_Proposed Nuclear Power Plant_

Very Glad to see this blog and I hope you can sift through the piles of BS that this company is continually shoveling at us. Nuclear power would be a great thing here. Just not by these snake oil salesmen.

Good blog. Some of us spend most of our "free" time sifting through all of the BS proposed...it is a full time job. Good luck with your blog and thank you for your info.

Still on the fence when it comes to the improved nuclear safety, but really don't like AEHI.

Keep up the good work.

I wont go on about the environment but we could easily have a better energy blueprint without nuclear. Simply upgrading the existing grid and incorporating some wind and solar would be sufficient. There are claims that our population is going to continue to grow at the rate at which it did in the 90's. Well that is wildly unrealistic. Demand is going to grow but not at that rate. Finally, with less investment than what nuclear would take, we could supply our needs with renewable sources.

If this issue is of importance to you, the Glenns Ferry City Council will be hearing testimony about this tomorrow. If you have strong opinions, for or against it, let it be known.

Atomic dog, you must be the disgraced ex-owyhee P and Z guy because your language sounds familiar.

So what if this plant sends power out of state? Dont our farmers send crops and cheese out of state too? Wind farms are sending electricity out of state but I dont hear people crying about it.

I think there would be lots of jobs, security people, administators, skilled, lots of jobs. I support this plant and the poeple building it. Otherwise I just see a bunch of complaining people trying to stop anything.

The companys blog says they might try to rent the water from farmers, then return it to the farmers. Sounds like a good idea to me. I dont know where thats been done so lets hear the haters give use the no can do shpeel.

So, anytime someone wnats to build something, we have peopel vote on it? How about wind farms - you're going to need a whole bunch of windmills to make a fraction as much electricity as a nuke plant and the enviro whackos will fight you on that too. Will you get so mad when wind farms send thier energy out of state? People long ago built dams, power plants, roads all kind of stuff and we fight and oppose everything. Thank God the air base is here already because you wouldnt be able to build anything like that nowdays

The amount of water needed to make this operation happen is way beyond that of the immediate area. It would demand water rights from a vast radius (100 miles or more). I doubt that all the farmers and other users are going to completely forfeit their use for this.

About job creation, dont believe the propaganda. Think about it a little. Those numbers are inflated and if you want to know more, let me know.

Finally, yes we object. There is a reason that nuclear is not in everyone's backyard. The waste that is made takes centuries to break down. Second, a rapid increase in the amount of waste increased would increase the cost because getting rid of waste would become time consuming and expensive.

walmart_greeter,

I'm not whoever you are talking about but what does it matter if I was? You bought your AEHI stock at sixty cents and now it's down to five cents and you just want to hype this thing so you can get your money back. See I can make irrelevant untrue shtuff up too. AEHI has built things without permits, refused to pay their bills until confronted in the public, and frivolously taken someone to court. Why would they make good neighbors? Could it be that a nuke plant isn't the objective here? Could it be that the objective is to get approval and then use the site to store radioactive waste from all over the country? By the way, whom are they getting their funding from this week?

Another thing greeter,

Your hero Don can't say how cheap our power will be once he has imposed his will on us, and then export the power. That is the problem with your pimp, he tries to play two sides of an issue.

I have read all above comments and feel the need to straighten a few things out. As for the water rights...the acrage that the plant would go on is in total 4,000 acres. Every pivot on a farm takes up 125 acres for pivot, 160 acres including corners...which are a must. Each pivot uses 1,000 gal. of water per minute. Times this number by 24 hours in the day, for 7 days a week, 4 weeks in the month and 7 months that the pivots run for you get a total of 4,704,000 gal. of water used a year per pivot. Now 4000 acres divided by the 160 acres needed for each pivot comes to 25 pivots. Now multiply the number of pivots by the total gal. of water needed for each pivot and you get 117,600,000 gal of water rights AT LEAST for this acrage that this plant would go on. Thusly the amount of water that they would need is there and the water would not be coming out of our ground sources...they would be pulled from the river, used to cool down machinery, placed in a pool for a little while so that when the water is re-introduced to the river it is even the same temperature as when it came out.

I understand your concerns and if I can get solid numbers or information in the future I will do so. I will not say anything that is not correct. If you are right, your are right. It is as simple as that.

I also understand that some of you are concerned about the safety of this plant but let me leave you with this, my husband would probably much rather work as a security gaurd at this plant than leave for Afghanistan in a month and be around for the birth of his child instead of being shot at...but hey.

