---

1. INTRODUCTION

The surface temperature of the fuel limits the power production of nuclear reactors. Intense high temperatures can damage the fuel cladding and cause a radioactive release and even provoke in-vessel accident resulting in particulate debris bed, or core melt down. Therefore, identifying the uppermost permitted surface temperature in a Light Water Reactor (LWR) is of great importance. The experiments described here define the maximum permissible power production of Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) fuel element without the risk of burnout. As witnessed by a great number of publications, the search is going on for reliable criteria to assure the safety of the fuel. Here one such criteria is analysed. Normally the fuel surface is effectively cooled by boiling water. However, when the heat flux exceeds a critical value the heat transfer from the fuel surface into the coolant deteriorates, with the result that a drastically increased fuel surface temperature occurs. Excessive fuel temperature can be caused by overpower or reduced coolant flow. At neutronics and thermal-hydraulic power oscillations when the duration of the power peaks are very short, temporary high temperature can occur without causing fuel failures as normal cooling can quickly recover. To avoid excessive fuel temperature, the knowledge of the onset of the overheating phenomena is absolutely necessary, both at the design stage and during the safe operation of a reactor. There are complex correlations especially developed for specific fuel bundle designs. These correlations contains surface power, mass flow, system pressure and other parameters. While analyzing the test results it was recognised that a single parameter, the void, characterises the onset of the overheating phenomena in a wide range of pressure and flow conditions. These results were attained from the experimental loop especially developed to study the dryout of BWR fuel elements.

2. MECHANISMS OF CRITICAL HEAT FLUX

Normally the fuel surface is effectively cooled by boiling water. However, if the heat flux exceeds a critical value the heat transfer from the fuel surface into the coolant that deteriorats, with the result a drastically increased fuel surface temperature occurs. The mechanisms of critical heat flux are:

a) Formation of hot spots under a growing bubble. Here when a bubble grows at the heated wall a dry patch forms underneath the bubble as the micro-layer of liquid under the bubble evaporates. In this dry zone, the wall temperature rises due to the deterioration in heat transfer.

b) Near-wall bubble crowding and inhibition of vapor release. Here a “bubble boundary layer” builds up on the surface and vapor generated by boiling on the surface must escape through this boundary layer. When the boundary layer becomes too crowded with bubbles, vapor escape is impossible and liquid cannot penetrate to the heated wall and cool it, the surface becomes dry and overheat gives rise to burnout.

c) Dryout under a slug or vapor clot. In plug or slug flow, the thin film surrounding the large bubble may dry out giving rise to localized overheating and hence burnout. Alternatively, a stationary vapor slug may be formed on the wall with a thin film of liquid separating it from the wall, in this case, localized drying out of this film gives rise to overheating and burn out.

d) Film dryout in annular flow

4. MEASUREMENTS

Measurements were been carried out in a two-phase flow test loop consisting of two heated concentric tubes, the central one representing a fuel rod while the outer pipe emanates the heating power corresponding to the surrounding fuel rods in a reactor core. This loop with an anular test section height of 7 m is presently located at the Division of Nuclear Engineering, KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, in Stockholm and has been in operation for some thirty years first at the Studsvik research establishment and then at KTH to simulate thermal hydraulic conditions in Boiling Water Reactors. (Figure 2)

5. TEST RESULTS

The results of these tests were studied to investigate the occurrence of the onset of the excessive temperature on the surface of the inner and outer test tubes in this annular flow system. The tests covered pressures of 30, 50 and 70 bar; sub-cooling 10ºC and 40ºC; mass velocities between 250 and 2250 kg/m²s and a total input power up to 580 kW, in this case with uniform power distribution. The tests have been repeatedly performed in an annular test section with a single fuel rod furnished with pin spacers, and 7 and 6 grid spacers alternatively. Then the test results were evaluated. To calculate the steam quality, the continuity, the heat and mass balance equations were applied.

To calculate the void three known slip correlations; Kirilov, Thoms and Zivi were used. The authors reached different results indeed, however this does not influence the conclusions of this paper. (Figure 3).

 

There has been knowledge of this, however - according to this author’s but this has not been explicitly outlined. This helps to focus on the void when planning further test loop experiments, as well as when monitoring the safety of operating reactors and when designing new fuel assemblies. By using the constraitns described here -limiting the permissible void content - damage of the fuel can be avoided.

6. AVOIDING EXCESSIVE FUEL TEMPERATURE

The awareness of this result helps the design of a tool to avoid excessive fuel surface temperature and clad failure in operating reactors. To monitor the void during operation is presently not feasible, however from the measured parameters, power, power distribution, coolant flow, pressure etc. the steam quality everywhere in the core can be calculated continuously and the void can be deduced using steam quality versus void correlation derived from loop experiments. It is interesting to note that an analytical model is described in the literature. The mathematics is applied for a Freon loop and the deduced figures coincide with the measurements from the experimental loop mentioned above. The results are summarized in Figure 5. The abrupt increase of the temperature here too occurs when the void value reaches around 90% for a wide range of subcooling.

Figure 5. Prediction of critical heat flux for Freon at p=1.5 bars, q ”= 190 kW/m² at constant liquid velocity of 0.5 m/

7. CONCLUSIONS

A series of experimental investigations on the maximum permissible power production of Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) and the effect of it on the fuel element’s surface temperature was performed at the test facility located at KTH, Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. The results show that the “void” is the principal parameter for defining the onset of the excessive surface temperature phenomena leading to burnout of a fuel rod.

