Instead of getting cheaper over time, they've gotten more expensive. And so if nuclear power, which is carbon free and fossil fuel free, at least in its fuel source, although not in the concrete and steel that go in to make it, i which are typically or made in fossil fuel ind tensive ways, but relectricity per se, has zero carbon emissions at the direct sight. And so there are aves. A growing environmental movement is now back into nuclear power. And thereis also a right of centre, a, there's people at cata who are a pro nuclear as well. For different set of reasons. And so then the question comes is, does nok, can we get the cost, the capital costs, down so that it is competitive with natural gas and coal fire generation? And the specific question i'm asking in the paper we're writing is, what carbon tax level would be necessary in order to make fossil fuel prices high enough so that the current high cost neks would be equivalent, if you see what i'm what i'm saying. Another is, if we had a carbon tax, how high would it have to be so that, in a present value context, an investor would be indifferent between a fossil field generator with a carbon tax on it, on its output, or on its use of imputs, actually, versus building a nuclear plant that had no carbon tax on its output because it used no carbon imports. What? What carbon tax level would make the electricity ontrpanur different between these two sources of power? That's what i'm trying to and do not think, i

mean, obviously i think it's possible.