I am not concerned about safety being that it is so far out of the realm of possibility to be realistic.

Another part of this that is of question are these jobs. Yes, for a small town this seems like a gold mine of money and employment. One does realize this company has no funding as of yet. They have massive amounts of infrastructure to purchase before this would be operational.

About this power, it is in the application that they intend not to supply Idaho's power needs. The propaganda will tell you other wise. If one sends the power elsewhere, that infers that one has to increase power production. This may seem trivial but this will jack up the cost of production and so employment becomes more expensive.

If the land is rezoned but not built upon, it could easily used for some other undesirable purpose. This is simple posturing.

If one looks at the company's website, one will see that it intends to build an EPR design of reactor which does not fit the description listed above.

A few months ago, I had to sit through a 45 min presentation by Mr. Gilispe. I had no idea that he was going to do this at the city council meeting I was at. As I listened to his presentation, I was amazed at how many times he either contradicted himself or was so vague on a project that he seems to have spent many hours on. We, the taxpayers, were not allowed to ask him any questions and even had to wait while he removed his show and tell items. I felt like he and his company were being given treatment that none of us could ever hope for. I did try to listen with an open mind but when his facts and figures did not jive with each other, I started to be very wary of anything that he stated. If memory serves me, he stated that we in the local area could have a reduced rate on pwoer but then he stated that most of the power being produced would be sold to areas such as Las Vegas. So which is it was asked of him and he never actually answered this question. Some have accused him of being a snake oil salesman and I would not argue that point with them based on my observation. I do suggest that you do some research, listen to what AEHI presents and make your own mind up. As for me, I would love to see more industries in this area but just not this one.

Nice blog but a tad bit of info....ALL of the power generated by the hydro-electric damns on the Snake River in Idaho is sold to power grids outside our state. The power we use is part of a system that runs all they way to Southern California before it is routed back up through Arizona and then back to us. Several years ago 4 STATES lost power for over 3 hours due to a faulty circuit at a power routing plant in Northern California. It actually shut down power in my hometown of Rupert, even though we lived 8 miles from one of the dams supplying the power. There was absolutely NO WAY to re-route the power coming from our very own **** to supply power to our community.

I agree with Bazooka, I prefer windfarms long before I'd like to see a nuclear plant. But now I've heard the owners of the windfarm east of town are having issues with Idaho Power and the sale of the energy being delivered from the turbines.

With today's technology, I could see the RIGHT company coming in and making the RIGHT pitch and showing TRUE numbers to make a plant work. Some of us who grew up here only have to look at the INL site and Breeder Reactor #1 to know the efficient, controllable nuclear power is a reality.

Well, I went to all of the hearings on this, the CC meeting in MH where DG spoke, the "public" meeting where the doctor from TF was taken away and now, the CC meeting in GF. I am glad that the CC and mayor of GF do not have the final say in ANY of this. We can only hope the ECC's base their decision on the facts and not just money (like they normally do). We can only hope....

People focus so much on the promise of jobs and tax money. Well, as it has been stated, the jobs for people in the area will be few. Just look at how many people in this area are college educated in power generation or nuclear power generation. Sure, we could clean the plant or take care of the grounds but that is hardly an $81,000 a year job. As far as taxes go, they would pay LITTLE if ANY since Idaho did the recent tax credit plan. We the people of Elmore County would be FORCED to pay the costs to upgrade roads so that the equipment can make it to the location of the proposed plant (this is in his application). So, AEHI pays no taxes, jobs will be few, and WE THE PEOPLE will get to pay to improve the roads for his plant built with our money. What a plan! AEHI claims that they will not receive ANY subsidy money. That is NOT true. As far as the water issue goes, IDWR has already said that we do not have the water available for this. Just look at all of the water rights being taken from the farmers in the last year. That alone tells the story.

The comment regarding the former Owyhee County P & Z person were out of line and not based on fact. The man RESIGNED from his position because he would not be bought. He has been a GREAT help to those of us in Elmore County and he has values. I can only hope we have quality like that to support us in Elmore County from OUR elected officials. We can only hope. So, base your slanderous remarks WG on facts...not just what you think or feel. "Walmart Greeter" says it all and will probably make you a prime person to fill a security position there at the proposed plant...you can shoot your mouth off and protect all of us.

Regarding power generated here being sent out of state...the difference with that is that the dams and wind/solar DO NOT produce nuclear waste which will be stored here (at the proposed location) for the next 25 years or longer. That is the difference. So, we get no power but we get the waste. BS and you know it. The AEHI application clearly stated that NO toxic waste would be produced or stored on the property. So, how does that work? DG and AEHI are less than truthful but I believe that they do believe their own lies...and the lies get more and more the more their fearless leader speaks.

