 And I hope it would be interesting for some of you who are interested in how these new power technologies are new modular reactors or generation four reactors are going on. So please enjoy and then take the best out of this. Mr. Monty, please. Thank you very much. Should I use that? Yeah. No, I'll give it like that. So good afternoon, everybody, and have a good siesta with a water cooled reactor. I think that it was good to have this sequence of more first the water cooled reactor and then the advanced one, because water cooled reactor are so boring. I mean, we know that since ever. So you can enjoy your siesta during this presentation. I will try to make it a little bit more. And actually, Yash told me that there was some complaint about my presentation yesterday, which was just an overview of the evolution of nuclear power. It's not an excursion on petita, as we say in Latin. But of course, in one hour, it's impossible to go into the details of the different technology of the evolution. And in any case, you are supposed to be manager, not really a specialist of the different technologies. So of course, our presentation are really, let's say, designed to give general concept and information on the different nuclear technology more than to, of course, go into the detail of the single system, component, performance, and so on and so forth. However, in order to, we have some, let's say, way to address this need, which may arise from some of you. And personally, I have three. The first one is that my task is to present the current technology in the future, the one in the development, the design, et cetera, et cetera. So yesterday, I provided you with the link to the pre-system, which provides very detailed information on the current nuclear power plant under operation. From my section, I can offer this database, which is a living database updated on a regular basis and which contains detailed information on all the, what we call the advanced nuclear power plant. And with advanced, as clarified yesterday, in IA terminology, we encompass the evolutionary design, like AP1000, EPR, ATMEA, and so on and so forth. The one which has started the operation of first of the kind or still under licensing or construction, et cetera, the so-called Gen 3 plus reactor. Then it also includes SMR and also some innovative reactors, which means generation for reactors. A couple of, I mean, I have to say, information about this database. On one side, the information are very reliable because as the one delivered by the vendors. So we don't invent something. We don't interpret something that we know, is really provided by the vendors. The agency only apply, of course, his approach, that, of course, this information cannot promote the technology itself. We are a technology network at the agency. So our role is to maintain the data, of course, to gather the information, to provide the information in a systematic way, to eliminate all the promotional materials that we may receive from the vendors, and then to post the information in a systematic way, because, of course, as usual, as a database, you can Google Play a little bit with a different statistic, et cetera. So the other value is that reliable information coming from the vendors. What is the drawback? That, of course, when the vendors are not willing to provide the information, we don't have any information. So it doesn't mean that this database cover all the possible advances of the reactors, again, under design, construction, development, or even conceptual phase. For instance, since the database also has some requirement, when there is a chapter devoted to the safety systems, it's not enough to say, OK, we have a PCCS. Can I see the, I mean, you have to provide the real information regarding the passive containment cooler system? What is your particular design of a PCCS? So sometimes when we talk about innovative reactors, this information simply is not available, because the design is still developing the reactor. This is why, for instance, some concepts are not really even included in this database. So this is the first way in which we can address the need of more detailed information which come from the audience. The other point is that, OK, today maybe we go a little bit more in the details, but for sure we don't have in one hour. It's impossible, again, to go into the details of the water cooler reactor technology. So for instance, I will talk about active and passive system from the conceptual viewpoint, but I will not have any time to show the different passive safety systems which are under consideration, or also really implemented in some concept like AP1000, which means that if you have this interest, you can ask me during the presentation, but better maybe even to talk during the break, et cetera. OK? That's true. But again, we cannot invent anything. We have a rotation policy even in my section. Since here are contained information of all the types of reactors in terms of light water reactor, heavy water reactor, SMR, fast reactor, gas cooler reactor, and molten salt reactor. I have a project manager for each of these technologies. So every three, four months we have a rotation and the project office is requested to update the database. But it cannot invent the information. So what can do? OK, look at the information. We know that there were some changes. So I'm going to contact the vendor, the designer, and say, oh, we know that it's not up to date. Can you give me updated information? If he or she replies, we can do it. We cannot, I repeat myself, we cannot generate our own interpretation of the technology. It is the added value of the database that is, how to say, certified information from the designer and the vendors. So if it's not up to date, it's not because of us, but because of the vendors which is not providing the information. Maybe we can find the mechanism in which we put the wording. Of course, I mean, updated as of 2011. OK, so now, I will try to cover all this topic, again, common features of current. Here, I will be very basic on the different water cooled reactor technology. A few words, again, on the evolutionary water cooled reactor, or so-called advanced large water cooled reactor. At least I will show something concerning the specific SMR of water cooled reactor type, which are, I mean, the so-called integral pressurized water cooled reactor. Then supercritical water, some slide on supercritical water cooled reactor. And then, well, maybe the question of Fukushima will be addressed during the way when we talk of the specific safety system. OK, so it means that if we are going to talk about water cooled reactor, actually we are going to touch all the generation. Because we had the water cooled reactor in the first generation, in the second generation we have seen that more than 9% of the current fleet is composed of a water cooled reactor. And then, this is also the case for gen 3 plus reactor, which are evolutionary reactor, I mean, most of them, as we have seen through the graph of the reactor under consideration are, again, water cooled reactor. And