I included the Lazard study—and frankly, Lazard is lower than other people on nuclear, although it's still more expensive—for a number of reasons. One, they include efficiency, and almost nobody else does. Efficiency is an extremely—especially in the U.S.—important resource. It's baseload in the most baseload of all senses, because if consumers are not turning their things on or they're getting the same comfort with less energy, that's baked into their appliances and their buildings.
Secondly, he considers different scenarios. He considers cost of capital, he considers carbon, he considers fuel price scenarios. That kind of analysis is very rare. It's extremely rare to have someone do all of the choices and consider many of them. So that's one.
I will give you an example. The MIT study, which was very important in the early part of the renaissance year, did not include any renewables. So I personally will not use a study that doesn't include all of the choices.
The other place to look that's very interesting is the California Energy Commission. They have big resources. They have a cost-of-generation model. They run it every year. They include about 20 options. They also have a module that lets you do your own if you want, run your own. They include all of the apparent costs for a California citizen, so they include tax breaks and things like that. They might be different in Canada, but there are ways to build models to take that into account.