As far as water pollution...it will happen. Look at Areva in France (3 times last summer). Look at Yankee. Look at Ohio. They have all had leaks. The leaks in France SHUT WATER DOWN for drinking and farming. So, to say that water pollution is not a concern, is simply not true. It happens often. You can find all nuclear "incidents" on the NRC web listed by location (US only). That is a real eye opener. Make informed decisions and be educated on the facts so that you know when you are being lied to.

Sorry twilcox...I did not mean to take over your blog. Thank you for your work on this issue.

Yea, put up windmills every 200 yards and see how much local suport you get for that. Opinion Missy and others who like to stop everything around here would complain about that too, problably even the SRA.

AtomicPup (seems like every other guy on a discussion board has the word "dog" in his name), is this the latest SRA tactic, to say, "I like nuclear but not this co." Psst, investment is falling even for rewnewables. Unlike you or me, at least Gillespie puts his name behind his words. Maybe post to his blog if you want to know what his plans are cleanidahoenergy.wordpress.com.

We know his work---BS, BS and more BS. Did that about cover it for you? It is all about the money not the people. We may have to learn this lesson the hard way.

No, it doesnt cover it for me but it sounds like you have all the information you can handle about the issue: B.S. What job or industry isnt about the $? which one would be about the people, whatever that means and you would oppose it anyway. sounds like you have your job secure and dont want this place to prosper.

WG, maybe get outside of Wally World a bit more. It is not likely that you will make the 80K they speak of. I would like MH to prosper but in a responsible way that does not HURT the environment and the people. Is that too much to ask for? I do not think it is. How about if you attack me with facts from their application instead of just opinion.

Walmart,

Why would I read lies on a blog when I can go the ECC meeting and hear them first hand? If I want to hear what your male role model has to say I'll just watch my DVD when it comes in the mail. I know slick from his dealings down in Owyhee and the pattern hasn't changed with them tucking tail and trying to run the fraud up here. Nice to see that you resort to some sort of lame attempt at a dig at my screen name. Stick to the issue. I see that you don't have any rebuttal for them building without permits, failing to pay their bills, and getting their Virginian butts kicked out of court on their frivolous lawsuit. Keep calling me names though, that'll stop me. I guess I'll have to post between crying jags if I can even bare the stings of your rapier wit.

About the thought that I like nuclear but not by this company. The company and its consultants should be a bit more upfront and acknowledge that this is not a perfect scenario. Nothing in life is perfect. Not wind nor solar nor anything else. Everything has costs and benefits. I am a economics major at Boise State and so pride myself on looking at this issue through untinted lenses.

Elmore County and Idaho as a whole was most likely chosen as a destination because of its supposed lack of opposition. Feeling that this area would jump at the chance of new, sustained jobs. Unlike retail and service employment, the indirect jobs that are created are substantial. I can post the links if one wants but there is data that shows that their numbers are too high. The last 13 reactors built did create jobs. The ratio of jobs to output is far lower than this company. Does that not say something to the public? They chose these reactors as comparison not because of similar terrain or economic conditions. They were chose because of the methodology used in their economic impact studies. They neglect that Idaho has less people to draw from and is remote in comparison to other locations.

Overall, I want to know what Elmore County feels about this. I realize that there is another well written blog about this. Is job creation your number one issue or are you willing to take a constructive, reasoned approach to this?

tw1978 is your dad the atty, one of the best in idaho? just curious.

No, my father is a retired carpenter. An old cowboy from Eastern Idaho. I am just a student at Boise State that wants to bring the facts to life.

Atomic pup, I dont care if Gillispie wins any popularity contests. I think a nulcear plant is a great idea and would bring lots of jobs here and we need them. I know Gilispie paid $50,000 to Owyhee county "almost immediately when noticed in writing" one of the commissioners said in the paper. You say you support nuclear but dont like Gillispie but I think you just say that to personalize things. If the company made no efforts at informing people you'd say they werent informing people enough, now they inform people a lot and you say its all lies and snake oil. I agree with him on some things and not others but I think they could create something really great for us here if we give them the chance.

The entrenchment that has already taken place is amazing. Clearly MissyOpinion is opposed to this project, but if I were to dare venture a guess, she wouldn't have a solution. Picking apart and idea is the cowards approach, offer the answer. I think Idaho is a known leader in nuclear technologies, between the U.S. Navy and the National Lab being here. Coming to Idaho makes sense.

