 Good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome back to day two of the scientific forum. Our ranks are a bit thinner this morning. Usually we have the evening reception as an excuse for that. We don't have that this time around, but many of us have other reasons at the moment. So great to have all of you with us who are here in the room, and also a very very warm welcome to our online audience. Great to have you back with us as well. Just a quick housekeeping hint to those who are in the room. Please be so kind as to fill out the forms on your seats or on your desks that tell us who you are and that you've been here. That is part of the health regulations so that we can be sure to keep everybody healthy and safe. We had a far-reaching discussion yesterday during day one of the scientific forum about the advantages associated with nuclear power when it comes to addressing a climate crisis that is exacting an increasingly severe toll on our environment and also on our economies. And as we heard from an outstanding lineup of scientists, policy makers and experts, nuclear can play a key role in decarbonizing not only our energy systems, but also industrial sectors in which abatement is difficult and costly. Now on the second day of the forum, we want to ask what could tip the balance further in favor of nuclear power? How can we boost its share in the world's clean energy mix? To answer that question, we begin today in session three by drilling deeper on a topic that we also touched on yesterday, namely the crucial role of innovation. But this time around, we want to take a look at how technological advances are influencing the sustainability and the safety of the entire life cycle of nuclear power from fuel production and use to waste management. Later on in session four, we're going to take a look at potential barriers to expanding nuclear's share in the clean energy mix and ask how the IAEA can help overcome them in its support and cooperation with member states. Before we begin focusing on nuclear power specifically, let's start with the big picture and talk about the energy life cycle as a whole. To accurately compare and combine different sources of energy, we need ways that we can conceive and measure the sustainability not only of each individual component, but also of all taken as a system, a holistic system. This groundbreaking approach is known as life cycle assessment, and our first speaker is well known for his expertise in applying it to variable renewable energy sources. It is a pleasure to welcome live here in the hall, Gerfried Jungmeier, he's a researcher at the Joanneum Research Life Institute for Climate, Energy and Society in Graz, here in Austria. So if you would please join us here at the podium. Great to have you with us live. Okay, good morning everybody. It's a pleasure for me to be here in life. I come from Graz, which is just a two and a half hour train ride from Vienna here, so it was easy for me to make it. Today I'm going to tell you about variable renewable energy sources and about innovation in life cycle management towards a climate friendly lifestyle. In one of the presentations yesterday, we already heard once the word lifestyle in my presentation, you will hear it a little bit often. There is really a need, a strong need to reduce greenhouse gases. We know that the temperature is increasing, and therefore we have to reduce CO2 emissions significantly. And if we look on the main factors influencing the CO2 emissions, we end up with four factors influencing the total greenhouse gas emission. The first factor is how much greenhouse gas emissions do you emit to provide a certain amount of energy? The second factor is how much energy do you need to provide a service or product? Number three is how many services and products per capita do we need? And last but not least of how many people are we talking? And this formula, at least we have to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. So if one of these factors is going up, the others have to compensate to keep it down. On the other hand, if we are able to reduce one of these factors to zero, for example, no greenhouse gas emission for energy service, the whole system will have zero emission. And this is at least the background of the research we do at UNAM Research in Graz, because these two factors here, they describe the future energy system. And I'm a mechanical engineer and so this is the focus of my activity. And my colleagues, the work on the other two factors, it's about the lifestyle. And I'm convinced that both of them have to contribute to solve problem of greenhouse gas emissions and to come to a greenhouse gas free future. When we talk about future energy systems, at least we want to provide energy services and that we can do by using renewable energy services. And renewable energy sources, some of them are variable like photovoltaic or wind. Hydropower is not so variable, mainly between summer and winter. And biomass at least is a kind of storage of renewable energy and then use it when you need it. But on the other hand you also need other factors to provide an energy service. So if you have clean electricity and you put it in a train, of course this is more efficient and less greenhouse gas emitting compared to put it in an electric vehicle. And the good thing is you can trade