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-19/two-phase-flow.htm

Two Phase Flow
Test Loop Results for BWR

Frigyes Reisch
Nuclear Power Safety, KTH, Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden
Seminar

Normally the fuel surface is effectively cooled by boiling water. However if the heat flux exceeds a critical value the heat transfer from the fuel surface into the coolant deteriorates, with the result that drastically increased fuel surface temperature occurs. According to Michael L. Corradini University of Wisconsin, Madison WI the "mechanisms of critical heat flux" are:

a) Formation of hot spot under a growing bubble, near-wall bubble crowding and inhibition of vapor release. Here, when a bubble grows at the heated wall, a dry patch forms underneath the bubble as the micro-layer of liquid under the bubble evaporates. In this dry zone, the wall temperature rises due to the deterioration in heat transfer.

b) Near-wall bubble crowding and inhibition of vapor release: here, a 'bubble boundary layer' builds up on the surface and vapor generated by boiling at the surface must escape through this boundary layer. When the boundary layer becomes too crowded with bubbles, vapor escape is impossible and the surface becomes dry and overheated, giving rise to burnout.

c) Dryout under a slug or vapor clot. In plug or slug flow, the thin film surrounding the large bubble may dry out giving rise to localized overheating and hence burnout. Alternatively, a stationary vapor slug may be formed on the wall with a thin film of liquid separating it from the wall; in this case, localized drying out of this film given rise to overheating and burnout.

d) Film dryout in annular flow. Here, in annular flow, the liquid film dries out to evaporation and due to the partial entrainment of the liquid in the form of droplets in the vapor core.

Excessive fuel temperature can be caused e.g. by overpower or reduced coolant flow. With neutronics and thermal-hydraulic power oscillations when the duration of the power peaks are very short temporary over temperature can occur without causing fuel failures as the normal cooling can quickly recover.

To avoid excessive fuel temperature, the knowledge of the onset of the overheating phenomena is absolutely necessary, both at the design stage and for the safe operation of a reactor. There are complex correlation especially developed for specific fuel bundle designs. These correlatoins are containing; surface power, mass flow, system pressure and other parameters. While analyzing recent test results it was recognized that a single parameter the void is characterizing the onset of the overheating phenomena.

CHF (Critical Heat Flux) Mechanisms

Figure 1. Critical Heat Flux Mechanisms

BWR fuel spacer

Measurements have been carried out in a two-phase flow test loop consisting of two heated concentric tubes, the central one representing a fuel rod while the outer pipe emanates the heating power corresponding to the surrounding fuel rods in a reactor core. This loop has been in operation for some thirty years to simulate thermal hydraulic conditions in Boiling Water Reactors. A wealth of data has accumulated during this time and has helped to enable BWRs to be operated safely and economically.

Test loop cross section

The results of the recent tests were studied to investigate the occurrence of the onset of the excessive temperature on the surface of the inner - and outer test tubes in htis annular flow system. The test covered the pressures of 30, 50 and 70 bar; sub-cooling 10° C and 40°C; mass velocities between 250 and 2250 kg/m²s and a total input power up to 580kW with uniform power distribution. The tests have been repeatedly performed with pin spacers, and 7 and 6 grid spacers. Then the test results were evaluated. To calculate the steam quality, the continuity - i.e. the heat and mass balance equations were applied. To calculate the void three known slip correlations; Kirilov, Thom and Zivi were used (Fig.1). Kirilov is the most recent one. The most important result is, that at the onset of the excessive surface temperature the void value changes merely between 0.88 to 0.99, while the steam quality changes in a wide range from 0.45 to 0.75 (Fig.2). This means that the occurrence of the onset of the excessive surface temperature is basically dependent on the void. The performed analysis shows the same results regardless which correlation is employed and are valid at all the actual pressures, subcooloings, mass flows, spacer types and their positioning along the test section. There has been an awareness of this however - according to the author - but it has not yet been explicitly outlined. This help to focus on the void when planning furher test loop experiments as well as when monitoring the safety of operating reactors and fuel design.

The awareness of this result helps with the design of a tool to avoid excessive fuel surface temperature and clad failure in operating reactors. To monitor the void during operation is not feasible, however from the measured parameters, power, power distribution, coolant flow, pressure etc. the steam quality everywhere in the core can be calculated continuously and the void can be deduced using steam quality versus void correlation from loop experiments. By using the constraints described here - limiting the permissible void content - damage of the fuel can be avoided.

 

Curiously it can be noted that an analytical model is described in the DOE rapport KAPL-P-000160 by Alajbegovic, et.al. The mathematics are applied for a Freon loop and the deduced figures coincide with the measurements from the experimental loop. The results are summarized in Figure 3. The abrupt increase of the temperature here too occurs when the void value reached around 90%.

Figure 3. Prediction of critical heat flux for Freon at p=1.5 bars, q ”= 190 kW/m² at constant liquid velocity of 0.5 m/

---

http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-19/future-of-nuclear.htm

The Future of Nuclear Energy

by Frank Deconinck

The future of nuclear-energy looks ever brighter. Indeed, more and more countries are expressing their interest in nuclear, and the recent announcement by the British government will certainly give an extra boost to hesitating governments. Is it correct, in this context, to speak about a "nuclear renaissance"? In my opinion, not entirely.

It is certainly true that no new plants have been built in the US or in Western Europe for the last 20 years and that several countries announced their intention to phase out nuclear. In Eastern Europe, the situation had already become less anti-nuclear. The fact that there was no new build, was not so much due to internally generated political decisions, but rather was imposed by the EC, or because of economical reasons. Further east, nuclear continued to be developed at a high pace. For us to speak about the nuclear renaissance, therefore, seems much too self-centred.

A second reason is that, in Europe, we know what "renaissance" means. Not the American 'born again' concept: nuclear was never dead! Rather, nuclear was hibernating in our countries and it is now slowly waking up again (climate change?). In Europe, the 'Renaissance' stands for the development of education and research after the dark Middle Ages. This ame about first through the study of the Greek classical authors, and then through our own scientific discoveries. An emblematic figure here is Leonardo da Vinci. Painter, engineer, scientist, philosopher, ... a genius with a global view on everything he studied. The same global approach remained until the start of the 19^th century and the age of industrialisation: Joseph Fourier was first a mathematician then physicist who first described greenhouse gasses then he was also an Egyptologist working for Napoleon and an administrator in the Isère department in France.

Since the start of the industrial world, enormous progress has been achieved in science and technology, but the gap between disciplines has been widening steadily. Ever higher ivory towers were built in universities and interaction with society was gradually lost. During the twentieth century nuclear did not escape this trend. Nuclear scientists were often bound to secrecy, and most of them did not consider it as their duty to reach out to society.

