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