between these two factors. And I'm also strongly convinced that we have to put more efforts on the energy efficiency of our system and not only providing more renewable energy. And the other part is about lifestyle. And lifestyle, the focus is the people are the focus of that research and what we need in daily life. We need food, we need a house, we need information, we need mobility, we need products and services and also this scheme here of course we want to have recreation and holiday. And if you look in the statistic to see how big are the greenhouse gas emissions of the Austrians, you might end up seeing that the average Austrian is having roughly 9 tons greenhouse gases per capita in the year. If you split it up to the nine provinces it looks like that the guys in Vienna they have only four tons per capita. They seem to be more sustainable than the colleagues living in Upper and Lower Austria. But the whole steel industry in Austria is located in Upper and Lower Austria and that says that is not a fair comparison. And you have to be aware that this national greenhouse gas emissions per capita in a global economy is totally obsolete because it just describes how much emissions occur in one country or in one province but it's not an indicator on the lifestyle of the different people living there. So what do we have to do? We have to apply life cycle assessment because only life cycle assessment is the method to really describe environmental effects especially greenhouse gases of different products and services. And life cycle means to include the production, the operation and the end of life of a system and then see how much environmental effects have occurred. And this is at least more or less now an international consensus if we talk about environmental effects you have to apply life cycle assessment. So if you apply life cycle assessment in your daily life and you go to a supermarket and you spend a 10 euro and you get products and the product for 10 euros they have emitted 4 kilograms of greenhouse gases. You don't see them in the shop but to make them and bring them there you have emitted 4 kilograms of CO2 and it's the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions compared to driving 20 kilometers with a conventional diesel or gasoline vehicle and we see the emissions on the vehicles but we also have to consider the emissions embedded in the product you find in the supermarket. And if you apply now the life cycle thinking on the Austrian population on all the consumption they have and all the things in daily life they need you end up that in total the average Austrian is having emissions between 13 and 15 tons greenhouse gas per capita and year in average. And if you look a little bit closer you see that 40% is with our goods with all our consumption so if we go shopping for example this is one major contribution next is mobility with roughly 25 food and feed and the eating is 11% and all the others are less than 24%. And the second important thing is that from these 13 to 15 tons 50% occur directly here in Austria but 50% occur somewhere else outside in the global economy abroad but the services are brought to Austria and we consume of course these products and services. And if we talk about life cycle assessment we have always to consider the production, the operation and the dismantling of a certain thing and we look on the accumulated emission you have during the whole system and this might be an energy system A where you accumulate up the greenhouse gas emission or other environmental effects over the overall lifetime and during this operation period for example in the power plant where you produce electricity you then can divide the total accumulated emissions by the energy service you have provided during operation. Another system can look like this, this could be a system where on the end of life where you are able to reuse and recycle some of the materials you spend on the very beginning to produce them you might get them back on the very end. So if B is lower than A, B is better. There might be other systems where you might have a bigger effort in the dismantling system so therefore it's very important to really consider the whole system to make a comparison but all the systems of course have to provide the same service. And there's a long, long list of different environmental effects from global warming about radiation, resource consumption, area consumption so that's a very complex area because the environment has so many different impacts they have to be considered or should be considered in life cycle thinking. And if we talk about renewable energy sources, what are the innovations in life cycle management we are doing at Ioneum in Austria. Of course for this variable power supply for the Walthaik and wind we have to include storage system to meet the demand and the supply of the service. For the bioenergy it's a tricky thing to really make a time-dependent counting of the CO2 fixation, storage and release. And of life management of course it's very important to recycle and reuse components, materials and maybe also energy. And finally we need to develop strategies for climate neutrality of all energy sources of all renewable energy sources of all our products and services. Climate neutrality from a scientific point of view, climate neutrality means you