled the fast reactor for which we have already 400 reactor year of operation. Okay, how we collected this year, for instance, through the operation of rhapsody, phoenix, super phoenix, cap K, et cetera, et cetera in Europe. And then, of course, BN 600, BN 350, the current production, and then now BN 800, and then what happened in Japan, et cetera. All this react operation allows most probably to jump the phase of the experimental plan and the demonstrator. Why? Because the technology, the basic technology, how to design, construct, and operate a sodium cooled fast reactor is already there with a significant operational experience, significant and comparable anyway with the operational experience of the current water cooled reactor which is almost 16,000 react. But it's significant, so for sure we cannot jump immediately to the industrial plant. But it's so significant that we can try to design now a prototype. So something which is already of a power, I mean, capacity, relevant from the industrial viewpoint, the reactor and the jump for sodium cooled fast reactor under consideration in this moment, they have a power in the range of 500, 600 megawatt electrical, which is already considered by the end just a medium sized reactor, electrical, not thermal, okay. And then on the basis of the lesser learning, the operation, then most probably we can already build the first of a kind and then to have the fleet. But again, if you look at the time of frame, we are talking about that a considerable number of fast reactor will be in operation again not before the second half of the, if there will be a big commitment in particular also by the state and not only by the private sector in going ahead with the design, construction, and operation of this reactor. It is true that the fast reactor have been already operated. But consider that the reactor, the sodium cooled fast reactor that we are talking about in this moment are not any kind of sodium cooled fast reactor. Let me also remember that the first significant production of electricity wasn't by sodium cooled fast reactor, you know that? Some lamps were switched off with the sodium cooled, the experimental breeder reactor in the US, okay. So of course we are able to design a sodium cooled fast reactor and also to operate. But please be careful because we are not talking about only the reactor in itself, but the reactor with the requirements of this revolutionary design. And one of the basic requirements is to address the so-called sustainability, okay. Sustainability in case of nuclear power translating the fact that I have to make the best use of the natural resources and in the meantime minimize the burden of the high level waste and possibly even make them more sustainable from the economic view point. And within this problem, at least in some part of the world, there is a kind of problem, okay. So if you put together these three main requirements and you transform that in term of technology, what have to do to develop in order to address these three, that three point which at the moment are wishful thinking, okay. We don't have industrial demonstration of that, okay. So when we say for instance that we have to use for that we need advanced fuel, okay. Advanced fuel that is first of all they should be mixed uranium plutonium fuel, otherwise we're able to operate the fast reactor properly in a closed fuel cycle. Why not also burning the minor actinates and in this moment we have even difficulties to rely on a stable metrics able to host the minor actinates and then in a fuel cycle which is closed but not say close fuel cycle already in operation. Well some light water reactor for instance in France are partially loaded with uranium plutonium oxide and this uranium plutonium oxide is mono-recycle only one turn in the reactor, in the fuel cycle, okay. Only once. When we talk about a fast reactor, we talk about a reactor. First of all we use advanced minor actinates base fuel in order to reduce the burden on the geological display. Then we are there are operated in a closed fuel cycle with multi recycling, okay. We have to recycle more than well we'll talk about what you wanted to have as a final stream. The number of cycle depends on what you wanted to have as a final stream, okay. And for instance for that you need fuel cycle and fuel and fuel cycle facilities that in this moment they don't exist, okay. So you understand it's not a fast reactor, it's a very specific fast reactor and on top of that should be also competitive with the let's say at least the current reactors without saying that actually should be competitive even with I don't know with fossil fuel, okay. Well the point is you know why in Europe we abandon this technology because EDF say it's not affordable, okay. Let me, okay. Superfanix was closed even for political reason but after Superfanix EDF asked the fast reactor community of Europe are you able to design a reactor with a comparable investment cost capital cost to the current at that time Gen 2 reactor. At that time in Europe we had a very skilled react, fast reactor community which is not the case nowadays. I mean only in Italy there were two, three thousand people working on fast reactor, there was one of that. Nowadays in Italy we have I don't know 10, 10 persons that maybe they are still skilled in fast reactor. In Astrid there's a prototype of the French prototype. There are 600 people working on Astrid. At that time in France they have 10,000 people working on fast reactor. So at that time okay EDF asked to design a sudden cool fast reactor with a capital investment cost comparable to the light water they were not able to do it at that time. So the third challenge is this one is not only to complete to have a complete closed fuel cycle but also to have a reactor which is competitive with the current light water reactor. Russians they claim that there are BN 1200, you know that they are operating the BN 800. Now they claim that they are designing BN 1200 which will have a cost of investment comparable with their VVR 1200. Well when they will show the design I will believe. At the