Too costly, too risky, most negative impact

I strongly agree with Mark S. Winfield's submission - Reference Number 175.  I quote one passage in his submission: 

The proposed project would have major implications for the sustainability of the Ontario's electricity system and economy. The proposed project potentialy represents the highest-cost, -risk, and negative-impact option for meeting the province's future electricity needs.

There are just too many negative long-term implications with this proposal to warrant its existance.

Why go down the road of nuclear when there are lower cost, less risky, least negative-impact options?