should not emit any greenhouse gases in the whole life cycle. So this is a very tough thing so no CO2, no methane, no N2O, no greenhouse gas at all in the overall life cycle than your climate neutral. If that is not possible you can of course spend some efforts in other projects to fix or compensate CO2. But in all of these efforts it's also very important the timeline when you're going to emit the greenhouse gases. The ways for realization I think it will be a stony way, a rough way. We need climate friendly consumption, we need products with a high quality and a long lifetime. We have to increase energy and material efficiency significantly. We have to substitute fossil energy by renewable energy, reduce direct gases in agriculture and last but not least there are some possibilities to store CO2 permanently. And this is my last slide guiding you, giving you some picture from Paris. It's about climate friendly lifestyle. Why do I show you pictures from Paris? Because we work now on low carbon lifestyle and we have developed the word of the Paris lifestyle. And why did we create the word Paris lifestyle? Because we think the Paris lifestyle is a future innovative satisfying low carbon lifestyle where you can have a good life but with your daily life you really fulfill the requirements of the Paris agreement to keep the global warming significant to at least below the two degrees. So this is a new lifestyle and the good thing of this new lifestyle is it also creates new economic opportunities because the demand for low carbon products, carbon neutral products and services will increase and that might stimulate innovation and our economic development. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And please take a seat perhaps this seat if you would and then we'll come back to you shortly in the Q&A. And I thought perhaps you would tell us that you call it the Paris lifestyle because Graz is the Paris of Austria which of course some could say it to be. With that approach in mind let us now come back to nuclear power and talk about the end of the nuclear life cycle because it is in fact at that stage that many questions have risen. And I'm talking especially about the issue of waste management. As we will hear cutting-edge research is now identifying new and sustainable ways to offset challenges associated with spent fuel for example. As Chief Operating Officer at Sellafield Limited our next speaker is responsible for the safe decommissioning and cleanup of the like-named site which in fact is one of the most complex nuclear and industrial facilities in the world. Joining us virtually now is Rebecca Weston. Welcome. Hello everyone. I'm Rebecca Weston. I'm the Chief Operating Officer at Sellafield Limited which is part of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in the UK. In terms of innovations within spent nuclear fuel management I'm going to talk about the UK's position preparing for decades of safe wet storage of our advanced gas-called reactor fuel from some of our reactors here in the UK. In front of you is an image of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant receipt and storage pond within which our AGR fuel will be stored for the next 80 years pending a long-term disposal solution. The thought reprocessing facility completed its reprocessing mission in 2018 and has commenced post-operational clean-out and is stepping into decommissioning of elements of the facility. The receipt and storage pond however is being reconfigured to act as an interim store for the remaining spent fuel within the UK pending emplacement of that fuel in a geological disposal facility on government decision with regard to declaring fuel as waste for disposal in such a facility. Clearly in order to underpin a storage regime such as we proposed for 80 years a robust regime of condition monitoring and inspection is required to deliver that. I'm going to talk about some of the innovations we have already implemented and some which are underway. Perhaps one of the positives of wet storage clearly it supports the UK storage strategy that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority have laid out. One of the advantages of wet storage within the pond is that there is easier access to the fuel as opposed to within dry storage casks or within new facilities if a dry regime was undertaken. It allows for easy access for detection of issues and it's certainly an area where the UK has significant experience and knowledge in storage of wet fuel to date. I think also important that the wet approach and utilising existing facilities allows us to be flexible for future strategies whether that's a change in stance around the fuel cycle or being open to future innovations around either drying or long-term storage of nuclear fuel. I should point out at this stage there are clear differences between light-water reactor and the advanced gas-cooled reactor fuels clearly. A stainless steel clad within the AGR as opposed to typically zircaloy for light-water reactor fuel and each fuel channel in reactor with the stringers of eight fuel elements containing a number of pins each means a different set of irradiation conditions experienced as compared to light-water reactor assemblies and clearly has an impact on not just the storage regime but the monitoring and sampling regimes that are adopted for