moment I think that is still a big challenge. Please, please. Very good. So that for instance we can let's say relax okay the requirements of the geological repository. But how much the the the the the back hand impact the kilowatt hour we know that it's 15-10 percent so 15-20 percent it depends on the fuel cycle that you adopt okay. So for sure in any case even with the fast reactor we know that we need the geological repository. So you don't eliminate this geological repository. You can relax the we'll see how in one of the of the lecture but you still need the geological repository. Maybe in a country let's say in the US okay if we really will have one day a fleet of fast reactors instead of needing over the time two geological repositories we need maybe only one is a breakthrough if you consider that they are still there to try to license a geological repository after 40 years of course to have to license one geological repository instead of two is really is not proportional. So it's a clear breakthrough but in term of cost of a kilowatt hour and also the problem the financial issue to have a lot of money to invest now to have revenue only in 10-15 years is still a big challenge which means that most of the few countries which still pursue the fast reactor technology they do I mean most of the time for strategic reason more than for economical then we'll see in the future of course with the advance of the technology the fast reactor can be really competitive with the current but it takes a time decades to make it happen. Okay just quickly just because it is in my slides but before copying this this is very nice in my view it's very nice it's the best classification of reactors that I have seen in my life because it's like you know it's the philum so it's like a tree and we start with the fermi and you look purely and then we have the first generation the second generation third generation and fourth with this three with the branches which are larger more and more so in my view it's very nice it's also linked to the main event like for instance in 1973 that we had this big derivative because of the first oil shock in 1973 and then there was a some I mean how to say stagnation because of Chernobyl and then today and then and then tomorrow so you can use it but you have to refer because there are for sure copyright issue behind that okay but since the IEA is different we don't classify the reactors like seen so far we have our classification which is the current fleet and then we divide the reactor in evolutionary reactor which correspond more or less to the gen 3 reactor including also the so called the gen 3 plus where their plus normally is there to signify that they are heavily based on passive safety system and then in the future we will have the innovative reactor which correspond to the generation for reactors in between the small medium and modular reactor which may be of different types both of water cooled reactor normally the water cooled reactor have IPWR we will explain what is an IPWR tomorrow but there are also other technology including a gas cooled reactor and and fast reactor everything I mean put together also with the non-electrical application of the nuclear power which can be I mean deployed even nowadays at some temperature regime which means also not only produce electricity but also why not hydrogen also used for sea water desalination cogeneration district and process heat synthetic fuels and and chemicals in words what are the the difference what the current fleet as we know is mainly composed by by commercial power plant which were built since the 1970s on the basis of the first generation which was of the prototype and which are expected to have an extension of live they're still in operation of course we will see the number afterwards and they are expected even to be operated in the next decades we will see how and then we have the big category of the advanced nuclear reactor design which are divided as they said in evolutionary design already some of them already in operation under construction under licensing and then the innovative designs the generation for reactors let me come back quickly on the question of the evolutionary design here we say that they they have the of course they should have I mean achieved a big important improvement with respect to the existing design but they are heavily based on the current on the current fleet because the technology is more or less the same let me come back to the question that was touched again by Jonathan this in his first lecture the competitiveness of nuclear power with respect to the other energy sources nowadays even in an international context a lot of people I mean emphasize the role of evolutionary reactor so called gen 3 and gen 3 plus above all after Fukushima because they say that they they they have a safety feature safety performance for instance the core of frequency damage okay famous a number figure of merit which is another way to classify reactors which is much better of the second generation well I'm old and I remember the discussions that there was in the 90s is on the real motivation on the real driving factor to develop as the gen 3 reactors like now there are some recover some some reason to develop as a fourth generation the real reason was at least in in in the western countries okay the real motivation was the liberalization of the energy market the people of the nuclear community realize that in a in a market in which you have really to compete okay in in in in a liberalized market well we have to reduce the investment cost of the of the of the reactor okay which is as the main fraction of the cost of the kilowatt hour of the electricity otherwise we risk in a few years to be out of the of the market is no more competitive so the real triggering factor to develop as a third generation actually was like in the case of the reactor to reduce the cost of investment of the reactor and then of course also the alco a etc etc in doing that they had one one of the criteria to reduce the the cost of the reactor was to simplify the reactor it was possible to