Recently, there has been a fundamental change going on: nuclear has become more and more open and transparent, and there is a growing conscience that nuclear is not only about technology, but that human and societal aspects are also essential and have to be integrated in all projects. This is a real break with the past and, in my opinion, a very positive evolution that may well be the start of the real 'nuclear renaissance'.

---

http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-19/westinghouse.htm

Westinghouse is Awarded Watts Bar Units 2 Completion Contract

Westinghouse Electric Company has won a contract valued at approximately $200 million for scope in support of the completion of TVA’s Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2, which is located near Spring City, Tenn.

Watts Bar Unit 1 -- the last commercial nuclear unit in the United States to come on line in the 20th century -- began full commercial operation in 1996.

Watts Bar Unit 2, a Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), was approximately 80-percent complete when the utility halted construction in 1985, citing a projected decrease in electricity demand. In 2007, TVA announced that it would complete Unit 2 and that Bechtel Power Corp. would lead the engineering, procurement and construction work. Westinghouse was invited to develop a proposal relative to our potential project scope.

“We are so pleased to be part of this important project, which is yet another positive for the nuclear industry,” said Ric Pérez, senior vice president, Westinghouse Nuclear Services.

Work will begin immediately on long lead and critical path items such as reactor coolant pumps, I&C safety systems, PRA and modifications to existing cranes to support site activities. When completed, Watts Bar Unit 2 will provide more than 1,200 megawatts of electricity - enough power to serve about 650,000 Tennessee Valley homes.

Westinghouse, a group company of Toshiba Corporation, is the world's pioneering nuclear power company and is a leading supplier of nuclear plant products and technologies to utilities throughout the world. Westinghouse technology today is the basis for approximately one-half of the world's operating nuclear plants.

TVA is the nation’s largest public power provider, supplying power to large industries and 158 power distributors that serve approximately 8.7 million consumers in seven southeastern states.

January 18, 2008

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-19/bgns.htm

Bulgarian Nuclear Society Annual Conference
‘ Nuclear Power for the People’

by Todor Madolev, BgNS

Scientific Support for Nuclear Energy and Medical Radiology were the general topics discussed at the 2007 conference of the Bulgarian Nuclear Society (BgNS), held in Plovdiv town, 14-17 November 2007, under the patronage of the Bulgarian Nuclear Safety Agency.

The discussions and conclusions of the conference addressed the main challenges forcing the Bulgarian nuclear community: the construction of Belene NPP and refurbishment of the research reactor in Sofia.

The participation of young scientists and specialists, among many world-famous nuclear experts, was notable and some of their best presentations and posters received awards. The first prize was won by Ivelina Dimitrova for her presentation “Desorption of 222Rn from Polycarbonate Samples”, and the second, by S. Geirgiev for his presentation entitled “Calibration of Diffusion Chambers for Measuring 222Rn in Air”, both from the Department of Atomic Physics, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”. The third prize went to D. Kirilova from the Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences who presented a poster entitled “Conformity between LR0 mock-ups and VVERs NPP RPV attenuation”.

Thanks to Prof. F. Deconinck, the following important presentations were given:

• Nuclear Imaging in the Realm of Medical Imaging, by Frank Deconinck, SCK-CEN, Belgium;

• New UN Estimates of the Health Effects of Radiation Exposure, and The Latest International Radiation Protection Recommendations, by Abel J. Gonzalez, UNSCEAR Representative and ICRP Commissioner, Argentina;

• European Higher Education in Nuclear Engineering: Current Trends, by Michel Giot, SCK-CEN, Belgium;

• PET/CT: A Winning Combination, by Hendrik Everaert, University of Brussels, Belgium.

The round table debate entitled ‘Public Relations in the Nuclear’ was jointly organized with the Ukrainian Nuclear Society. High-level experts took part. The round table ‘Challenges towards the Education in the Nuclear Field’ gave an opportunity for some other hot issues to be put under the microscope.

Both round tables were deemed not only of fundemental importance for Bulgaria but also a corner-stone for human resources involvement, necessary to meet the demands of the nuclear energy renaissance and its modern application in medicine and industry. It was concluded that the fulfillment of the complex tasks for the world development of nuclear education needs the support of international cooperation and that ENS member societies and ENS itself have to take the initiative in this important mission.

 

---

http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-19/cop13.htm

Bali COP13 and beyond - The debate on nuclear at the UN climate change meetings is dead, but does anybody care?

by Gaston Meskens

Looking back at the outcomes of the latest United Nations climate change conference, in Bali last December, it would be easy to join forces with the numerous pessimistic voices complaining about the noncommittal character and degree of informality of the 'decisions' made by the political delegations. Indeed, the Bali Action Plan is essentially 'an agreement on a working agenda' for the next two years. It aims to launch inclusive negotiations on the post-2012 period and is scheduled to end in 2009. Although the wording and the plan itself appear vague, the word 'inclusive' is important as it indicates that both the United States and the developing countries will join around the table, together with the states that are

committed to the Kyoto Protocol. The discussions will focus on a long-term goal for global greenhouse gas emissions reductions and on enhanced action on “mitigation”, “adaptation”, “technology development and transfer” and “finance and investment”. Finally, the Bali outcome also delivered an agreed text on deforestation, technology transfer, adaptation and carbon markets.

In addition to the deal’s 'character of inclusiveness', another aspect might be perceived as positive. Never in the history of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations, has a working agenda been so short-term and detailed. The first post-Bali meeting of comparable importance in terms of content and international character is supposed to take place '…as soon as is feasible and not later than April 2008'¹. Truly, going beyond simple optimism, this way of tackling the issues could well be seen as a make-or-break deal. But in whose interest is it? By the time of the next COP meeting, in Poznan, Poland in 2008, the world will know whether the Bali Action Plan is a success or a failure.

While there are reasons for optimism about the way the global talks proceeded, this text reveals a certain concern about the debate on nuclear within the frame of the climate change negotiations. Those who are familiar with UN climate change meetings shrug their shoulders, while others might be shocked to hear that up until now nuclear has, in fact, never been a subject of debate or considered part of the official negotiations within the framework of the global climate change meetings. The well-documented exclusion of nuclear from the basket of technologies eligible for the Clean Development Mechanism has mainly been debated on the fringes of the meetings - in corridors and restaurants around the conference centre. What’s more, the political delegations have never made a serious effort to bring the issue to the debating table in a constructive and open way. To put it straight: after many years of hushing up the issue in the official negotiations and an erosion of the quality of the debate on 'content' , one can say that, since Bali, the debate on nuclear in the context of international negotiations on climate change appears dead. The obvious question follows, is it really an issue of concern for both the political delegates and the nuclear community?