the different types of fuel. So in terms of innovations already delivered to support the strategy we have changed the pH over time to a more alkaline position as a corrosion inhibitor. We've looked at the storage arrangement to maximise the input within the pond and we've undertaken post- irradiation, post-storage examination of the fuel to understand the fundamentals of the challenges of storage over a significant period of time. But there is much more to do around the condition monitoring and inspection. In particular, any current testing is something that's a well-worn technique in post- irradiation examination but new developments in this regard allow us to consider potential vulnerabilities of particular fuel types with regard to stress corrosion, cracking and look for early signs of that. We've been using remotely operated vehicles within our legacy ponds to undertake a whole range of activities and some of the cross-learning and transfer of knowledge from some of those programs has as considering the use and using ROVs within our storage ponds. Sampling is a good example of this and it reduces the need for personnel interaction and indeed sample transference and the like outside of the pond. Smart monitoring is something we're also keen to further explore. It's something we consider at the moment and use in our waste containers on dry land. It's something to investigate further as to implement that effectively within a wetted environment within the pond. So to summarize around some of the innovations aligned to nuclear spent fuel management particularly around the approach of wet storage in the UK which is the current UK strategy for the remainder of the ADR fuel pending transfer to a geological disposal facility we need to be confident in our ability to keep the fuel safe and that's underpinned by data both to date but continuing to explore innovations around monitoring inspection in particular and this enables us to stay flexible for future developments and strategy changes as well. Thank you for listening. And we will have a chance shortly to pose questions to Rebecca Weston as well as to Gerfried Jungmeyer. Let's now stay with the question of nuclear waste and look at another challenging issue namely geological disposal. Here too significant progress is being made thanks to scientific and technological advances. Countries are now developing deep geological repositories like Finland for example which expects to start operating its facility in 2025 so less than five years from now. It is a pleasure to hand over to the video presentation of the Iso Heikin Heimo. She's Deputy Director General for Nuclear Energy and Affairs in Finland's Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment. Good morning everyone. My name is Lisa Heikin Heimo. I come from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, the Department of Energy there. I'm responsible for the nuclear energy. My topic is progress and innovation in deep geological disposal and the case Finland. Nuclear waste management policies in Finland we can say for major rules. Policy was formulated in 1983. We need to take care of all the waste but then it was allowed to export waste as well. This was banned in 1994 and also the nuclear waste import was banned at that time. A very important cornerstone is that utilities have the responsibility of taking care of the nuclear waste management. This is why Fortument TVO established in 1995 Posiva Company which is dedicated in nuclear waste management. Funding of nuclear waste management is always required for the full amount. Here is a view of the Posiva site in front of this picture. The Olkiluoto TVO nuclear power plant site is on the top of the picture. And there you can see also the interim storage for the spent fuel in wet pools. The similar one is located in Lovis at the other side in Finland. In the Posiva area you can see that construction works are ongoing. There is also the road, the tunnel into the repository ready for the construction vehicles. And for further on for all the operational needs. This is the schedule of Posiva today. We are somewhere mid of the copper canister bar here. 2020 the end-capsulation plant construction is ongoing. The repository works started already four years ago. And we anticipate that this construction will be finalized by 2021. And the operating license application will be sent to our ministry like one year from now or one and a half years from now. And the operation will start around 2024 after the operating license granting. The closure of the final disposal facility will then take after around 100 years from the operation starts. And what will it include? It will include the repository final capacity 6500 tons of uranium corresponding to about 3300 capsules or canisters of spent fuel. The depth of the tunnel is somewhere minus 450 meters and the final extent will yield about two square kilometers. This means that in total about 1.5 million cubic meters of bedrock has to be excavated to build all the tunnels. Which will make about 60 to 70 kilometers in total. Some pictures from the site from the construction of the end-capsulation plant. On the left there is this big concrete which is yielding the third floor of the end-capsulation plant building. It's in fact a huge hot cell itself for the encapsulation of the spent fuel and closing the