simplify the reactor because of the less alert from the operation of the of the gen 2 reactors and in simplifying the reactor then it came up also the question of the passive system because passive system actually is a simplification of the reactor it's not the complication is a simplification and the other point is for instance the reduction also of the components even on the material if you want to reduce the cost of the of the reactor you have to reduce the the the kilogram per per kilowatt we are there okay we have to reduce the the the the mass per per per install capacity and for instance there are then three reactors which have for instance 60 less available than the gen 2 reactors so it was actually a combination if you want of this need to I mean simplify in order to reduce the capital cost of the the reactor and in the meantime and simplification also I mean happened in addressing safety issue which was in particular I mean it comes I have been from the lesson learned from three mile island and and turn off what else what is the situation well whatever you wanted to know about the current fleet because we are still at the the level of the current fleet you can access of this database of the of the of the international atomic energy as I see which is priests this is a bird is a huge database which collects data from all the nuclear power plants in operation in the in the world the data are up to date and in almost in real time and you can have you can get from here any kind of statistic on the operation of the of the current fleet so the next slides that they will show in the game there are some repetition with respect to previous lecture all the data come from from priests sometimes they are not up to date to date but you know nuclear power is a is low-going technology so the data may are not very different to the current one so there are four four hundred forty nine nuclear power plant in operation better not in operation but operable okay because there is a case of Japan so actually that four hundred forty nine include all the fifty there are fifty reactor and and we say we know very well that only a few of them are really being restarted after pushing they cover the 11 percent of the world electricity and the mere five percent of the prime prime energy consumption but they present the 30 percent of the low carbon electricity producing the world so it's true that the presentation of the overall electricity demand is not high but it represents the 30 percent of the 30 percent of the low-carbon and is base load the energy there are also 60 reactor under construction and two-thirds as well known is in Asia for the very well known mechanisms and we are going to present in a few slides so the current fleet as well known is almost composed by what is called the reactor I mean above all PWR but also significant fraction of BWR some 4050 pressurized heavy water reactor still some or BMK under in operation some gas cooled reactor for instance the case of the UK and only two industrial sized fast breeder reactor even the situation concerning the reactor under construction is not very different to the current fleet in this case as you can see major of the reactor are pressurized water reactor with a even a smaller fraction of the other reactor of course as the situation as usual the the the the world is not homogeneous it's very heterogeneous so the situation of the the current fleet and also the fleet in perspective considering the 60 nuclear power plant under construction is very heterogeneous in the world at the moment most of these reactors are still I mean of the of the current fleet are of course in the US in North America US and Canada and also in Europe but if we start considering the reactor under construction we can easily see that even in the near future most probably Asia will take over in term of I mean the overall electric capacity nuclear electric capacity well we know that so most of anyway at the moment the largest fleet is still in US with 99 nuclear power plants in France 58 in Japan 43 only few in operation then Russia with 35 and China with 31 and all the rest or very problem is the question of the current fleet how long we wanted to keep them on on well the situation is pretty critical if you look at this graph why because if we look at this graph which is the you know here are for instance this one reactor has been operation right now okay and then you go back on time okay and for instance these are the reactor probably you cannot read so I will read for you these are the reactor which have at least 40 year of operation okay is a timeline back okay so six year of operation 16 year operation 23 and then we have this reactor okay which were put in operation some 40 41 42 43 etc etc years ago okay if we sum up all this reactor in the world that 90 so there are 90 reactor out of the 499 that they they are already beyond their life because they were licensed normally for 40 years and actually there are nuclear power plant in the in the world which have already submit their application for the licensing extension and they they got the license extension but this is a general problem which affected very large part of the of the fleet okay and so the one of the point which is a key point for the nuclear industry in this moment is to take a decision for this nuclear power plant if it's really worse to continue operation or to definitely shut down according to their original life slowly slowly of course this mechanism will will affect also of course in 20 years from now you can imagine that in 20 years also all this part of the fleet will be affected by this problem so in next in the next decades let's let's say near medium term I would say that the nuclear one of the two main point really I mean with the implication of the nuclear sector will be the life extension of the current fleet okay and of course as a consequence also the decommissioning because some nuclear operator will also decide to shut down the reactor and enter it into the commission instead of extend their their life so let's say that in coming years there will be three main