On December 13, around lunchtime, two official nuclear side events were simultaneously organised within the conference premises. While the World Nuclear Association organised an event that focussed on Indonesia's approach to nuclear energy, in another room at the conference centre, the Heinrich Boll Foundation (HBF) staged an event entitled Nuclear energy: myth and reality. The WNA event featured, among its speakers, the Indonesian Minister for Women Empowerment. The HBF event presented expert views from Europe, Australia, Brazil, South Africa and India on 'the role of nuclear energy in combating climate change', and aimed to present alternatives based on their observation that '… as

nations worldwide seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear energy is promoted as a solution to climate change'².

As the two events were taking place simultaneously and only a few rooms away from each other, I walked from one event to the other and back again, just to grasp what was going at in each event³. I must stress at this point that I do not want to question or criticise the intentions and professionalism of the organisers and speakers at both events. Instead, I would rather present what happened at the events as a metaphor for the overall state of the nuclear debate at climate change conferences⁴.

What was interesting about the two events was that while the pro-nuclear event presented the case of several countries that have launched or considered launching nuclear, and promote nuclear technology as a valuable solution to climate change, the anti-nuclear event focused on the opposite by highlighting those countries that are phasing out nuclear or claim that it is a non-option. The WNA event focussed on Indonesia and on other countries in the East. The HBF event, however, stated that the situation in Europe is best proof of the fact that nuclear is no solution because no plants have been ordered in Europe for decades and countries like Belgium, Sweden and Germany are currently phasing out nuclear. Finland was presented as 'the exception that proves the rule'. In addition, the HBF event reported on cases of 'bad government policy' in Brazil, South Africa and India that are guilty of '…failing to involve civil society in a proper way…' in the debate about nuclear. They cite these examples to support their claim that nuclear offers no solution to climate change.

Having taken the time to reflect on what happened there, I would like to make some observations that, I believe, deserve further analysis and discussion. This text does not allow time for broader and deeper analysis in order to provide further evidence to back up my observations, but there will obviously be more opportunities to do this later.

Summarising (and, admittedly, simplifying) 10 years of nuclear debate within the framework of the UNFCCC one can observe that the initial irritation and repugnance of the anti-nuclear lobby in the first years after the Kyoto conference was followed for many years by indifference and ignorance. The symbolic exclusion of nuclear from the CDM was regarded by most anti-nuclear NGO's as the final nail in the nuclear coffin. In recent years however, the nuclear community has found a new voice to articulate its message, encouraged by the 'nuclear renaissance' in the East and the West. During this period the starting point for the discussion was evidence of the emissions avoidance or reduction potential of nuclear energy. The focus of the debate switched roughly from technicalities and arguments about the risks of nuclear energy to discussions about policy and the economics of nuclear within the context of a 'climate-friendly' energy mix. In parallel, outside the UN negotiation rooms, some countries started to openly “show their hand” by explicitly favouring or rejecting nuclear in their national energy policies. As this anecdote shows these themes have been seized upon by NGO's at UN meetings.

My initial observation is that in international negotiations such as the UNFCCC conferences or the UN Commission on Sustainable Development meetings, countries keep on skirting around the nuclear issue instead of showing willingness to bring it in out into the open and discuss it in a transparent way. At the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD1 that took place in New York in May 2007, the primary focus was on energy. Participating countries once again failed to take a joint position on nuclear, not because of ‘the complexity of the issue’, but because it simply wasn’t discussed. Many countries (to some degree supported by the EU position) do share the common view, however, that the responsibility for deciding whether or not to include nuclear in national energy policies should be made at the national level. A few months after CSD15 however, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) announced that already 16 nations had agreed to sign up for GNEP. Another 22 countries were candidate partners and observers, making a total of 38 countries that are somehow involved with GNEP (see Nucnet 2007-10-02). Other countries that have joined GNEP since then are Canada, the Republic of Korea and Italy, the latter being one of the countries that has traditionally spoken out against nuclear at previous climate change meetings.

Recent developments have clearly shown that countries refrain from taking a position on nuclear in the context of international political commitments but do increasingly show, however, an eagerness to strengthen their position in the global economy by 'tuning' into international nuclear research and development programmes. Interestingly, the initiatives on involving civil society in the siting process for radioactive waste disposal sites provide further evidence for this line of thinking. Although it is of course the fundamental right for local citizens to become (voluntarily) involved in a proposed siting process, one can observe that participation remains confined to the local level, instead of enlarged to the national level, and that the participatory siting process remains deliberately decoupled from the (nuclear) energy debate.

The second observation is that the debate on nuclear 'in the observer arena' of international political meetings such as those of the UNFCCC and CSD is hollow and virtually dead (as suggested in the introduction). It will remain so as long as both 'sides' make no effort to overcome their polarised positions. I am not suggesting here that both sides should sit around the table and talk things through. We all know that this has been tried many times before, without success. The water that separates the two is generally perceived to be too deep. Today, the alternative approach of both sides appears to be to advocate their case by making reference to (good or bad) political practices, hereby paradoxically building on positions of countries that fail to stand up for those positions themselves in official negotiations. For the observer debate, or the scientific and social debate in general, the result is that both sides continue 'to talk next to each other', in Bali this literally meant in adjacent rooms.

By now, the reader might wonder where this story is leading to, especially in view of what I suggested in my introduction, one might think that there is no problem at all. Knowing that nuclear can be competitive in certain conditions companies will only invest in it if there is a legally binding framework and if it backed up by stable national political support in their particular country. In the face of climate change, many countries show (again) support, which makes mid- to long term investment (again) interesting. Whether this 'nuclear renaissance' is a reality or rather a self-fulfilling prophecy of the industry is a subject of reflection that goes beyond the scope of this text.