we have also specific case for gen 4 reactors. Because even here, we have a supercritical water cooled reactor, which is a particular water cooled reactor with a kind of combination of BWR and PWR. So it means that, as said, water cooled reactor will are the basis of the Nuka plant currently in operation worldwide. And will represent, in large, in my view, the major part of the Nuka plant in operation, also in the decades had. And also, we have also been concept for the very future, like the supercritical water cooled reactor. So this is true also if we look at not the GIF classification, but the IEA classification. I put in red the water cooled reactor. And as you can see, I mean, all the evolutionary water cooled reactor, most of the SMR are, again, IPWR. So water cooled reactor technology. And innovative is the SCR. Please also consider that when we talk about non-electric applications that we didn't have time yesterday to talk about, they say, oh, this is like a wishful thinking. And there is no real deployment of non-electric application with Nuka power plant. Well, it's partially true because do you know that there were already 70 Nuka power plants, including a fast reactor useful for desalination. So of course, there is already deployment of non-electric application of Nuka power. Of course, since, I mean, again, it's related to the fact that most of the available Nuka power plant are like water reactors. So the temperature is what we know. I mean, the output temperature is less than 300 degrees C. And of course, you have a limited application, non-electrical application, because of the output temperature that you are. But the potential is very high, as we know. So we have some application of non-electrical application of Nuka power, let's say at relatively low temperature, with an expectation of really to open this kind of pandora box in the future when, I mean, high-temperature reactor will be available for commercial use. And first of all, of course, the gas-cooled reactor. Here, I want also to stress one point. When we talk about it in today, we talk about the contribution of Nuka power to climate change mitigation. Well, we have to be honest. As I said, I mean, Nuka power is contributed to 11% of the electricity production worldwide. Actually, it was a 17% before pollution. So there is a clear decrease in the electricity production. And let them 5% of the overall private energy source consumption. So when we talk about the use of Nuka power for electricity purposes to produce electricity, I mean, it's difficult to see a really breakthrough in the contribution of the climate change mitigation. This is also true when we talk about deployment of SMR. They are small. And if they are small, contribution is small, also to the possible CO2 reduction. But when we talk about the non-electric application, which means, first of all, not only to address the 30%, 35% of electricity production, but also the cool package, then things can be very different. So actually, there is a big expectation in contribution at least potential. Then, of course, there are political, the usual things, political things. But if we really favor the application of non-electric application of Nuka power, then the contribution of Nuka power to the low-carbon energy production can be really very important, even in the order of 20%, 25%. Nowadays, it represents the 30% of the low-carbon electricity production. It's significant, but, of course, it's limited to the fact that there is a limited deployment. So the situation here is also the situation that the market now and in the future is dominated by a water-cooled reactor is also shown by these two graphs that we have seen also yesterday. So basic feature, well, let me just at least be on the same page about the current technology. So pressurized water-cooled reactor, most common thermal reactor. The moderator is a light water, which has, as you know, a very important safety feature. So the reactivity coefficient, reactivity coefficient, we know what is that, more or less, is negative. So what does it mean in practical terms? For instance, that whenever the temperature increase, which should bring in principle to a situation to be controlled, the water expands and so, of course, the major moderation of the power of the water decreases and the power decreases. So it means that the feedback is negative. So if it's negative, it's very beneficial because if for any reason, for any transient, the reactor tends to run up, there is a natural mechanism without any intervention from the operator. There is an intrinsic safety feature of light water reactor that the water is the moderator, the water expands, there is less neutrons slowing down, so less efficient as the reactivity decrease. So it's a beneficial, natural characteristic of light water reactor. The coolant in this case, of course, is a light water at 15.5 megapascals and remains liquid also at high temperature. So we have the typical two loop with a primary system with liquid and then a steam generator feeding the turbine and the generator and so on and so forth. Another case of PWR is the VVR, the PWR Russian interpretation, which is very similar in the design with respect to a typical PWR. The main features for their very even economic reason is that they have adopted a steam generator, which is one of the main components of any plant, horizontal layout instead of vertical. This is basically the main difference with respect to the classical PWR. And also the fact that for some applications, they can also use a little bit higher to reach the uranium up to 4.4, even to further melt, et cetera. And then there is the boiling water reactor, which is the other most deployed water cooled technology, which we have a direct cycle. So I mean, of course, the water is not only liquid. It's liquid plus vapor in the primary system. And so we feed directly the turbine and generator. And of course, there are some benefit as for the economic from the economical viewpoint, less material per kilowatt with respect to PWR. The water is both the coolant and the moderator. And the water is at low pressure, typically 7.6 megapascals, and it boils in the core with some, of course, implication from the CTP viewpoint, as you can imagine, because of course, it means that, for instance, the reactivity along the power channel is not homogeneous. We have a continuous variation of the neutronic reactivity along the channels. And then we have the other option, in particular, adopted in Canada and India, of the pressurized heavy water reactor. Well, the reason for developing these reactives was very clear. It was the fact that they wanted to not to reach. There are also, of course, a reason from the suffocated ability viewpoint, because it's a reactor which doesn't require an enrichment of the fuel, but requires an enrichment of the coolant of the moderator, because, as you know, it's not possible to design a reactor which merges a natural uranium with light water. Why not? Because light water is a very good moderator, but also absorb the hydrogen in the water, absorb