Comment
I support initiatives that reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, which are finite and contribute to global warming. However, nuclear energy is not a viable alternative, as there is no prospect in sight for a solution to the disposal of hazardous nuclear waste. The only remaining alternatives are conservation and development of renewable energy sources. Conservation has been ongoing for many years, and should continue, but is not enough.
Accordingly, we must focus significant resources on renewable energy. This should be done on a broad basis, in a way that rewards investment, research, and innovation at all levels of scale, across all types of renewable energy.
In the meantime, use of nuclear and fossil fuels should continue only as long as they remain cost-effective. New plants of this type should not be built.
Most importantly, the process by which energy projects are approved and funded must be transparent and fair. Once approval has been given, it should not be withdrawn without public consultation. The abrupt cancellation of natural gas plant and wind turbine projects on Lake Ontario are examples of how this should NOT be done.
All of this will cost money. Subsidizing energy costs is not sustainable. There is no free lunch, and we must be prepared to pay to make the world a better place for our grandchildren. However, we must also spend that money wisely.
[Original Comment ID: 204784]
Submitted June 11, 2018 11:09 AM
Comment on
Planning Ontario's energy future: A discussion guide to start the conversation
ERO number
012-8840
Comment ID
4971
Commenting on behalf of
Comment status