Well, I'm not familiar with the refurbishment of that specific plant, although I have participated in proceedings in the U.S. in which refurbishment is an issue, and it suffers a little bit from the same problems. When you first do it, it looks inexpensive, but then when you actually get into it, it gets more and more expensive. So it really requires very careful consideration.
It's my understanding that there was a project talked about in Canada that also got very expensive. It gets into the many billions of dollars. So we need independent analysis of the costs.
Long lifetimes are going to be a serious concern with the older plants. I've looked at Vermont Yankee, which is not far away, and it has raised many concerns.
With respect to the bubble, one of the things I found in my research is that when utilities become committed to nuclear, it tends to consume their attention and resources and crowds out the alternatives, and that is a real problem.
With respect to “clean”, I think we got to be lazy with that adjective, in the sense that it's a low-carbon resource, but it is not a clean resource. The fuel is very volatile and very toxic. We've had a reminder of that. We had gotten a little bit...lazy is the best word in thinking about it.
And frankly, the volatility and toxicity of the fuel is what drives the costs. All this engineering around that reaction is a function of the fact that it is very difficult to control—and we try very hard—and if the controls fail, the consequences are very great.
Of course, the waste product has the same characteristics. It's very volatile and toxic.
So we have forgotten that all of this engineering, which we're proud of, is driven by the inherent nature of the fuel. It's important to remember that, when we think about things such as wind, which does not have those problems.