neutrons. So the economy of a light-water moderated reactor with a natural uranium will be too poor. It's not enough to have a critical reactor. So if you wanted to use a natural uranium, 0.7 of uranium-35, you are obliged to reach the water by using deuterium, which is a perfect moderator, because it slows down very well the neutrons, but doesn't absorb the neutrons. So the neutrons are still available for the criticality of the system. The other main feature is that they are not using a pressure vessel, big pressure vessel, but they are using these pressure tubes, which contain the fuel elements. And these layouts, in particular, allow the possibility to refueling the reactor, even under operation, which, of course, benefit on the loading factor of the reactor. So Kandu are very well known for having a very high loading factor, in particular for this reason. And they are also very well known because using natural uranium, of course, there is a significant conversion factor, the one that we have introduced in the last lecture. Conversion factor, it means that it generates some plutonium. OK, what are the difference in terms of the main parameter? This is important to know, even from the CTT consideration viewpoint, where is a PWR, having, for the reason that is more complicated because there is a water only in liquid state, has a power density of the order of 100 megawatt per cubic meter, while a typical PWR actually is a ABWR, so it's a little bit higher than normal, isn't the order of 50, just half of that. If you consider, well, if you consider SMR, again, there are also several reasons for that. The IPWR, actually, they have a power density which is just in between, using the order of 60 to 62 megawatt per cubic meter. And very low for heavy water reactor because, of course, they are very large, using natural environment are big, big core. Also, the fuel is pretty different. It's a different concept. This is the assembly, the fuel assembly for a typical PWR, BBR, BWR, and PHWR. What to say about the water? Well, we have said that, of course, the water is used both as a coolant and a moderator. And of course, we know very well how to manage water. Water was used as a coolant since, I mean, thousands of years. And we know that the reactivity control of the reactor is very good, both because there is a large fraction of the late neutrons. So the period of the reactor is very good and easy to control. And the fact is that the reactivity coefficient of the coolant is negative for the reason that we have explained before. The drawback is that we have to operate, of course, at high pressure in order to have, well, first of all, being a PWR to keep the water in liquid condition, but also, of course, to increase the enthalpy of the coolant, primary or secondary, depending if it's a BWR or a PWR. And of course, for that, we need, I mean, high pressure to have high energy content. And so a significant, unreasonable efficiency of the system. Of course, the fact that the pressure is under pressure, we will see the numbers in a second, of course, has some consequences also from the safety viewpoint. And in case of LOCA, the point is that we are going to pressurize also the containment. And here we have, for instance, the case of Fukushima, very well known, in which there was a question of how to deal with the over-pressure in the containment, venting, non-venting, and all these things so that we have debated deeply, in particular, also, the absence in the last five, six years. OK, at least to have some technology basis on this reactor, I don't know if you know this very well known phase diagram of water. Let's see the operation. I mean, the thermodynamic condition in a PWR and a BWR will be the so-called saturation line. So of course, in a PWR, in the primary system, you operate at the left side of the saturation line. So you have more or less 15 megapascals, and you reach this temperature of even 3 to 4 degrees C. In the secondary system, after the exchange of heat with the steam generator in a PWR, you operate, of course, up to the saturation line. So it's operated at 6.9 megapascals and with the output temperature of the vapor to the turbine, which is less than 300 degrees C. And then, of course, after that, you have the condenser at this operational condition. In the case of a BWR, you are more or less in between. Of course, even in the primary system, you are already on the saturation line because you have the coexistence of liquid and vapor, or better, steam. And then what is the difference between decor and steam? It doesn't matter. OK, so we work at this condition, which are very similar, if you can see, which are very similar to the secondary loop of the PWR. So you know very well, I hope, that Karno is not someone known even in this context, that the efficiency of the system is the difference between the enthalpy at high temperature and what I do at the level of the condenser. So since this jump is similar for the secondary loop of a PWR and for the BWR, as a consequence, also the efficiency of the system is very similar between a PWR and BWR. And in particular, it is in the order of 30%, 33%. We cannot go beyond because of this limitation in pressure because of technological reason, which we tried to overcome with the introduction of the supercritical water cooling reactor that is supposed to operate at supercritical condition of water. So in this case, you achieve also 500, supposed to achieve also 500 degrees C of the steam to the turbine, so assuring a much higher efficiency of the order also of 40%. Of course, we have to pay something off, which is the problem, for instance, of the stability of the system. The main problem of SCVR are two main problems. The problem of corrosion, which of course increases with the temperature. And the other problem is, of course, the instability because of the supercritical regime is very unstable. So it's something, of course, since the nuclear power plant is all interconnected. Of course, this gives instability also from the reactivity viewpoint. So it's tricky even to be operated in a safe mode just because of this thermo-drallic instability coming from the operational regime. I think that we are at the basic level, but if something is not clear or you have additional comments, you're... The what? Thorium. Ah, OK, well, using thorium. Using thorium, yes. Well, because at the moment, there is no water cooled... Of course, it's an option. But there is no water cooled... I mean, there are heavy water cooled reactor. That is the case of India. But if you consider the fleet all over the world, thorium has been still to be really introduced in the overall scheme. And the main reason is that it's the fuel cycle. OK, there are also still a problem in qualifying thorium-based fuel. And there are, of course, irradiation program, both in Europe and in India, to qualify this thorium at all the operational conditions. The main issue is the fact that, I mean, for historical reason, the world has very well developed the uranium plutonium cycle. But we don't have a consolidated uranium