canisters. In the middle there will be the welding and machining station for the canisters after the fuel has been put into the capsules. Then the lids are welded and machined. And on the right some more ready spaces which are located below the ground level. From the outside of the encapsulation plant you can see the connection to the capsule hoist shaft, pointed with the red arrow and this is the path from the encapsulation plant to the repository for the copper canisters. And the capsule transport corridor is on the right side. They are very heavy components. You need rails and cranes to move them inside the big hot cell building. Then from the repository underground some illustrations. On the right side you can see the shape of the tunnel and a bit of the size of the tunnel. These are from the central tunnels 5 and 6 these pictures. And some details from the repository works. Elevator shaft shielding has been made ready. It is moving the capsules from the top to the repository area. Also first wall from parking area to the controlled area are in progress. And the ventilation installations are in progress. These are solid tubes for the ventilation. And what does this mean for our ministry? Like the next text? Of course we need a positive safety assessment for the operating license application from our authorities to both for the operation and for the long term safety. We have some licensing issues to be decided. First the duration of the first operating license. The licensing will cover 100 years from now in total and we need to think if we make it stepwise. Then special conditions for the licensing of operation depending on the application. And other legal and liability issues where we need some international cooperation. As a summary I can say we see that we have a solution for the high level waste final disposal. And POSIVA is now realizing it for the disposal. And thank you for your attention. And she will be back with us shortly for a Q&A. But first we hear our last presentation in this session which focuses on technological innovation to close the fuel cycle. Thereby enabling the reuse of natural resources where possible and also reducing the toxicity of the remaining nuclear waste. Angelica Capascaia has been working in the nuclear industry for more than 30 years. She's currently the lead senior manager at Rosatom's project office. And she sent us this video presentation. Good morning dear colleagues. I would like to provide you with a short presentation about the place of past reactor with closed fuel cycle in a sustainable future of nuclear energy. We can divide fuel cycle option into open fuel cycle with direct disposal spent fuel as a waste after long term storage. And closed fuel cycle with monorecycling and multiple recycler or continuous recycling in breed reactors. The scientific community estimated how the type of fuel cycle affects the parameters of preserving natural uranium and red waste management. Recycling spent fuel in the monorecycling scenario saving up to about 25 natural uranium. In multi recycling scenario using spent fuel in stocks of depleted uranium can save almost 100% of natural uranium resources. Differences in heat load and waste volume may have a major impact of the size of the repository. The high level waste volume is reduced significantly in closed fuel cycle options as compared to open cycle. Monorecycle has only 70% of the high level waste volume of open cycle and multi recycle is only 5%. Decay heat is also significantly reduced in continuous recycling options. Why fast reactor can save natural resource? The answer is in characteristics of fast spectrum and in behavior of fissile and peptide isotopes in thermal and fast-netron spectrum. Fissile isotopes can fission in both thermal and fast spectrum. But the fission fraction is higher in fast spectrum. And fertile isotopes can significantly fission in a fast spectrum. In the thermal reactors only a small part of the energy potential of natural uranium is used. Fast reactor can convert the depleted uranium into fissile materials. As a result the amount of energy extracted from the same amount of uranium is extended by a factor of at least 50. For open cycle with the current number of reactors the total identified resource of uranium will run out after about 130 years. Fast reactor can provide energy for the next 1000 years with the already known uranium resource. The long term radiological toxicity is dominated by the actinides. Natron balance in fast reactor is suitable for recycled transuranics. With uranium, plutonium, neptonium recycling in fast reactors and burning all the minor actinides. The period over which high level radioactive waste remains hazardous could be reduced from 100 of 1000 years down to a few hundred years. With reduction of the monitoring period of final repository to time scale within human experience and enhance public acceptance of nuclear energy. During the implementing large scale fast reactors nuclear energy system the two component nuclear energy system consisted of thermal and fast reactors will exist for a long period. In Russia the two component nuclear energy system with closed nuclear fuel cycle is a strategical. Fast reactor experience consist from about 20 fast reactors with more than 400 operating years. Test and demonstration reactors built and operated in