My central thesis here is to point out that there is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning of many nuclear communities (advocacy groups, industry and research), their anti-nuclear opponents and many politicians, including some who are in favour of nuclear. The flaw has to do with the way civil society should be 'engaged' in the social justification of complex risk-inherent technologies such as nuclear. Today, all policymakers, whether at industry, research or national and international political level, see 'societal support' as a prime condition for the justification of the use of complex risk-inherent technologies in general and of nuclear technology in particular. Never before, has civil society been more 'present' in the debate around nuclear than today. But this is the crux of the problem - its appearance is basically “virtual”: civil society is present as a 'subject', not as a partner. It is studied, questioned, psychologically mapped and categorised, all with the objective of adapting, fine-tuning and simplifying the information it needs to 'finally understand' and accept or reject the nuclear option. In all these efforts 'to get the message through', one forgets that the ultimate societal support may be found by engaging civil society itself 'bottom-up' in the actual policy process as such: 'joint problem solving' that should even be preceded by 'joint problem definition'. Instead of this, communication with civil society and the public at large is still seen as a 'next step' after round-up of the technology assessment exercise 'internally'. The result is that the nuclear and anti-nuclear communities and those politicians who are in favour of nuclear tend to do their work within their friendly little circles first, and then 'step outside' in order to seek acceptance for their 'product'.

Civil society is pre-determined and written into strategies according to the desired goal. The nuclear community wants to seek trust and confidence within civil society, but only by way of providing 'factual evidence' and transparent information on its activities, and not by inviting it to take part in a joint justification exercise. The anti-nuclear NGO's, for their part, see no need to double-check for trust and confidence with civil society for their activities and messages, as they quite simply claim to represent it.

While, for several reasons, we see national politics avoiding to engage civil society in political deliberation on a national or international level, both the nuclear and anti-nuclear community now have the opportunity 'to give a good example'. To make my position clear, I am not arguing in favour of a broad societal debate on nuclear because I see this as a way to support nuclear (not as a way to phase it out), but because nuclear exists as a politico-economical dynamic that develops outside most citizens’ considerations and remains separate from any need for joint societal justification.

The situation seems to be one of stalemate. While the anti-nuclear movements should do a critical self-assessment in order to find out if and how they actually 'represent' civil society in their anti-nuclear messages, the nuclear communities should invite civil society to take part in a justification exercise of which the outcome might well turn against them. Moreover, whereas it seems evident that it is not the pro- or anti-nuclear community that should initiate and organise societal debate, but that it is the responsibility of national and international politicians, we do see political dynamics hijacked by politicians’ fear that they might be transcending their own short-term legislative commitments and by the very limits that a system of traditional representative democracy imposes on organising such societal involvement. Last but not least, to make matters worse, one might wonder what civil society actually is, and how it can be approached, organised and engaged in debate in a practical way.

Not surprisingly, there are no clear-cut answers or readily-available bullet-point recommendations for such a complex issue. One thing is certain, though, although we have to take these complexities and limitations seriously, they cannot be used as an excuse to escape responsibility, whomsoever on thinks is responsible for what. In addition, even if there were shared evidence of the need for a broad societal governance process, the question “why this process should especially be organised around nuclear, and not for other complex risk inherent technologies such as genetically modified crops or nanotechnology?” would have to be asked. The answer is, of course, that these technologies would also need to be subjected to a fully inclusive governance process.

The objective of this text was to raise awareness in a certain way of perceiving the situation, and to invite feedback and discussion. I dare to conclude by making another 'simple' statement. We all know it would be naïve to think we could try and replace the actual politico-economical rationality that “rules the world” with a new model of a more emancipated citizenry. There is simply no need to do so. Business and industry ask 'enabling frameworks' that should be guaranteed by politicians. It is in the defining and fine-tuning of these frameworks that civil society could be better engaged in, and this requires political will as well as motivation from research and from industry. Consider this: it makes no sense to organise inclusive reflection on the subject of nuclear energy outside a broad-ranging and comprehensive energy debate; a debate that also needs to link with other thematic issues that need to be tackled 'for the better of society' such as water, climate change, health and agriculture. Advocates and opponents of nuclear should accept that the outcome of any inclusive political governance process could also prove to be a rejection or acceptance of nuclear. At least the decision will have been supported as robustly as possible.

Finally, it is worthwhile to do an assessment of nuclear technology 'from within'' in order to study aspects of risk perception and governance, balances of benefits and burdens, responsibilities towards future generations and interconnections with the possible or actual misuses of the technology, such as proliferation and terrorism. The research should anyway be trans-disciplinary as well as inclusive. For those who might not know, this kind of research is already being carried out within the nuclear community, and it remains quite unique. Trans-disciplinary and inclusive analysis of nuclear can be carried out anywhere - in universities, in industry communication campaigns, in learned societies’ working groups and within UN observer platforms. It costs virtually nothing, as all you only need is a brain, a certain engaged detachment (or detached engagement) and a sense of curiosity.

 

---

¹Decision -/CP.13: Bali Action Plan. See this and other documents on unfccc.int/2860.php

²United Nations Climate Change Conference COP 13 and CMP 3 Bali, 3-14 December 2007; Daily Programme of 13 December 2007. See unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/daily_programme/items/4162.php

³Speaking from experience with UN meetings, one could assume that the UNFCCC secretariat, in coordinating the agenda of side events, did not schedule the two events simultaneously 'by accident'.

⁴Traditionally, also the IAEA organises a nuclear event at every climate change meeting. While their intention is to take a neutral and factual stance 'by design', one can observe that obviously their interventions are perceived as 'pro-nuclear' by observers and delegates. As the example I give is meant as a metaphor for more general observations, a reflection on the effect of the contributions of the IAEA is beyond the scope of this text.

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-19/ygn.htm

How to be seen better?
(Cross-branding with appreciated brands from other fields)

The search for alternative sources of energy has stimulated renewed interest in the peaceful use of nuclear technology. However, scepticism remains and obtaining public acceptance is of vital importance to the future of nuclear energy production. We should be proud that Hungary is one of the countries in Europe where the peaceful use of nuclear energy is the most accepted by the public.