thorium cycle. Even if there were many experimental activities in the decades, including my country, Italy was also reprocessing uranium thorium fuel from a reactor in the US. So of course, there is a very limited deployment of the fuel cycle. So there are still problems of fuel qualification under all the operational conditions. And in particular, we don't have a uranium or thorium or fuel cycle available. So this is another point that uranium thorium is the usual beautiful girl that one day will deliver. But I mean, it's still there. Why? Mostly for industrial and really commercial reason, more so for technological reason. I mean, I have also to say that this question of thorium is considered a kind of a growl of nuclear power. Nuclear power will develop only if, well, there are drawbacks also in the use of thorium. Of course, there are big advantage the fact that, of course, by nature, you produce a high level waste with the use of uranium plutonium. But for instance, there is a problem to manage the waste because of the uranium 34. It's 34 or 32? No, 33 is the fertile, the fertile. But there is an isotope, which is, I think, uranium 34, which is a big gamma emitter. It's 32, of course. Let's see, well, it's the other one. It's 32. OK, it's a big emitter. So there is a big impact on the fuel cycle. It's good from one side because, of course, I mean, from proliferation viewpoint is interesting because, of course, having a big emitter discourages the potential distraction of this fuel. But it poses a lot of a problem, of course. For instance, you cannot manage in a global box of this fuel. You need a hot cell. Every time, you need an hot cell. It's like the case of a curium that people dream to manage curium in order to reduce the impact on the geological response. It's a wishful thinking because, I mean, curium is a big neutron emitter. It's a problem that we have in proposing the burning of curium in a fast reactor. Because being a big neutron emitter, of course, there is a big impact on the back end. So these are things that have not to be underestimated. Because when we think that, for instance, instead of a global box, I need a hot cell. There are millions and millions of euro difference. Plus, of course, the operation, which is much more complicated. So these things should not be underestimated. Both the ads and the IEA and the OECD IEA has produced a very interesting document on the use of thorium, also including the use of thorium in light with the reactor, which is under investigation also for evolutionary reactor, in particular for EPR. And they think that there are reasonable state of the art of the thorium and the realistic overview of the process and cause of the technology. So it's not the new ground, there are problems. On top of that, I mean, in this moment, it's a little bit useless to talk about thorium, at least for early deployment, because anyway, all the nuclear fuel industry is based on uranium plutonium. So I mean, the main barrier really is the state of the art, the state of deployment of consolidated deployment of the fuel and fuel side. OK, another safety issue is that, as any nuclear power plant, when we shut down the reactor, I mean, we don't really shut down the heat production. We shut down the nuclear fission chain, but not the heat production. And so we have to remove decay heat. And decay heat means when we talk about a reactor which have an electrical output of 1,000 megawatt electrical, 33% of efficient heat means 3,000 megawatt thermal. And if we say 3,000 megawatt thermal, it means that at the beginning of the shutdown, you have to remove 160 megawatt, which is another reactor, a small-moder reactor at that output. So when you shut down a large reactor, you have to evacuate the heat equivalent to a small-moder reactor under operation. So of course, it's not an easy task. Normally, I mean, historically, this has been removed with the decay heat system, which are based on electrically-driven pumps. And this is, to an instance, the case of the Kapal decay in the case of Fukushima. We have to remove this power, so I hope that here we are. Yes, here we are. How to do that? So we are talking about the decay heat removal, in particular under operational in situation which are not normal. So basically and historically, we have two ways to do that, or also a combination of the two ways. One is using active system, which means that our system, which are based on electrically-powered pumps, that they have electrically-operated valves that are, of course, as they normally require an actuation by an operator. An operator should intervene and feed with electricity above the pump, and also based on backup diesel generators. So are all systems that require an AC or DC electrical heat. An alternative is to use a passive system. Here, I mean, they are also based on a natural phenomenon. Here, I think that we have some example. For instance, based on natural circulation to difference of density, the wind are there because there are difference of density. So we create a difference of density into part of the reactor. We favor the natural circulation, and we evacuated the decay heat in this way. Or there are gravity-driven systems, or systems which, again, another physical phenomenon is condensation and evaporation. With condensation and evaporation, we also transfer heat, very well known. And for instance, they have valves that fail in safe mode. So for instance, both of that, if there is no more electricity input, they remain open so that they allow to feed water into the system in fail mode. These are all cases and are not all of them here regarding how to remove the decay heat from a reactor in an active or in a passive system. Please consider that some reactor have adopted the logic, which is based both on active and passive systems. If we wanted to think about the extreme case of an evolutionary reactor, EPR, the AREVA, EPR, is based, the logic is based on active system redundancy and diversification. AP1000 is the other extreme case which is fully based on passive system above all as for the removal of the decay heat in emergency situation. When we talk about the passive system, we always have in mind the decay heat removal. Actually, there is another, you know what are the three main safety features that every reactor should comply with. It means the three functions. Reactivity control, decay heat removal, and containment of the radioactivity. So actually, this passive system addresses the second requirements because they are all for removing the decay heat. But please consider that the most advanced reactors now, they also address the passive, I mean, they also use the passive system to address the first part, the control reactivity. And normally, the new design, they also exploit the passive shutdown system. And this is almost a normal practice now in the design of a fast reactor of the fourth generation. Please, the IA doesn't give any indication of that. It is up to the designer to decide what are the... We establish requirements, OK, and then it's up to the designer to decide what