driver okay in the nuclear sector the the the construction of the gen three reactor okay even with the some I mean increasing performance with the respect of the first of the kind the life extension of the current fleet and then the decommissioning depending of course on the decision of the state and the operators regarding the current reactor please please I'll out what I know they are they are affectable is proportional to the the the to the number of reactor of the different types that I showed you before they are both pressurized water reactor and boiling water reactor and also heavy water food reactor which are under consideration for I mean the operators depending which kind of market we are talking about let's say that operators public or private depending on the country they are considering if it's worse to extend their life or to shut down and enter into the commission all the type of reactors included by the way fast reactor because there is a fast yet again 350 is under the commission that's true that's true yeah but I mean there are so many consideration it takes place when you have to take this decision that is not only the type of reactor is the local situation if the the price of a fossil fuel in your car you know there are there are 1000 different fact however the decision has a big impact okay as you can see from this from this graph because if we I mean we take the whole fleet okay and we respect their original lifetime at the original of 2060 yeah 2060 all the current fleet has to be shut down okay it's a red curve I don't know why sometimes it doesn't work okay with my fingers okay if we cause if we don't have any life life extension beyond 40 years the current fleet has to be completely shut down in 2065 if we extend up to 50 years we have this green curve which ended 20s 2070 more or less okay and then there are also under consideration life extension of 60 years sometimes also dreams of 80 years and was this what does it mean that okay we have already seen that in a number of cases the life has been extended beyond 40 50 and in the future also 60 years so if we sum this to the fact that we see now the first evolutionary designs and three reactors and three in three plus a reactor under construction and some of them under operation if we sum up the question of life life long-term operation of the current fleet plus the gen three reactors under design construction licensing and operation we see that the the most realistic situation of nuclear power will be that in the second half of the of this century we will have still a nuclear power plant fleet composed of life with a reactor basic okay with the first gen four reactors to build maybe in these coming decades and then only I would say in the second part of the of the of the century they will slowly slowly replace the current fleet and the gen three reactors please also consider that the gen three reactors are designed for 60 years of operation not 40 like the the the current fleet and again with even someone dreaming to extend their life to 80 years in in the US they are also considered one century okay when we are at the bar we'll discuss this I'm not the big supporter of this idea to go ahead with the technology which was a conceptualized one century ago I don't think that is a good point for being but this is not from the IEA I don't want to mean it's personal very personal okay of course in this lifetime LTO long-term operation there are challenges okay there are challenges which are listed here again it's likely to to to adopt a nuclear power plant behind there are policy and strategic issue and and decision okay the the there should be a clear commitment from the operator but of course there are a lot of societal implication even with the local community and so on and so forth so there should be a strong policy a strong strategic evaluation of the IEA then of course they require safety improvements okay well one thing is previous the lesson learned from Fukushima okay they were designed and constructed and even alone for a long time operated well before Fukushima so of course as you know even the IEA has promoted for five six here a big big project regarding the lesson learned of Fukushima and how to improve the safety performance in particular of the current fleet I would say that most of the of the work performed in the in in the world and also at the embassy regarding the current fleet including the so-called stress test in Europe all the equivalent test performed in Russia in the US and so on and so forth of course I mean if we need this safety improvement there are financial aspects because for for instance in some cases it means also to replace very important components of the plant including I don't know the steam generator okay this is a is a is a bad one of the basic components of the of the of the of the any nuclear power plant and of course there are I mean important financial implication of course there should be a correct aging management you know the question of aging of the material there's a very there are a lot of science in aging I mean people think that there is nuclear science also nuclear power science also in jet four reactors not true there is a lot of work to do even on the on the study of material which have been irradiated for 30 40 years and we have to demonstrate that they can operate safely also for other than 20 years configuration matters is a very particular thing that is important when we modify a reactor it doesn't correspond anymore to the to the design which was in the paper even heavily different from the one which was designed sometimes in the in the 60s and in the 70s so configuration matters which means that is extremely important to update the documentation behind any kind of long-term operation life extension of the of the reactor is key in order then to operate the reactor safely and in security and and so on and so forth and of course human resource management is always the same for any nuclear technology as said well it's just to stress again that when we consider the current reactor under construction again we are talking about