The Paks Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), the only NPP in Hungary and operating with 4 units, is working on receiving a lifetime extension. Building new reactors has already been taken into consideration. However, opponents has taken a public stand against this life time extension and against even the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

In response to these criticisms, the Hungarian Nuclear Society (HNS) took the initiative and joined the well-known European Cultural Heritage Days held on 15-16 September 2007 by opening the doors of Hungarian nuclear facilities and the Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority.

This event got significant support from the media (newspapers, TV, radio). A special edition of a weekly publishd brochure was made. The participating institution distinctive signs for the Cultural Heritage Days, like badges for the local guides with the logo of the Council of Europe, a blue flag that was flown on the buildings, and a special poster advertising the visit.

During these days more than a thousand visitors got information about the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Visitors could learn about the activities of the HAEA and they were given a demonstration by the Centre for Emergency, Training and Analysis showing a typical response to an emergency situation. Visitors were allowed to enter the control room and the reactor hall of the Budapest Research Reactor and they became familiar with the state-of-the-art research programs on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. They could observe the final repository for low and interim level radioactive waste materials in Bátaapáti as well. The direct contact made it possible for the public to ask questions on any nuclear issues and the Institutions could gauge public opinion on their activities. The synergy achieved through this cooperation with the Cultural Heritage Days initiative was seen in the increasing number of people visiting both nuclear and non-nuclear sites.

 

---

 

http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-19/bratislava.htm

Bratislava’s nuclear November

The last week of November 2007 in the Slovakian capital was simply designated as a “nuclear” week and most of us know why. From 26 to 27 November the inaugural European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) was hosted by the Slovak government. It was very important event, but during this “nuclear week” a kind of different meeting was also organised, not on such high level, but indirectly connected with the ENEF. On November 26 a short technical seminar organised by the Slovak Young Generation Network members in collaboration with FORATOM took place.

The initial idea to organize such a meeting was thought of during the visit of Sami Tulonen, Director Institutional Affairs of FORATOM, in Bratislava on September 2007. We decided to use presence of FORATOM people on ENEF to give Slovak young nuclear professionals an overview of Foratom, ENEF, nuclear lobbying and EU energy policy. Over 25 members of the Slovak YGN from around 5 “nuclear” companies, institutes and the Technical University attended.

The seminar was kicked off by Sami Tulonen, who stressed the role of ENEF its benefits and important actions. Stella Brozek, FORATOM Institutional Affairs Manager, then gave an interesting presentation, which covered three main topics:

First she spoke about FORATOM, who they are, what they do and what are the FORATOM key activities and messages.

The second topic of her presentation was nuclear lobbying - opportunities and challenges. She showed us the political side of the nuclear power industry in EU and we discussed nearly everything about lobbying, from definition of EU lobbying, through the questions like “why is it important to be present in Brussels” or “why is lobbying often misunderstood” to lobbying in practice in the EU institutions, advantages of lobbying for the EU decision-making process and the importance of nuclear lobbying.

The final part of her presentation was devoted to EU energy policy. She presented information about High Level Group on Nuclear Safety and Waste Management, the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform and the European Parliament Report on Conventional Energy Sources and Energy Technology "Reul Report".

After more than two hours of interesting presentations all participants were invited to go to comfortable cellar for refreshments, where in informal atmosphere we could continue with our discussion.

This short technical seminar of the Slovak YGN received avery positive feedback from all participants. One short remark was from one of them: “It was really interesting to have d a look at the nuclear power industry from different perspectives, FORATOM and yours”.

Milos Lascek
Chair of Slovak YGN

---

http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-18/EU-energy-development.htm

Summary of the main EU Energy Developments, 2007

This year, the EU institutions have launched a number of initiatives in the energy field. Here is a diary of all the events that have shaped the EU energy policy in 2007. These political development could have a direct impact upon how the nuclear science community works in the future and what its working enviroment will be like.

10 January: Publication of the EC “Energy Package”

On 10 January 2007, the European Commission (EC) presented an “energy package”, which consists of a Communication entitled An Energy Policy for Europe, communications and reports on coal, biofuels, nuclear (the so-called PINC); a competition enquiry into electricity and gas markets and a green paper on climate change. The communication on energy policy and the PINC (Nuclear Illustrative Programme) clearly recognise the key contribution that nuclear energy makes to the achievement of the EU’s security of supply, climate change and competitiveness goals. It also highlights how nuclear energy is and will remain a key component of the EU’s energy mix.

You can find these documents in the Energy section of the Commission website. For further information, you can also read the PINC, the Communication from the Commission , and FORATOM press release.

9 March: Spring Council conclusions

The Council conclusions published on 9 March make a clear and unequivocal link between energy and climate change. The two main elements of the strategic approach that defines the post-2012 climate change framework are the strengthening and extension of global carbon markets and the development, deployment and transfer of the technology needed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The major strategic components highlighted in the Conclusions are the adoption of two binding targets for EU Member States to reach by 2020:

• A 20% reduction of GHG emissions by 2020 compared to 1990 levels, which is consistent with the underlying policy objective of “transforming Europe into a highly energy-efficient and low GHG-emitting economy.”

• A 20% share of the EU’s total power share from renewable sources by 2020.

The implementation of these targets will be based on agreed internal burden sharing, through the fixing of National Action Plans that will take into account the Member States’ varying domestic energy mixes.

The Conclusions contain a paragraph dedicated to nuclear energy that covers three points:

• the promotion of broad-ranging discussions with stakeholder representatives on the opportunities and risks of nuclear energy (European Nuclear Energy Forum)

• Its contribution to meeting growing concerns about security of energy supply and CO₂ emissions

• the need for continued improvements in the field of nuclear safety and radioactive waste management (support for R & D on waste management under the FP7 and the potential creation of a High-level Group on nuclear safety and waste management)

Within this context, the European Commission, with the support of MEPs, Member States and the European nuclear industry, recently proposed the creation of a European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) to promote discussions with stakeholders. This forum will promote a constructive and transparent dialogue and encourage a forward-looking analysis of key issues relating to the future of nuclear energy, including lifetime extensions of existing plants and nuclear new build.

