Thank you for the question.
There are two observations to make. One is that the evolution of our safety systems has kept pace with the technology changes in our industry. Obviously we can now do more with computerized systems that permit us to do even heavier monitoring than we did in the past, and we have had to retrofit, as we should, some of our existing units with new redundant systems. So the next generation of units will, in a sense, be simpler than the first, as often happens when you go with a first-generation technology. There are improvements of understanding and knowledge of how they work. They have a better understanding of the material science that goes into constructing these units.
I think the one very valuable development in our society has been the addition of the computerized capacity to monitor extremely complex systems. Having gone through that, we will end up having redundancies. Also, if you take a look at the schematics for the proposed ACR, the advanced CANDU reactor, for instance, we will have a quad-type construction that lets individuals work, in a maintenance sense, on one quadrant of the plant in safety and security without shutting down the other pieces. You see that also in other types of generation options. You will see the redundancies maintained, and you will see people doing things more remotely than before.
You have also seen, when we went to Pickering, for instance, the containment around those units spread into what we would describe as conventional elements of the generating plant. That is, they stretch not only over the actual nuclear power plant, but also into pieces of the plant that are seen as part of the generation and turbine units. So making that simpler means that we'll end up also being much more simple and probably more cost-effective in doing the safety work that we require.