the light water reactor so it's another graph to show that considering that the reactors that we are building today are light water basically light water reactor considering the fact that there will be a lot of air for being alive in the long-term operation of the current fleet in the decays had we'll have a nuclear power plant fleet in the world still composed of light water reactor is always because of the just a reminder of the the the the title of the presentation which is evolution of the nuclear power technology evolution but at the end the evolution we are in terms of technologies that is not big job is not a mobile and it's not mobile that you have in your pocket of course okay so this is the current situation and also in perspective on the basis of the of the of the reactor and the construction how about the projection okay well there are projections even prepared by this lady every year and most probably you will show something I don't know okay however I mean I'm not very fond of the long-term projection because normal they failed miserably I just took the the one at the 2020 and 2030 the numbers of the from the international power technology as a but also the other as more or less have the same the same projection okay so the situation here will also show the trend well the trend is not very exciting again because there is clearly a stagnation for various reasons there was Chernobyl now Fukushima etc and there's a projection of the nuclear power which has been revised every year and you can't see here this segment which corresponded to the reduce is the projection why well this is a fact of Fukushima okay so before Fukushima were optimistic on the projection okay and then we had this this but and then every year we reduce of both of the minimum value those the the maximum value the bottom line is that at the at the horizon of 2030 the low projection say that there will be a mere three percent of increase of nuclear power plant in the world with a high projection I think that is 56 percent okay so the reality should be somehow in between even if the rule of average it doesn't doesn't work in this case okay of course everything I mean I mean taking into account that when we see that that that we even even in the case of the low projection the three percent okay it means anyway a lot of new construction because in the meantime there will be some 100 200 reactor under the commission okay shut down and that they have to be replaced so when you say ah three percent it means that well it means that even in term of economic value is already an interesting market because anyway if we want to at least to keep the same the fleet we have to replace the reactor under the commission of course as usual this the world is not homogeneous so we'll come back on this point several times and as expected okay the situation will be stagnant in western europe and in north america this this thing doesn't work anymore um okay uh yeah stagnant in in western europe and and in america well of course as very well known I mean there will be a number I mean the the the growth is expected above all in in middle east and south asia and also in far east africa we'll see okay so I mean in any case of course at the horizon of 2050-2060 there is not bigger expectation in term of growth in the other area of the of the world okay so um can you give me more or less of the uh the time frame as I think that is 10 10 15 10 15 minutes okay so it means army cocktail time so please serve the cocktail time okay see so we have also the lecture on what are called the reactor current and evolutionary that I will skip this slide which are even also obvious and and you know they they show the the top of reactors that they are under construction uh sorry under operation nowadays then we have talked about the evolutionary uh reactors we have already said what they are what are their main feature with respect to the uh current fleet let me add I mean again I repeat myself simplification I mean less learned than the experience based on 16 000 year of operation of the current fleet uh have a use of a passive system in particular instead of active in particular for the emergency heat removal system uh the the other advantage with respect to the current fleet is the fact that that there is I mean most of them they also perceive the use of mox fuel which is interesting in order to stabilize the the inventory of plutonium using mox sometimes at least in more recycling of course you reduce the stockpile of of plutonium you don't address really the problem of the nuclear waste because actually in I mean recycling in a light water reactor because of the cross-section it also I mean increase for instance the amount of america but at least it is important because you can reduce the stockpile of plutonium with all the security and safeguard implication um there is also I mean the other point is that normal they have also I mean again regarding the performance of the fuel they have a higher burn up of the fuel with respect to the current however so the this reactor I say uh these evolutionary reactors there are already some of them in operation so ABWR APR 1400 in in in Republic of Korea VVR 1200 in Russia there are as well known two very case under construction they are in this moment really under consideration because of the implication from the economical and financial viewpoint in particular as for the AP 1000 by Westinghouse and there are other concepts like the economic simplified boil water reactor from General Electric or the APWR or the ATMEA one which is another product are above Mitsubishi still in the detailed design they will and some of them they already enter also the licensing process okay the case of small modular reactors what we are talking about well actually when we use the acronym with state for SMR according to the IA definition SMR means small medium size and modular reactor small and medium the definition is very is very simple I mean we consider small reactors the one with the power electric power capacity up to 300 megatalactic medium size up to 700 megatalactic if we talk about a