Full considerations of alternatives to new nuclear

To Whom it May Concern,

Ontario's proposal to build large and small new reactors for long term energy security seem to fly in the face of both economics and common sense. I believe it is incumbent on the IAAC to oblige Ontario to fully explain the full short, medium and long term costs of its choices, and its seeming tunnel vision regarding alternatives.

Economically, new nuclear will commit Ontarians to very expensive energy for several generations, even as the options for energy production continue to get cheaper and more reliable. As others have pointed out, electricity from nuclear sources is already more expensive than the alternatives and the prediction is that this margin will double with new facilities. How does this make for a good business case for nuclear?

Common sense says it is wise to put our energy security eggs in many baskets, so to speak, especially baskets that are not wildly radioactive and needing one million year timelines to make them harmless. Common sense says it unwise to depend on others for nuclear fuel--in the case of new nuclear at Wesleyville, from the United States or Russia, as I understand it, neither of them falling into the reliable partner category. Common sense says Canada needs a nation-wide energy policy that prioritizes a nation-wide grid, sustainable sources of energy that are not deadly poisins, and making maximum use of conservation/demand reductions. 

For the Agency to treat Ontario's nuclear proposals as if they are all but fait accomplis, needing only due diligence for Indigenous people, safety, fish, waters, migratory birds and so on is to my mind a big mistake. A $200B to $400B mistake, and one that will burden our descendants with waste management issues forever, essentially.

Eight years after cancelling thousands of megawatts in 800 sustainable generation projects, Ontario has just granted 12 new licenses for wind and solar production, finally acknowledging that they do play a part in our energy future. This reversal must be encouraged, or demanded by Canada.

In other words, the Agency must maintain a broad scope of assessment to be able to direct OPG and the province back to the drawing board to look seriously at how we can have a robust supply of energy that is both affordable and easier on the planet and future generations. This is the big chance in this generation to chart a new, better course for energy in Ontario and Canada. Please take it.