safety system has to be implemented in order to... I'm going to share that with you, I'm going to... I mean, and the problem is now, it's going to be an update, but now what are the results of all these past safety systems and somehow they're... Well, because also the passive safety system can fail. I mean, they are not reliable 100%. I can always find a... It's through PSA, probabilistic safety analysis. I mean, a tree which brings it to... For instance, it's something that I've also told to the molten salt reactor guys that they are so excited because they can implement a lot of passive safety systems with that cost, except of a ball which melts and allows all the molten salt to flow into some storage and evacuate the decay heat just for ear radiation. I can for sure find a sequence in which that ball should not melt and it's risky to have that ball melt, OK? So this is a clear example in which a passive safety system can also be included in a potential severe accident. Because even according to the PSA, the introduction of passive safety system, in particular, I mean, we can demonstrate that we can decrease the core damage frequency, OK? If you look at the numbers, OK? The point is that when you say 10 to the minus seven, OK? Against 10 to the minus five or 10 to the minus four, what is the uncertainty of that number, OK? You have to demonstrate in front of the regulator that the uncertainty are acceptable. But it means that, of course, that the 10 to the minus seven is not a deterministic number, but it's true that we can prove both deterministically and through a probabilistic safety assessment that the passive system for sure decrease the probability of severe accident, some of the most demanding severe accident. But it doesn't mean that since I have passive safety system, the safety case is closed. No, because you have even to, of course, to demonstrate that the numbers are not affected by 200% of uncertainty, that's the point, OK? So some regulators are very cautious from this point of view because of this reason, because of the uncertainty which affects the numbers coming from the use of passive safety system. But it doesn't diminishes the role of passive safety system, OK? The role is clear. And in particular, I mean, a Fukushima-like irrationality would not have happened with the increases of passive safety system. Actually, they had a passive safety system, you know that, right? In the reactor number one, they have a passive system, the isolation condenser. The problem is that at a certain moment for things which are related to the operation, the isolation condenser stopped to work, OK? But they had actually a passive safety system, because passive safety system were employed, I mean, for instance, the containment spray or the suppression pool is an application of a passive system and there are a reactor in operation which adopts these systems since long, OK? Now, the tendency is to introduce at any level a passive safety system and of course, even more developed, like with respect to the one implemented in the first design. What is our guide? Because here, I mean, we are very, very behind the schedule. So another quick question, very quick, sorry, is not to interrupt the... The passive safety system, the systems are not required with the data action. Yes. But we know that in some designs, some active safety systems, do you see this with data action or not? Are you classified? No, no, of course, no. Passive has another... OK, it doesn't mean only... It means they are automatically activated, OK? But they need electricity. There should be some AC or DC power from somewhere, OK? So it's a combination of these requirements, OK? But of course, in a normal reactor, even in EPR, there are safety systems which intervene without the operator in O2. But on the basis of an electrical input, OK? This is not required in passive safety system. And even here, the question of the operator, well, again, depends on the design. Normally, this is true, no operation action, within a certain so-called grace time. At least in Europe, we call it a grace time. In the U.S., they don't remember how they call it. It means that you have a certain period of time in which you can even abandon the reactor to itself. And you don't need any intervention of the operator, even in very emergency cases, even under accident, for a certain period. For instance, the IP 1,000, they have calculated with all the uncertainty, blah, blah, blah, that the grace time is at least 72 hours. And under some circumstances, if the accumulator returns, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, actually, this grace time should be infinite. But again, be careful, because this is true on the basis of the probabilistic safety analysis, OK? And then, of course, there are uncertainties on that. But for sure, the adoption of passive safety system gives this possibility to the system to have a very important grace time in which the operators can organize themselves in order then to intervene on the reactor. This, for sure, is one of the main advantages to adopt the passive system. OK, evolutionary, just to remember what we have already discussed, for instance, when we talk of a passive safety system, normally we think, OK, is what has been adopted in the number of evolutionary design. On top of that, as we said yesterday, most of these designs are also able to burn mixed uranium plutonium oxide. They have also adopted, I mean, for instance, increasing burn-up, et cetera, a reduction in the waste, both because they may use mox and also increasing the burn-up. And so the consequences, for instance, on the fuel cycle is that, as you can see, for instance, that the fuel burn-up in AP1000 is significantly higher than in an equivalent, I mean, gentle Westinghouse reactor. And in terms also of the fuel volume of irradiated heavy metal per gigawatt here of electricity generator, this is the trend, OK? So adopting a GEN3 reactor for the reason that I explained, also somehow facilitate the waste management, I mean, in particular the management of the most hazardous nuclides, the management of the high-level waste, not in a significant way like you can get from a fast reactor, but away. We have some improvement even from the waste management viewpoint. These are the evolutionary reactors more or less available nowadays, IP1000, ABWR, EPR, ACP1000 from China, BDR from Russia, APR1400 from North Korea. And this is, I mean, pardon me? We don't know, maybe they don't. I'm sorry. South Korea. And actually, I think, oh, we have a case here, which is not the South Korean case, but it's also not the North Korean case. It is a UA case of the first APR1400 under construction. Actually, they have some delay now with the commissioning and the fuel upload. But they should go critical, let's say, in one, two years so it should be put in operation. Here is another slide which confirms that, OK, even if you consider overall all the Luka power plant under construction worldwide, I mean, most of them are of evolutionary type, the 3D and 3 Plus reactor. Even if we know that some