small modular reactor this is a particular case of small reactor again with the the the electric power up to 300 megawatt but the main feature is that they are being in worship in factories and then they are transported as module to the to the site as the demand arise okay so the the the concept behind is that they are shop fabricated which should reduce the the dramatically even time for construction at least of the of the nuclear island can also simplify of the process of quality assurance because you can imagine that what you can do in term of of control in in a worship with the respect of what you can do in the in the site so one of the of the murders should be I mean one of the big advantage should be to reduce the construction the construction time and then since there are modules modules of a battery okay they are transported to the site only when there is a demand okay so what the the the advantage is not economic is financial okay why because I don't need if I have to to to build a large nuclear power plant or I don't know 1400 megawatt electrical okay and then small country well maybe at the beginning I don't need all this electrical power okay but I have to pay in particular the bank which gives me the money to start the construction for the whole reactor okay and from the financial risk there's a big issue as we were very well known okay with this concept of modular well maybe we can do something it means that I'm just going to to build in the worship only the reactors that I really need today not only that I construct the the reactor in a shorter time than the big guy of 1400 megawatt and they put that reactor in operation and when is an operation I get back of my investment okay I don't have to wait the long lasting time to put a big guy in operation I constructing let's say two three years a small module I transport the module on the site and they start operation which means give back from my money that I've invested in the model and only when I need an additional capacity then I order a new module to the worship and so on and so forth okay so even if of course I cannot rely on the economy of scale which is a classical way to address the the economy element in large water reactor by definition because it's small so it means that in term of cost per kilowatt is most probably higher it will be really a challenge to decrease I mean to have this cost comparable with larger reactor but from the financial viewpoint which was the big issue you know the liberalized energy market they may represent a good idea okay of course even over the time we'll be able to address the the the economy not in terms of scale but in terms of numbers then it may be that also the cost per kilowatt will be compacted with the larger reactor it's not possible to reach this goal with the economy scale we have to reach it all with a column of numbers okay which means that smr will be successful if and only if the the word the the industrial the nuclear industrial community will be able to sell thousands of this this is the goal and not to to to to realize a few units like in the case of large reactors in nuker comma countries we are talking about thousands of of you in particular one of the idea is to replace the aging fossil fire units in some part of the world even in us but not only us also in europe we have the problem that we have the aged fossil fuel unit typically of two three hundred megawatt electrical so in principle smr are good to replace this old coal plant which of course was a number of issues from the environmental yeah the point is that they are since they are of small size that they are good to be coupled with something else so they're good for cogeneration and since they are small they don't require a very developed electrical grid so they are also good for off-grid areas or remote areas in which there is not a very developed developed electrical grid that since they are small it is also possible to adopt some design for instance the integral type design that we will see tomorrow which also increases the safety of the of the reactor okay we will see tomorrow how we can simply simplify the reactor from the layout of your point which has the lack of the case gen two gen three there are two major benefit that simplification means a normally reduction in the in the in the in the capital cost and in the meantime also enhance the specific features and this is possible because they are small it's not possible for technological reason and also for the reason for instance to I mean there are some one proposing integral pw are also large size but in my view it's very very challenging please as usual for any question regarding nuclear the the the answer cannot be straight is not is not straightforward I cannot why because if I am a nuclear a newcomer countries of course I'm interest and I'm very concerned about the fact to involve the country in it in a project of 10 billion euro because it's comparable to my GDP okay so if I fail there is a big impact on my economy okay so of course say well SMR could be a really good part maybe I will pay a little bit more per kilowatt but I don't put at risk my economy okay so in principle is a good idea but if I am a newcomer countries I'm also very well concerned about the operational experience what is the operational experience with IPWR zero so you say that you have to balance things okay so even with a newcomer country perspective depending that I have to evaluate not only that I have to evaluate for instance what is the impact on my local economy or the economy of the of the country adopting one technology instead of enough I have to say that from this point of view the international public energy has in particular my section has tried to help in particular the newcomer countries in evaluating pros and cons so we have mentioned two three elements but there are one thousand different elements to be taken into account including human resources the need of human resources I need the more skilled or more more in numbers nuclear resources per kilowatt with an SMR or with a large water reactor this is still to be to be to be