You can read the Council conclusions, and FORATOM’s analysis of the Council’s conclusions.

17 July 2007: Nuclear Safety Group Officially Launched by the

Commission The European Commission, on 17 July, set up a High-Level Group on nuclear safety and waste management. The creation of the group was proposed by the Commission in its January 2007 draft Nuclear Illustrative Programme and was endorsed by the March European Council. The High-Level group is in charge of analysing matters such as the safety and decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.

The members of the group are senior nuclear safety regulators from member states. Countries with and without nuclear power equally take part in the group. The work of the group has to be carried out in coherence with other groups such as the newly created Nuclear Energy Forum.

21 September: New Platform for Sustainable Nuclear Research Launched by EC

On 21 September 2007, in Brussels, the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNETP) was launched by the European Commission. The SNETP aims to facilitate closer integration between researchers and industry to enable the definition and implementation of a Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) and corresponding Deployment Strategy (DS), as well as to maintain Europe’s R&D leadership in the nuclear research sector. An EC strategic document entitled SNETP: A Vision Report was published. This report, which was compiled with the support of industry, research centres and the Euratom Scientific and Technical Committee, underlines the special contribution made by nuclear energy to ensuring security of energy supply, promoting competitiveness and fighting climate change. It also provides a roadmap for the creation of the SRA, highlighting the start-up, by 2020, of a new breed of fast reactors (Generation IV), advanced recycling processes and the production of alternative fuels, like hydrogen. The report also stresses the need for increased resources for education and training in nuclear engineering.

For further information, you can consult the press release of the European Commission and the SNE-TP website.

12 October: First meeting of the High Level Group on Safety and Waste Management

The first meeting of the European Commission (EC)'s High Level Group on Nuclear Safety and Waste Management took place on 12 October. The creation of the group, endorsed by the March European Council, follows on from the Commission's Nuclear Illustrative Programme, adopted last week. The main goal of the Group will be to help the Commission develop European rules regarding the safety of nuclear installations and the safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. It is also expected to work in collaboration with other newly-created bodies, the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) and the Sustainable Nuclear Energy- Technology Platform (SNE-TP).

The group composed of 27 national senior officials from national regulatory or nuclear safety authorities, and their deputies as well as a Commission representative elected Andrej Stritar, the Slovenian Nuclear Safety Administration Director, as interim Chairperson until the election of a permanent one expected next January. Every two years, the Group will have to submit to the Commission a report that will later be transmitted to the Council and to Parliament. It should also identify safety issues, ensure coherent action by national authorities and make recommendations for EU action.

The creation of the Group shows once again that nuclear power is increasingly gathering momentum within the European Union. During a press conference that followed the meeting, the Energy Commissioner, Andris Piebalgs acknowledged that nuclear was "here to stay". He added that it needs to be safe and that governments need to "make up their minds as soon as possible" in order to create certainty for investors.
For further information, please read the press release of the European Commission, the article of NucNet and the article of Euractiv.

24 October: Publication of the European Parliament Reul Report

The European Parliament’s (EP) adopted the Reul Report entitled Conventional Energy Sources and Energy Technology. The Report shows that there is growing political consensus that nuclear energy “is indispensable if Europe’s medium and long-term energy needs are to be met.” The report, which was proposed by MEP Herbert Reul (EPP-ED, Germany) includes a section dedicated to nuclear energy that is based upon an EC Communication on the PINC. It was adopted with a majority of 509 votes for, 153 against and 30 abstentions, with most of the anti-nuclear amendments having been rejected.

The EP’s adoption yesterday of the Reul Report by an overwhelming majority is highly significant because it constitutes the first time that the EP has explicitly endorsed nuclear energy’s role as “the largest low-carbon energy source in Europe” and a key component in Europe’s future energy mix.

For further information, please read the press release of the European Parliament, the text of the report as adopted by the European Parliament is available on the same page.

29-30 October: First meeting of the SNE-TP

Following the highly successful launch of the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform on 21st September, the FORATOM Secretariat has been helping define the structure and rules of governance of the Platform and participated in the inaugural meetings of the Executive Committee and Governing Board on 29th and 30th October respectively. The Governing Board, which will meet twice per year, comprises approximately 10 industrial members, 10 from research organisations, 2 from TSOs, ENEN – the nuclear education network, ENS and FORATOM. FORATOM is represented by President Eduardo Gonzalez. The Executive Committee is smaller and will meet more often. FORATOM is represented on this latter group by Director General Santiago San Antonio. The first significant task of the Platform will be to write a Strategic Research Agenda by the end of 2008. The aim will be to define a roadmap for all European nuclear fission research until the year 2040. A sub-group will be established to undertake this work, led by SCK/CEN. It has been proposed to the Commission that the Chairman of the SNETP Governing Board, Mr. Philippe Pradel of CEA, should participate in ENEF.

For further information, you can consult the SNE-TP website.

22 November: Publication of the SET-Plan

On 22 November, the European Commission published the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan). The plan aims at increasing the use of low-carbon technologies to meet the targets set up during the latest Spring Council in March of 20% CO₂ emission reduction and 20% renewable increase by 2020. The “clean” technologies include not only renewables, but also sustainable nuclear fission and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). The document recognizes officially that nuclear power is a key part of EU energy policy and contributes along with other low-CO₂ energy sources to forging EU’s low-carbon economy.

To achieve EU’s energy goals, the plan proposes measures in order to increase effective co-ordination in research at EU level:

• A European Community Steering Group on Strategic Energy Technologies. Chaired by the Commission, the group will be “composed of high level government representatives from Member States.”

• European Industrial Initiatives for renewables but also for nuclear fission, CCS and electricity grids. The initiatives will be funded "in different ways", such as public-private partnerships, or “joint programming by coalitions of those interested Member States”.

• A European Research Alliance bringing together more closely universities and institutes for energy;

• A new Energy Technology Information System, and;

• Organisation in the first half of 2009 of a European Energy Technology Summit.

For further information, please go to the website of DG Tren and read the Commission press release: European Commission proposes a plan to accelerate energy technologies for a low-carbon future, the Commission communication: Towards a low carbon future – A European Strategic Energy Technology Plan, and the SET Plan Technology Map.