projects are experiencing some problems to US AP1000, they have announced that, I mean, of course, it's related to the bankruptcy of Westinghouse and plus other internal problem that have decided to discontinue the project, at least at the moment, and also the other two invoked they are considering, reconsidering to really complete the construction of the reactor. The same is for the APR, there are four reactors under construction, but we know that they have, in particular, the one in Finland, in France, they have experienced a number of problems which are related to the problem of the first of the kind. First of the kind, so it's normal to have problems, but that, I mean, the problems are particularly demanding also for other specific issues. For instance, the fact that with EPR, I mean, France was restructing constructing reactors after 20, 25 years of the APR, so of course, the industry was not really ready to do that. And on top of that, the reactor in old Kilowalto, the EPC is ARIVA, without EDF, historically, I mean, the Nuka Pal plant in France, the architecture engineering was not ARIVA, so of course, plus the fact that it was the first time that they were interacting with the known French nuclear regulators. So this very well-known delay and extra cost comes from very specific reasons which have been analyzed recently. And I mean, for people who may be interested, the IEA is in the process to perform a comprehensive study of the less learned from the first, let's say, from the construction of the first of the kind of evolutionary reactor. Both of the successful case and the less successful case, because we have successful case. For instance, the VVR in Russia is not really having, it was a build on time and on but. So please, again, depends where. Because if I look at the case of the same reactor being built in China or in the US, the overall time of construction is very different, or even a Gen 3-plus reactor like VVR12 under the Russian. I mean, it's not mission impossible to respect those. Of course, they were demanding it. And please also consider that we are talking about the first of the kind. So that number was considered for the answer of the kind. The first of the kind historically has posed a problem, in particular, during the construction. And also the need to modify the design during the feedback on the design. This is why we built the first of the kind, to have this return of experience. Then, if you want, during the break, there are specific reasons now pretty clear why this project have experienced such a big delay and also in cost, which are two, three times than the one forecasted. Of course, with the big impact on the nuclear industry, the very case of RSI and Westinghouse, the reason is obvious. You know that every year you delay the connection to the grid, you lose half the billion. For every year, then you have the additional cost because you have modified something. So you have extra cost from the supply chain. But just the fact that you don't connect the reactor to the grid because of this perverse mechanism of the capital investment, the very high capital investment in the nuclear power plant, the utility lose half a billion. So it means that when, I mean, the word is experience, the fact that if you fail in the construction of the nuclear power plant, you can really jeopardize the whole enterprise. It's really, again, another point that from the financial viewpoint is extremely delicate. I have to, OK, when everything goes good, I have a big revenue. And I'm satisfied of my SEO, the way in which I can sell electricity at an affordable price. But when we say that this is economic, but then there is the financial risk, OK? I have to address both. Economy is not sufficient. I have to address the financial risk because only a few companies can afford a situation in which if they fail in that project, also the company fails. It's a big risk. OK, what should we do? You give me the time and I decide what to do with my slides because now I have a very tedious sequence of slides which show all the different evolutionary reactor under construction, under licensing, and under operation. So it's 20 slides which show all this reactor. If I don't, if I have time, I do it. If I don't, I skip that and go to the SMR in particular to IPWR. Because the following lecture is unnecessary. But the following lecture will be three hours, not one. OK, let me give you, let's put, is it reasonable to say, 15 minutes, OK? 50 minutes please switch off my microphone, OK? So I stopped talking, I thought it was always too much. And then we have 20 minutes of break instead of, OK? OK, so it means that I'm sorry. Anyway, I mean, maybe it's not the more appropriate way to give the lecture. But my approach is the following. For many reasons, even because you are not homogeneous without different knowledge here, I always put more meat in my slides so that the person who is interested in the details can go through the slide on the basis of my lecture and learn a little bit more, OK? So this is also the case of this presentation, in which, as you can see, just going through very quickly, I put information regarding all the evolutionary reactor under consideration of all three types. There are both pressurized water reactor, boiling water reactor, and also pressurized heavy water reactor, because even in this case, there are two evolutionary designs, one from Canada and the other one from India. But let's go to a more exciting topic, which is PWR. Remembering what are the potential advantages of this SMR, which we are also reviewed this morning by Aliki, better affordability, when we say better affordability, we say financial risk, OK? Because the economy hardly will compete with the large water food reactor because of the lack of economy of scale, OK? Economy of numbers, but we will see, OK? So when we say better affordability from the economic viewpoint is because of the lower upfront capital cost, which means also that the capital at risk is lower. Modularization is very important because it's related again to the economic, because if there are modules, they are small, and so I can even realize this reactor in a workshop, OK? There are works, they are building in a workshop, and then transport them on site. This can be done if and only if the reactor is small, OK? Even the transportation, the maximum power of SMR normally is fixed on the basis of the maximum vessel that the bargains can transport, OK? So some designs were changed because the power was that, that the vessel was to be transported with available means, OK? So transportability is fundamental to have then shop-fabricated reactor transported on site as module and as the demand arises. Flexible application, OK? Very large, I mean, first of all, they can also couple with them for cogeneration and for small grid or remote regions. Smaller footprint, this is very important because it may have an impact also on the emergency planning as well, OK? So it's another very important issue even for the public acceptability of the reactor. And in my view, it's very well