discussed even the question to have a single counter room operating different models which was another things which is claimed to be better still to be demonstrated that we are able to license a reactor to convince regulators that we can operate that that means several models which on and switch off why not the coupling with the renewables with a single counter room so there are a number of different factors to be taken into account and unfortunately there is not a single single answer and be aware of that the other some years ago developed a methodology which is near-term technology assessment of the reactor for near-term deployment which is a methodology which has been developed to try to take into account all the possible factors and to help a look at a newcomer countries to take a knowledgeable intelligence mark and knowledgeable decision on the basis of these different factors of course what we can do is to address the issue from the technical and economic viewpoint we cannot address that from the political view point we know very well that above for newcomer countries the decision to adopt the one reactor to close instead of the other there are normally a lot of political reasons yeah including the bilateral political I mean I mean cooperation with other countries in the world okay but from an IEA perspective we have developed this methodology first of all to identify all the elements which should contribute to the decision and help the newcomer countries which is not so skilled and experiencing the reactor technology to select the technology which is not the best technology but the technology which is most suitable for its own purpose okay even different countries may have a different best technology it depends on your on your needs okay well 15 minutes please any sorry in the number in the number of module or well the I have to say that I don't think there is a limit I mean in principle but the the the trend is that normally the battery should have I mean the final battery should have a number model which corresponds in terms of overall power electrical power to a larger reactor so it means instead of having one nuclear power plant of a 14 1500 megawatt electrical you have a seven eight independent I show at least this slide okay I will come back on that I think that I will be in the life of tomorrow yes sorry it means that there are smr of very different power capacity there are at least the seven eight categories the one from zero to 50 megawatt from 50 to 100 100 there are a number of different options but the power remain always the same that there are options and they are not proved because the situation is this one that we have only I mean if we consider the so-called IPWR that we will explain at tomorrow at the end we have only one IPWR under construction which is carbon 25 in Argentina then we have a KLT4060 under construction rest of the duration but it's not a modular reactor it's not even for land-based application and then we have a gas cooled reactor in interesting case still approach as a first approach even for reactor which is the HTR PM in China which is not a like it is not a water cooled reactor it's a gas cooled reactor and here again there is the question if it's really credible that the newcomer can't please start with the technology which is not very used in the world is another consideration maybe yes maybe if this reactor will perform in an exceptional basis in China we support these newcomer countries completely with their full I mean experience and skills etc why not but of course it's another challenge because we are talking about a reactor technology which it doesn't have the same operational experience okay so just to ah yes I did I'm sorry I think that they put only this one slide that they want to show so you see even the number of modules to reach the I don't know 1000 figure of magnitude depends on which kind of reactor we are talking about okay because as you can see the the the design the developers in this moment they they propose a very different module from a few megawatts up to also 300 megawatt per month okay ah yeah before concluding I showed two slide but without question I think that in the previous lecture there was mention of the integration of look about plants in order to have the so-called hybrid energy system and what are the possible costs and costs while this is like which show a case of a hybrid energy system using smr why smr well for because of the flexibility in itself a bit is flexibility which is need of course a within the why because whenever you have when you almost at the moment the xtp device okay that this is the fluctuation uh intervals of six hours is a sharp fluctuation is the blue curve when we talk about renewables we talk about this fluctuation nowadays unless of course they will develop very high performance stories etc etc so there is there is the need that would be to compensate this fluctuation with the nuclear power plant okay and so of course to say well if you use a large power plant is true that some large power plant were even operated in load follow but is a problem because of the initial of the of the system the nuclear power plant you also to be very efficient and the fact that you should always work at full power constantly at full power of course if you have a small guy well maybe you can do something in order to compensate that fluctuation because it's more flexible in itself there are two options basically that nowadays are are under investigation option one is the question to have multiple modules okay so overall i i need i don't know uh let's say one two three four five six seven hundred megatallaptical to compensate for the the renewables okay and i have seven modules so depending on the i mean the the uh the the the uh the uh the the energy the electricity generated for instance by this wind term wind turbine uh fleet okay i will switch on and switch off my module okay this is a way to compensate the fluctuation of the renewables having a number of modules and switch on switch up the different modules according in order to compensate the fluctuation of the