26-27 November: European Nuclear Energy Forum’s first Meeting in Bratislava

The first meeting of the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF), which aims to promote an inclusive, transparent and non-ideological debate on nuclear between all the relevant stakeholders, took place in Bratislava on 26-27 November 2007. The meeting gathered over 50 participants and featured high level speakers such as the Prime Ministers of Slovakia and Czech Republic, Mr. Fico and Mr. Topolanek respectively; the President of the European Commission, Mr. Barroso, and the Energy Commissioner, Mr. Piebalgs.

The Forum will establish three working groups that will probe into the opportunities of nuclear (financing, technologies, new build), the risks of nuclear (safety, security, waste management), and information and transparency (public acceptance). They will draft proposals in order to enable ENEF to provide a roadmap for the continued development of nuclear energy in the European Union. The working groups will meet for the first time end of January 2008 and are expected to meet twice before the next meeting of ENEF that is scheduled on 22 & 23 May 2008 in Prague. ENEF should eventually provide advice to European policy makers, mainly in the European Institutions on security of energy supply, incentives for investment, EU legislative issues, public opinion, education and training, R&D and knowledge management, safety and waste management. It is also expected to work in collaboration with other newly-created bodies the Sustainable Nuclear Energy- Technology Platform (SNE-TP), and the High Level Group on safety and Waste management (HLG). ENEF gathers for the first time a broad range of stakeholders – the nuclear industry, public authorities, the financial community and various sections of civil society.- in a debate on the future of nuclear energy in Europe.

For further information, please consult the ENEF section of the FORATOM website and the ENEF section of the Commission website.

---

---

http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-19/Corporate-Members.htm

CORPORATE MEMBERS

Links to ENS Corporate Members

Aare-Tessin AG (ATEL) link	Advanced Measurement Technology Inc. link
Andritz AG link	Ansaldo Nucleare S.p.A link
AREVA NP link	AREVA NP GmbH E-mail: unternehmenskommunikation @areva.com link
Atomic Energy Council (AEC) link	BKW FMB Energie AG link
BNFL link	Belgatom link
Centralschweizerische Kraftwerke (CKW) link	Chubu Electric Power Co. link
Comisión Chilena de Energía Nuclear link	CCI AG (formerly Sulzer Thermtec Ltd) link
Colenco Power Engineering AG, Nuclear Technology Department link	Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA), Nuclear Energy Division link
Design Bureau "Promengineering" link	Eckert & Ziegler Isotope Products GmbH link
NV Elektriciteits-Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland EPZ (Electricity Generating Co. Ltd in the Southern Netherlands) link	Energie Ouest-Suisse (EOS) E-mail: guillaume.gros@eosholding.ch
E.O.N Kernkraft GmbH link	Euro Nuclear Services BV E-mail: ens@unitech.ws link
Electrabel, Generation Department link	Electricité de France (EDF), Communication Division link
ENUSA Industrias Avanzadas SA link	EXCEL Services Corporation link
Framatome ANP (Advanced Nuclear Power) E-mail: FRinfo@framatome-anp.com link	Framatome ANP, Inc E-mail: USinfo@framatome-anp.com link
GE Nuclear Energy peter.wells@gene.ge.com	Genitron Instruments GmbH link and link
Holtec International link	IEA of Japan Co. Ltd link
Institut National des Radioéléments, E-mail: generalmail@ire.be	Japan Electric Power Information Center (JEPIC) link
Jozef Stefan Institute link	Kernkraftwerk Gösgen-Däniken AG link
Kernkraftwerk Leibstadt AG (KKL), link	Elektroinstitut Milan Vidmar E-mail: bogo.pirs@eimv.si
L-3 Communications MAPPS Inc. link	Microfiltrex - a Division of Porvair Filtration Group Ltd E-mail: info@porvairfiltration.com link
Nordostschweizerische Kraftwerke (NOK) link	NRG Arnhem link
NRG Petten link	Nuklearna Elektrarna Krsko link
NUKEM GmbH link	Paks Nuclear Power Plant Ltd link
Paul Scherrer Institute link	Polimaster Ltd link
RADOS Technology Oy link	Siempelkamp Nukleartechnik GmbH E-mail: wolfgang.steinwarz@ siempelkamp.com link
SKB (Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company) E-mail: info@skb.se link	SPE Atomtex link
Studsvik AB link	Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie, Centre d’Etude de l’Energie Nucléaire SCK/CEN link
Synatom E-mail: mailmaster@synatom.com	Taiwan Atomic Energy Council (AEC) link
Taiwan Power Company (Taipower) link	Technicatome link
"Technoatomenergo" Close Joint-Stock Company E-mail: tae@arminco.com	Teollisuuden Voima Oy / Industrial Power Company Ltd (TVO) link
Tokyo Electric Power Co. (London Office) E-mail: momma@tepco.co.uk	UNESA E-mail: nuclear@unesa.es link
Urenco Limited link	USEC Inc. link
Vattenfall AB E-mail: dag.djursing@vattenfall.com link	VTT Nuclear link
Hans Wälischmiller GmbH link	World Nuclear Association (WNA), link
Westinghouse Electric Company link	World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), link

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-19/editorial.htm

Editorial Staff:

Mark O’Donovan, Editor-in-Chief

Contributors to this Issue:

David Bonser (ENS)
Frank Deconinck (ENS)
Kirsten Epskamp (ENS)
Milos Lascek (Slovak YGN)
Todor Madolev (BgNS)
Gaston Meskens (SCK-CEN)
Fernando Naredo (Westinghouse)
Frigyes Reisch, (KTH)
David Dalton (NucNet)
Judit Silye (HNS)
Andrew Teller (Areva)

Realisation:

Marion Brünglinghaus

Rue de la Loi 57, BE-1040 Brussels
Phone +32 2 505 30 50 - Fax: +32 2 502 39 02
E-mail: info@euronuclear.org - http://www.euronuclear.org

The ENS News is a quarterly publication, in electronic form only.
Copyright notice ©2008 European Nuclear Society.
Reproduction is authorised provided that the ENS News is acknowledged as the source – except where otherwise stated.