related to this point to be able to replace the aging fossil fire plants. I repeat what I said yesterday. This is possible incredible from a public perception viewpoint, acceptability viewpoint, if and only if, due to the fact that we have a small footprint, that we have also reduced the source term. That small, the source term is proportional. So of course, even the impact of a severe accident is expected to be lower than a severe accident in a larger reactor. All this consideration brings to the fact that there is room to reduce, if not eliminate, the emergency planning zone. And here is a very important conceptual point. You know that with the new safety approach, even provided by the IEA, the level of defense, five, not four, there is a fifth level of defense in depth, which is emergency preparedness and response. So it means that in any case, as the operators and all the systems should be ready to face any kind of emergency situation, including a severe accident. The fact that there is an option with SMR and also this has been also already clarified even for reactors. The fact that in principle, you can at least reduce the EPZ. It's not also eliminate. It depends very much on the interpretation of practical elimination of some severe accident condition. The fact that we can really, in the future, eliminate the emergency planning zone is very much linked on the fact that you can practically exclude some scenario. In such a case, with some cost, there is a room even to eliminate the EPZ. But the fact that we eliminate the EPZ, since in any case, we'll be based on probabilistic costs or a combination of probabilistic and deterministic analysis, doesn't mean that someone will eliminate the fifth level of the defense in depth. It means that EPR, not the reactor, the emergency preparedness and redness, also to an extreme event, should be in place anyway. Also for SMR, also, for example, for reactors. So in order to keep the fifth level of defense in depth of any nuclear power plant. Another question is the possibility to, as we say, integrate with the renewable source liquid total diet. The SMR, under consideration, are of different type. Water-cooled reactor, gas-cooled reactor, nuclear-cooled reactor. First of all, since we are talking about water-cooled reactor, of course, we concentrate on that. But they are also the most credible for a near-term deployment. If we exclude the case of HTR PM, which is under construction in China, but it's a unique case, all of the other cases which are considered for the near-term deployment are water-cooled reactor. Please. Well, because renewables is a reality. Well, I can give my personal opinion. There is a technical evidence that a nuclear power plant, intrinsically, because of the technology, they work well at full power, full nominal power. So whatever you can try to demonstrate, the fact that you are trying to use a reactor in the kind of load-falling mode, for sure, is not really considered. You can do it, even with the current reactor. You can do it. There are reactor which are. But we can't see whatever. It's not in the nature of that technology. So in my view, from the technology viewpoint, in my view, it would make more sense to use a nuclear power. For instance, in combination with hydropower, we keep always a non-elastic application. It means that we keep the reactor at full power. And then, if there is less demand, we do something else with that extra production. For instance, pumping water in a reservoir. So none of that. But then, what happened? Then there are political considerations. I don't know how to say, also economic considerations. In some part of the world, if not in the whole world, because this is true also in China, renewables are a reality. So of course, there are attempts to combine two different energy sources and to give some good elements so that it's worth to combine different energy sources for some performances, even if the technology is not really designed for that purpose. Anyway, in my view, there is still a lot to be understood on that. For instance, in this question of the coupling of renewables with, in particular, SMR, which should be, in principle, the best option to be coupled with renewables, there is also how we impact on the smart greed of the now considered for the renewables. Or how about the combi? I've seen a very interesting combination of energy storage. Not only electric energy storage, et cetera, but now also storage of the heat. All these different combination has still to be really understood. So in my view, it's a good option just because nuclear power is a reality. Renewables are more and more a reality. So it's worth to take benefit of the reality or to try to do it. And then to investigate all the possible scenarios. And then maybe we can find some good reason to use different energy sources in combination. Also to address different needs of the energy mixer for the different countries. Countries are not the same. And even the energy mix can be for different countries. So in term of deployment, here is the situation with SMR. At the moment, there are only three SMR under construction. Actually, when we talk about the modular reactor, this is true only for CARM-25 in Argentina and HTR PM, PM, the gas cooled reactor in China. These are really modular reactor, even from the conceptual viewpoint. This is not the case of KLT-46, which is not really a small modular reactor, but is an advanced small reactor also for non-land-based application. Of course, they are under construction. So they are considered to go into operation in the next years. And they are first of the kind. Then there are a number of concepts which are certified or at the advanced design stage. So ready to initiate the licensing process. And if you see all of them, well, they have also introduced this 4S breast and SBBR. I'm not very convinced that they are in this situation. However, let's say that most of them are IPWI. So it means that for the near term deployment, at least our understanding is that most of the, I mean, SMR, which will be offered by the vendors in coming years will be IPWI. At least, I mean, there should be a number of different IPWI offered, let's say, in the next 10 years. For the first time, we have the voice, the female voice, so please. With SMR? With SMR? With SMR? Yes. It's another challenge, it's not obvious. We are investigating on that and also, of course, involving the regulators. In principle, yes, in principle, yes. Because also, when you say the reactor is shop fabricated, what does it mean? Is that not only the vendor can make all is qualification process not on site money in a version. But also the regulators that they have to go and perform their task. They can do it in a worship. It could be much efficient and also faster than on site. On site, of course, you can understand. By default, everything is more complicated. The other point is, as I said, one point is that is related to the technology, to the fact that since they are small, they allow some layout which are not affordable for a large reactor, the integral of