US, France, UK, Russia, Japan, India, German and China. Now two large scale fast reactor banned 600 and banned 800 operates in Russia. I can also mention beer test reactor under construction in Russia and test reactor announced for design construction in US. Gen4 roadmap identify three fast reactor technology for consideration. Sodium cooled fast reactors, lead cooled fast reactor, gas cooled fast reactor and many countries including Russia, US, France, Japan, China, India, Belgium, South Korea are involved in developing fast reactor technology with relevant fuel cycle. Russia has a long history of fast reactor developments and operating sodium cooled fast reactors. Now Russia operates two industrial size fast reactor and this year the first cell batch of mox fuel loaded into banned 800 coal. Next year we plan to have full coal with mox fuel. For testing lead cooled fast reactor breath 300 in a closed fuel cycle. The experimental and demonstration energy complex now is under construction at the Siberian chemical combine. The complex will include breath reactor power unit, refabrication model for mixed uranium plutonium nitride fuel and the reprocessing model of a spent fuel. As a conclusion, almost all nuclear reactors under operation are thermal reactors which don't allow a complete utilization of natural resources. A fast reactor enhanced sustainability of nuclear energy utilization and the characteristics of the fast spectrum and closed fuel cycle guarantee a potential energy supply for thousands of years and the effective management of high level waste. Fast reactor technology has been brought to a high level of technical maturity in the last decades and many countries are engaged in the development of innovative fast reactor with closed fuel cycle concept. Important research efforts are worldwide devoted to cover technological web. Thank you for your attention. That was our final presentation now in session three and we want to go straight into a question and answer session both with those in the room and also with our online audience. And once again, Jeff Donovan is with me to moderate those online questions. And we'll begin though with questions right here in the room, either for Gefried Jungmeyer who's with us here live in person and or for our other speakers, all of whom are also now joining us live online. So maybe we can see them. There they are. And may I note that we have an unusual gender balance in this session. Great to see all of you. So who has a question in the room, first of all, for any of our speakers. OK, not seeing any hands going up yet. It's early. There's one, please, and do tell us if you would who you are and where you come from. Good morning. My name is Alexander Bichkov, representative of Rosatom. But I have one, maybe philosophical question to Mr. Jungmeyer. Your conception is really very attractive and progressive. But more than one billion people in the world has no access to any type of power and more than one billion has have limited access to power. Mainly it's, of course, in developing countries. What kind of conception you can advise for him? The same as Paris Life Cycle? Or maybe you have something else? I'm sorry. No, Mike, there. I'll get you this one. Here you are. Thank you very much for this question. Of course, the challenges we're facing on a global scale are very, very big. So therefore, in our research we have now a strong focus here on European lifestyle and to develop them to climate friendly lifestyles and then see how that can be used also in other parts of the world. And the second thing, I think it was about the heat you mentioned, how we can supply heat, climate friendly, or what was the question? Not only heat, not only heat. In many countries with high population and in developing countries, really a lot of people have no access to power. For them, it's any type of power, coal, oil, it's very progressive and they cannot live in this Paris lifestyle. So this climate lifestyle is, of course, a necessity if you want to fulfill the Paris targets. And we work now to develop lifestyles in the technical way and also in a transformation of the current lifestyle to more climate friendly lifestyle. And that's one very important thing is really to consider how people are going to live, what are their daily needs. And most of these things, and I personally say very often in a country like Austria or in Graz, where I come from, you have already quite today a very good possibility to have daily life with low greenhouse gas emissions in all the different areas. If you consume products with a high quality and a long lifetime, if you use very energy efficient services which are provided by renewable energy. And so at least there are already many solutions available quite now that you are able to live a life with at least relatively low greenhouse gas emissions. And that is something we are trying to further develop and also for other people, for other countries to follow this way in a new progressive innovative economic development. Maybe I can pose a very short follow up question which kind of goes in the same direction I think, namely whether you're suggesting that we can get to climate neutrality simply through renewable sources plus lifestyle changes? Yes. And energy efficiency and material efficiency I think is a key which is very much not in the center