Assess the costs of nuclear vs. alternatives

Since the potential adverse effects of nuclear can be mitigated by considering alternatives (solar, wind) it is hard for me to understand how the impact assessment can be conducted in a 'nuclear echo chamber'.  The costs of nuclear - both from an economic and health perspective - are too high.  Solar and/or wind generation (with storage) will cost Ontarians less and solar and/or wind will cost fewer lives.  Having spent the day reading on the economics of nuclear vs. alternatives, and the health impacts of nuclear vs. alternatives, it is clear to me why OPG does not want to be required to justify nuclear vs. alternatives.  The only benefits of nuclear seem to be: it takes less space, and it will provide jobs, and the waste is small in volume. Balanced against much higher cost, more deaths and illnesses, and the absence of a storage solution for waste that will be deadly for 1000s of years - I can see why OPG doesn't WANT to have to assess nuclear vs. alternatives.

What I cannot understand is how the IAAC can justify not requiring OPG to evaluate the alternatives to generate Ontario's power.  Reference is made to the Ontario Energy Plan.  Well, a policy paper cannot take the place of a proper impact assessment.

I ask the IAAC to hold OPG accountable to Ontario residents and require OPG to justify the choice of nuclear vs. solar and/or wind.