PWR. So, of course, even in terms of safety performance are expected to be significantly better than the larger reactor. I was working on Iris, the concept that developed by Westinghouse, and the goal was to have 10 to six minus eight CDF, both for internal and external events. And the best at the moment is 10 to the minus seven of the AP1000. Also, the fact is that the reactor is simplified and is heavily based on passive safety system can help the licensing process, okay? And last, but not least, the reactor is small, so also the source term is proportionally small. So these are all elements which should favor the licensing process and speed up the license process. But do we have experience on that? No. What we are doing, the IA has created a form for regulators specifically for SMR. So that asks the creators to come to the agency and try, first of all, to harmonize as a safety criteria for SMR. One of the things that we are doing is to revise the SSR2-1 in light of the SMR. So we can try to understand without the criteria which are applicable as they are. The criteria which are applicable with interpretation, you have to keep that in light of the fact that you have a different technology. The criteria which are not applicable at all. And the new criteria which may be introduced in the safety standards because of the specific technology. But we don't have experience or the unersee of whatever we'll do with the SMR. We try to favor the process, but we don't have still feedback on practical reasons. Now we have, sorry, we have a case in Latin America and we have a very soon a case in the US. I mean, Karen in Argentina. And very soon, new scale in the US which have already initiated the licensing process who will seek the attitude of the regulators. A big issue is the human resources. Whenever you propose an advanced reactor it's not only a question to have the right people, the right to technology, blah, blah, blah. It's the fact that the regulators should be ready why it's a reactor which doesn't know very well. Okay, so there is a very big issue in having very skilled and prepared human resources for regulators and PSO. Time is over, please. You skip your coffee break. Please, please, go ahead, but quick. Yeah, okay, Karen, because I understand what you're, the PSA of a single unit, the probability safety analysis for assessment for a single unit and multi-unit is very different. It's the point, it's very good point. Fukushima has demonstrated that and the fact that PSA level one, level two, level three, even the concept of level one, level two, level three has to be reconsidered at the light of the multi-unit. Sometime also the multi-reactors, you have in the same side the multi-reactors. And the fact that you combine a posteriori, the PSA of the single unit for a multi-unit doesn't work. From the, even from the mathematical view point is not correct. So thank you for the question because we are just launching a CRP in my section which is the PSA for multi-unit and multi-reactors. There is something to be done even from the theoretical viewpoint. And we have seen in Fukushima that a level one in one of the reactor can affect the level two in another reactor, okay? Which was not considered so far. So yeah, I fully agree with you. And we have to reconsider even the CDF in light of the fact that is a multi-unit. Again, it's PSA. Let me at least, because I know that some of you already knows the IPWR. But let me at least before going to coffee break to show you what does it mean in IPWR as otherwise some of you will still remain with this doubt. Okay, so IPWR means that if you consider, we have two cases here of SMR, SMART South Korea and WAC SMR which is their replacement of my baby, which was Iris. So here is a typical for loop PWR which you have the reactor vessel, these steam generators. You have the control roll device mechanism. What else? The press riser, press riser and the pumps, okay? When we say IPWR it means that all these components go inside the primary vessel. So here you have the steam generator here and here. In the upper part you have the press riser here and here. Of course the vessel is larger with the same power because the vessel will be larger for the same power. And also in some concept also the pumps are inside as well as the CRBM, okay? Of course to have a pump and CRBM inside the vessel there are a number of things to be addressed. There is also R&D ongoing because you can imagine that you have to operate an electromagnetic device under very harsh conditions. So it's not, I mean the fact is that we can arrange the steam generators and pump and the press riser inside the vessel, I don't see major problem. There are still some thermo-hydraulic issue to be, for instance normally the steam generators are of a helicoidal type because they have to be compact and there is still something to be qualified for the instability of two tubes, helicoidal tube. The instability that can be generated when you have a number of parallel spiral tubes operating in the steam generators. But it's something which is, I mean in my view is straightforward to address. The point of some mechanism like CRBM and other electrical things inside the reactor vessel which operated 15 megapascals and 300 degrees C is still open issue and there are suppliers in particular Roy Roy's working on that. Okay, so of course the result is this one, a much more compact layout of the, and the other point is of course that you practically eliminate the locale in the privacy because there is no piping, okay? All the, I mean the only tubes which comes out from the reactor vessel are secondary. So in principle, you eliminate the locale in the primary system. These two are both modular because they are designed in order to be used in this configuration, sorry, I'll show you in a moment. Here, like that, okay? So in batteries, okay? So they are single unit, okay, of a certain power that first of all they are shop fabricated and transported to site in order to be, yeah? For smart, maybe, I don't remember. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The other thing that you'll never see because it's sometimes you, I'm just reading that there are, what's the name of the computer? Yeah, in this case of smart, it can help you, okay? But it's like that the reactor can help many. Yeah, it's the same, like a machine. There's no modular, okay, it's not, okay? But like new case, you have one single room, okay? Contra room, yeah. Contra room, with many. That's what is part of the modular. But in principle, when you have a series of the reactor, which are operated simultaneously and with the same stop of operator, of course you have modular. With smart, it's true, it's not, it's not the case. During the coffee break, because otherwise, really we cannot talk about the rest. It's already, it's free, and, okay? Thank you. I think we'll break it now for coffee and then we'll come back at 315. After me, there is another presentation. Yeah, fine. Ah. No, no, no, no, no, I will go faster. Again, I try to, I mean because, yeah. Yeah, we have a little time.