No to Wesleyville Nuclear Power Plant

Conservation and expansion of renewable energy are the ethical and sustainable choices to meet Ontario's future electricity needs, not gargantuan nuclear power plants such as the one proposed for Wesleyville/Port Hope. Apart from the generational timelines and inevitable cost overruns of such a project, there is the stark reality of transporting and storing nuclear waste. We still don't know how to do that safely.

After almost 50 years examining the high-level nuclear waste problem, the Ontario and federal governments have not yet provided a final plan for storage on site, transportation or the final location for the repository for high level nuclear waste. A new hearing is taking place to look at deep geologic burial, the solution first proposed in 1978! This time a site near Ignace Ontario is having an Impact Assessment hearing which is happening at the same time as the Wesleyville Impact Assessment and the Bruce Impact Assessment hearings. Having all hearings going on at the same time weakens the public’s participation and that of organizations in the assessment processes of each important multi-billion-dollar project. Nuclear waste remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years representing a long-term ethical and environmental burden way beyond the experience of human beings on the planet. Site storage of high-level nuclear waste also poses risks such as loss of cooling and potential security intrusions on site.

The lack of transparency around the this project and inadequate public engagement, including detailed information sessions about renewable alternatives to nuclear, represent a deeply flawed process that could have dire consequences for future generations.

In short, nuclear power:
● Is dramatically more expensive than currently available viable alternatives of
solar, wind with battery storage. 
● Is financed entirely by taxpayers and ratepayers, with no private risk-sharing.
● Produces dangerous radioactive waste that must be managed over 250,000 years.
● Carries serious health and environmental risks.
● Is vulnerable to accidents, security threats, and geopolitical instability.

Let us explore the alternatives with vigour and integrity.