of our research. So really energy efficiency and material efficiency should be an unfair thing. And then of course we need renewable energy and of course we need a transformation in our lifestyle. And if you look on this hybrid conference, the only speaker may be being here in person and it's very possible to also make a very attractive conversation scientific exchange also by not traveling all people here to Vienna, but using the facilities. Indeed. And that's what we're doing. That's what we're doing and I think this is just a good example that we are really able and there are ideas to reduce greenhouse gases. And I'm a technical guy and I do my business for more than 30 years and in technology in all the areas we made a good progress which is eaten up by the development of the people. Now we have more efficient cars but we drive more. We have more efficient buildings but we have bigger buildings and all that. So we have really to focus also more on lifestyle on the people's behavior. That's what we try to do. Thank you very much. Let me now ask Jeff, unless we have other questions in the room live, then I'm going to ask Jeff because I've gotten a sign that there are quite a few coming in online. Thank you Melinda. We do have quite a few questions. There's one on renewables so maybe we can just continue with our panelists on that one and then move to the other questions. Okay let's keep that one very brief because we don't have a whole lot of time. Okay the question is about life cycle management of renewable energy sources. Are there any innovations or advances to note with regard to issues related to mining and also decommissioning and disposal of hardware and elements some toxic in the life cycle? Yeah that's at least important for all energy systems. You always need resources to build a facility, a power plant or a heating plant. And of course for the renewables that even becomes more relevant because most of the impacts you have on the very beginning when you install for example photovoltaic. And our innovations go that you really on the end of life are able to recover most of the material, most of the components to reuse or recycle them. So that is a strong focus to really go into a circular economy which is still right high on our research agenda to really close the different material cycles and reuse and recycle again and again to reduce at least the depletion of raw materials from the ground. Thank you very much. Jeff how about questions for our other panelists. Yes so we have a couple of questions about Finland and the deep geological repository that's being developed. I'll combine them. First question is for Lisa Heikenheimer. What sort of key challenges remain to be resolved before the facility can go into operation? And can you tell us something about public attitudes towards this facility particularly in the communities, nearby communities? Great that's for Lisa Heikenheimer. Okay thank you for the questions. Maybe I first start with the question about the public attitude. In general in Finland we have a rather positive attitude towards nuclear energy today and especially at the communities nearby the sites. There are of course many reasons for this development and one important reason is taking care of the nuclear waste. I think the work the companies have made for the operating waste for over 20 years now to dispose of and all the safety measures as well for the waste management they are an important part for this. So this is a long-term work and the situation is today rather good but it needs to be taking good care of as well. So about what challenges are still before the licensing. I think the construction stage is rather like engineering stage that major decisions and developments are already enhanced but of course because of going into the bedrock there will be new questions into the bedrock. They are a natural environment and you can't predict it exactly before. So these type of tools we need to develop probably continuously and I must apologize for the talk. I said that the construction will be finalized when the operating license application is sent to our ministry but of course it's continuing because it's part of the operation. So I think the repository construction works and continuous development is needed there. So I hope this was an answer for the questions. Thank you. Jeff may I before we move on to other panels may I put in a very short follow up question also to to Lisa and it's this you talked about a license of 100 years we're talking about very long time periods here. I know disposal sites actually measure their time frame in geological time meaning thousands of years. So one question I would have is what kind of plans you're making for maintaining skills knowledge monitoring and so on in these very long time frames. OK. Thank you for this question. I think this is this is one of the major concerns that we have to take care already today that the skills and knowledge needs to be maintained and developed. And I think it is linked to my previous answer that there is a continuous need for research and development in this field and for the repository. And this is one of the major tools. But the other fact is that if we think about the licensing stepwise we could put some steps to to enhance this maintaining the skills as well. So to link these processes