 Well, the French situation is really the very particular exception worldwide. It has, with three quarters of the electricity generated by nuclear power, the highest share of nuclear in the electricity mix. And the people were told for decades that this is the only way to go, so it's kind of difficult to shift 180% from one day to the next. However, first of all, politicians are not ordering nuclear power plants, it's utilities. They don't operate nuclear power plants neither. So the question is what is happening on the political level and what is happening on the utility level. Even in France, the political party consensus that existed until Fukushima broke. After the accident, the leaders of the Socialist Party clearly came out in favor of a phase out of nuclear power. Well the decision is very spectacular, of course, in Germany. However, we had that kind of situation already in Germany. I mean, there was a phase out law that was in place, which was roughly with the same target in the early 2020s to have phased out the last reactor. However, what is spectacular here is that this is the most pro-nuclear government that was imaginable in Germany to make that decision. So from now on towards the next elections, the debate is going to be rather who is going to propose the quickest phase out scheme. The other dimension which is important, it's not only about phasing out nuclear power, it's about really redesigning energy policy. And that is very interesting in the basic paper that has been presented by the TEPFA Commission, which illustrates that the country has to do much more than just substitute one source by another. It has to address energy efficiency in a much more efficient way, in a more in-depth way. And it has to radically change, for example, the infrastructure when it comes to electricity grid and the whole functioning of the renewable energy-based system. Well, what I believe has to be realized is that if it didn't happen through Chernobyl, if it didn't happen through 9-11, it definitely should happen after Fukushima, is that people realize that the societal bargain, the equation that society has lived with, nuclear power, is a huge potential of danger multiplied by a very small probability of an event happening equals acceptable risk. So the stress tests are by no means addressing the potential to start with. On the contrary, actually it's being said that new reactor types like the EPR would be safer. Well you could turn it upside down, you could say the EPR will be the most dangerous reactor around. Why? Because the potential will be higher than any other reactor because it's larger, there's more fuel in there, and in fact it could be operated on 100% plutonium fuel core, which would, in a case of accident, even release larger amounts of radiation than any other reactor in the world. So I think we should address the potential question, and if we do that, the first thing to do is to get spent fuel out of spent fuel cooling ponds. That we could start by doing tomorrow morning without any stress test. Over the two years between 2008 and 2010, according to yet the largest utility that operated nuclear power plants in the US, Exelon, the cost for new investment in nuclear power has roughly doubled. In two years. Now that was until 2010 prior to Fukushima. It's obvious that Fukushima will have an effect on cost. It will make safety more expensive, insurance more expensive, I mean all the civil responsibility issues have to be dealt with in a different manner. And it's clear that, you know, credits will be more expensive. What bank will lend money at what credit rate for new nuclear constructions after Fukushima?