Make Better Choices

I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the proposed nuclear reactor development at Wesleyville in Port Hope. I am a Port Hope resident.

Ontario does not facae an energy shortage that necessittates new nuclear construction. Instead, the province faces a choice about how to meet future demand responsibly, affordably, and sustainably. That choice should prioritize renewables, conservation, and grid modernization - not expensive, high risk nuclear expansion.

1. Ontario's energy future should prioritize renewables: Ontario has abundant potential for wind, solar, energy storage, and conservation based demand reduction. Renewable technologies continue to decline in cost globally, while instalation timelines are far shorter than those of nuclear projects. Energy efficiency and distributed generation can be deployed incrementally, creating jobs and reducing emisions without locking ratepayers into multi-decade mega project debt. An effective energy strategy should emphasize: distrubuted solar and wind energy; storage and grid upgrades; conservation and demand management; community based renewable ownership models. These approaches build resilience. Nuclear centralizes risk.

2. Hish construction costs and financial risk: Nuclear construction projects have a global track record of cost overruns and delays. Historically, Ontario's nuclear expansions have resulted in billions of dollars in debt passed on to ratepayers. Large scale reactors require: long contruction timelines; massive upfront capital investments; public subsidies and loan guarantees; and, long term waste management obligations. The financial burdens of these projects is absorbed by taxpayers and electricity consumers. Ratepayers in Ontario are still servicing stranded nuclear debt from previous builds. Committing to another major nuclear expansion risks repeating this pattern.

3. Long term waste and environmental risk: Nuclear energy is often framed as low carbon, but that framing omits several considerations, including: the environmental impact of uranium mining; long term radioactive waste storage challenges, decommissioning costs; and security risks. There remain no permanent, fully operational long term high level waste solutions in Canada. Approving new nuclear generation without resolving the issue expands an intergenerational liability.

4. Opportunity costs: Every dollar spent on nuclear construction and clean up is a dollar not invested in renewables, community resilience, climate adaptation, and energy efficiency retrofits. If the goal is rapid decarbonization, renewables and conservation deliver emissions reductions faster and more affordably.

5. A democratic energy transition: Public accountability is important in energy planning. Large nuclear projects tend to be technocratic and centralized, with limited community decision making power. By contrast, a renewable transition allows municipalities, cooperatives, and Indigenous communities to participate directly in energy generation and governance.

The proposed Wesleyville reactor represents a costly and risky path into future liability. A renewable focused strategy better aligns with fiscal prudence, environmental stewardship, and long term public interest.

I urge decision makers to reconsider this project and to prioritize investments in renewables, conservation, and grid modernization for future generations.