together and this is the questions we are today thinking about. Thank you. Thank you very much. So back to you Jeff. Sorry for that. Thank you. There's a question for Rebecca Weston in the UK. Can you elaborate a bit on the studies that you are doing to ensure that the nuclear fuel remains safe. What are some of the challenges to this. Thank you for that question and good morning everybody. In terms of the studies that we're undertaking with clearly looking at the fuel that is currently being stored in the pond and we do have the benefits of having stored material for a long period of time. So we are able to take some of that material for post irradiation examination. And that gives us a good experience over a number of decades that we can use to predict future performance in the environment where we're looking at. We're also increasing our capability in terms of online monitoring and that is something that is continuing to develop. Jeff. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. There was there were a few questions on fast reactors. Maybe I'll just try to pull out the main elements for them and pose that to our panelists from the Russian Federation. Basically the questions are there only seem to be a couple of fast reactors in operation today in the two in Beloyarsk in Russia. And there have been some programs that have not exactly shown let's say in several countries on fast reactors. So the question is to what extent is this technology really the future if its use today is somewhat limited. And some of the examples haven't been terribly successful so far. Thank you. Angelica. Good morning everybody once again. And as for answer for your question Jeff I would say that we are sure we are convinced we are confirmed that we are going to develop fast reactor technology. And I already mentioned that we are going to have not only sodium fast reactor but also lead fast reactor and we have a big program in this area. We are developing new type of fuel not only moxa fuel but also nitrite fuel and there are a lot of programs I mentioned also France and U.S. program with a continuum in that direction continued development in that direction. But in case of in some country this program will be stopped. We can Russia and France also develop the program with multi recycling or a new plutonium fuel in existing fleet MPP fleet which can provide multiple recycling also reprocessing and recycling up to five seven times. That also give many many positive results in reducing radio toxicity and reducing the high level waste to be disposed. As for transmutation system exist different approaches besides fast reactor for example molten salt conception which can transmute minor actinine and accelerated driven system also. So there is there is another plan but we are we are sure that our technology mature now and can be developed in the in the future. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Any more coming in Jeff. No. Okay. Thank you very much. Let me also just give another chance to the room here those who are with us. Anyone here have a question that they would like to pose to one of our panel members. Sorry. Oh there we go. Please. Thank you very much. My question is to remind us who you are in case though our panel wasn't there yesterday so they may not know. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Amir Manzoor from the permanent mission of Pakistan and Vienna. My question is to Dr. Rebecca from UK. Well Dr. Rebecca talked about the national policy of having wet storage for a period of like 80 years. So we very well understand as she explained also some of the benefits that might be seen by the national policy holders. But my question was that we are talking about spread of fuel throughout the country. We are also talking about regulatory issues. We are also talking about the monitoring issues. We are also talking about the operating issues and the active components are involved in such a long period of time. So the question that comes to mind is what are the real merits for example if they will be directly going to the deep geological storage from the wet storage. Thank you. So the context in the UK is really that it's wet storage for advanced gas called reactive fuel. And much of that is really we have an existing facility in the thought we store storage pond. I think in terms of the context of sustainability that we've been talking about today while it would seem that it takes more energy to store material wet for a period of time. The fact that we're reusing an existing facility rather than building new actually over the life cycle means a reduced carbon emission footprint for that. So that's one of the benefits of that route as well. In terms of wet versus dry I mean I think that's very much a contextual choice for different nations and as described really does depend on what are the commitments to geological disposal or a long term disposal solution for the fuel. And the use of the spent fuel ponds for a period in time allows some flexibility with regard to that choice for different nations. I hope that answers the question. Thank you very much. And thank you to all of our speakers for being with us for this very very interesting discussion and that does bring our session three to an end. So let's give all of them a very warm round of applause. Thanks for being with us live.