Alternatives must be properly considered

It is my understanding that the IAAC guidelines require proposals to include alternative means of carrying out the project. OPG has not done a thorough job of objectively investigating alternative means of generating 10,000MW of power for Ontario. Cost-effective solutions exist which are significantly faster to implement and safer for the community.

The Quebec government is embarking on a project to provide 10,000 MW of electricity for their province as well, but they have chosen to develop the largest wind energy development in North America. Hydro Quebec plans to have the full 10,000 MW installed by 2035, five years before OPG might have the first reactor up and running. In the OPG proposal, the full 10,000MW will not be completed until 2048, thirteen years after the Hydro Quebec project is completed.

Lower cost, faster, and safer alternatives exist. We should not accept the argument from OPG that there are no alternatives. Over 90% of new electricity generation globally in 2024 was renewable. Wind & solar, coupled with storage solutions are readily available today at a much lower cost than nuclear and can satisfy the requirements for Ontario's power growth.

Lazard’s levelized cost of energy report (https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus/) provides detailed comparisons between the various means of electricity production and clearly shows that renewable energy is the most cost effective means of electricity production today. Why is OPG stuck in the past?

We should not be proceeding with this nuclear proposal when we have better solutions easily at hand.