of the wind farm there is also another case in which i have only one medium reactor of 700 megawatt which is operated in load following okay so it's not always operated full power but i modulate i have to modulate the the output of this react the the at least theoretically okay the compensation in the two cases is the following can you see the red curve from even from the both can you see i i showed the the blue curve is the fluctuation of the renewables the wind tap okay well if i adopt the case of a 700 megawatt flexible one unit the 700 megawatt the result is the red curve okay if i switch on and switch off the result is the black curve which is much better okay of course which you know because also the 700 megawatt i cannot of course operate from zero to 700 forget for the thermo cycle and with the this inertia of the of the system okay so we can do something theoretically because these are only calculations so it will be really possible to operate in a safe manner and according to the regulation a fleet of the small model reacting in this way is still to be demonstrated but there is a room to do something to integrate a look-up output with with renewables the only point is that the nuclear community is not smarter than the others so the same layout the same scenario the same consideration that are being done in the nuclear field are also done for instance by the gas plant community i've seen the same the same type of a of a layout the same kind but they can also do it and of course as well known a gas plant is extremely flexible i really switch on and switch off with the model which is not the case even with an SMR so it's a big competition it's not true of course we can say well if you if you adopt a gas gas react a gas plant you and it's you and this is not the case with the finally it's really the last slide of that content okay yeah but i have since for each of these uh uh banser slides i have a lecture tomorrow so of course we can okay talk more tomorrow on the single technology okay just to say that that uh we are talking about the generation for a react when we talk about innovative reactors we talk about generation for the reactors which i repeat myself are still under development and there are this one okay under development of a design there is still r&b to be to be performed in order even to build the first prototype and uh normally they are classified in this way well actually this is a little bit of limitation because here you can see maybe you have already seen it's like that if you want it's like the level eight is divided by the generation for international for international for is a group of countries so it's under the this 130 concept they say well the most promising for a reasonable that doesn't mean that i mean other very very very uh uh even a big song that is our new one which has been selected for a commission for and there are we talk under development since the 2000 in the country so we had a long term commitment to it and there are three three of them at least three of them are also four it's a fast reactor the fast reactor the solid food fast reactor the light food fast reactor and gas food fast reactor well there is also the molten solid reactor that we have mentioned that we have uh at least the food and initially the reactor which was considered here was a thermal reactor and now the also molten solid fast reactor with some of the molten solid is possible you have a cozy fast aspect of the light of the air you can make a clean uh fast reactor i've mentioned because i will not have a lot of time to talk about the molten solid reactor here around to the current option there is a big stock of light when we say molten it's a reactor which also the fuel it's more than fuel and salt to the reactor also the fuel is liquid in the vehicle and circulate in the system nowadays there are reactor molten solid reactor but of course all the fuel in the reactor they need a lot of even if the react once the reactor was operating however of course it complicates the so it's really an option for the future that more realistic is the case in which the molten solid is used only as a coolant it means that the fuel is solid like the reactor and more of the salt is used as a coolant and finally we have the super fuel the food reactor which is let's say a natural extension of the part of the light of the reactor just what the food reactor will do is operate up on the point uh and this will end the last term of life uh yeah i i insist on the point they are they are very interesting features that has been seen like what was the system built right like so for instance that they have a high operating and should take even twice of that the current reactors here those that are interesting for me i mean uh closing the human side relaxing at the end of the day they have another feature is that the user advances the fuel not only the not so it's like today in some light with the reaction but also minor act based fuel for instance to grow the adoration as well it's one of the most frequently realized for the uh management of the fuel as per the constant and also way up for you and then also they have to invest that with the current technology the rest of the proliferation of the system of physical protection and the there is a statement the goal of the relation to uh forum in terms of uh pp and pr that while in Italy we say evil man which have demonstrated that they are able to satisfy the fact of that however there are a three dots to develop for and then what it's really standard very hard very harsh and very harsh environment and high temperature and the high level of our and this and and this is normally on the critical path so that to do that from scratch so no illusion if you are really talking about the very uh uh there are a lot of uncertainty also from the licensing devices and all this concept requires substantial power in you and sometimes one cannot the job immediately both the type which is a from the systemic new point is a is a perfect case because much major and minor but unfortunately there is a few operations of the before success of