Complaints about over-inflated job growth and development numbers is moot. The net impact will be positive and will help to turn around the evacuation of Elmore Counties children.

Elmore county needs to remember that in the days of base closures and cut backs, that there isn't gonna be more opportunities like this knocking on their door.

I bring up the inflated numbers for a reason. If a prospective business owner came into your neighborhood and estimated that he would do $50 million in sales the first year, one has to think that there are consequences to that. So lets theorize and find out that no one in the history of that industry has ever sold that much in the first year nor have they ever done business here. It is salesmanship. They have a right to do and I cant blame them for trying. They have plenty of incentive to try.

What i would like is full info. What is out there right now is simple propaganda that has no specifics. How do we know that they are going to follow through with this pot of gold at the end of the Elmore County rainbow? Putting it to a vote would not be a bad idea. Is it really such a bad thing if Elmore County does not become wealthy and populated. If you want those features, just drive 45 miles down the road and have it.

twilcox1978 indicates there is plenty of incentive to try to sell the idea that AEHI can make money through power generation in Elmore Co., just not the number that has been projected. I have ventured my own money and tried to raise money for ventures and accurate financials are not the norm. These are projections of possibility folks, if we knew what any given endeavor would do to the penny there would be no risk involved.

Also of note, as an entrepreneur I am not going to tell the general public exatly how I plan to make money. If I had a novel approach, disclosure would nullify it. That is why the guys down at Hawley & Troxell send me bills, non-disclosure agreements have to be made and signed.

The scariest part of the previous post is the idea that a popular vote would be in any way beneficial. We live in a representative democracy, but underlying your right to pick your representatives is your your right to property and the governments ability to intrude therein. The only way it could get worse than government intrusion into my property would be allowing the entire town, county, state or country decide what I can do with my property!

The term "Snake Oil Salesman" seems to be popping

up in many of the blogs. I thought I originated it

when refering to Obama. Obamaman is undoubtedly

a liberal radical Democrat as are most of the anti-nuke people are. They have more concern for

things under rocks than human progress. What with all of their whinning about cost and other

imagined radiation dangers they will continue to

complain long after the plant has been built. If

all of the 'WHAT IFFERS' prevailed we would still

be living in dark the ages. Complaining, pointing fingers and arguing is their method of assauging

their fustrations. As a former Marine I attended

atomic bomb tests at Yucca Flats. The test was an

air drop and we were about a mile away. We waled

through ground zero within hours of blast. I'm

81 years old and in good health.

and other methods used

The company does not need to disclose every piece of info but in a situation where they look shady, they would help their case by not dodging the questions. Having spoken to the man without him knowing who I was, he was very dodgy and could not answer any question directly. Only those have something to hide, avoid direct answers. I oppose it purely on economic terms. Environmentally, there is evidence that nuclear is not the safest. On the other hand, if it was so bad there would be something on Dateline and so on.

This is not a what if situation. Given the information that they have supplied, there is no reason to believe that his claims are realistic. It would supply jobs and income. There is no denying that. Now, the question is how much and at the expense of what? The last nuke plant built which was Palo Verde in Arizona created jobs as well. I have went through their year-end financial statements, Census reports, employment numbers from Bureau of Labor Statistics and data send to FERC. The data shows that this plant which is larger in physical size and worse production technology (meaning that it takes longer to build) only created a bit over 2000 jobs. The average wage for that county only increased by .3% which is miniscule.

The point to all this data? In their economic analysis to convince others to support, they use this plant as an example. This tells me and should others that his claims of 5785 jobs and 3.5% for the county are inflated. I have stated this many times, i realize. Does this not say something about this operation. Again, yes it would create jobs but if they are so far off on this aspect what about others?

To end, I am glad that people are not just accepting this fate. Not everyone will agree and that is fine. I only desire in the end to find a solution that is truly best for the area now and for the future.

On another note, if one goes to the NRC website and cross references it with Census data from the time that Palo Verde was built one will find that the only jobs that were sustained past the building process were that of PhD.s and engineers. What does this mean? This means that only outsiders will hold jobs for the most part.

Another tidbit, the only reactor in existence that is close in design to this did not take 5 years to build. It took longer due to it being experimental. This one Okiluto or such in Finland has been plagued by cost overruns and delays. What makes one think that the same will not hold true here? It makes me wonder when the company will give out a lot of promises but has no answers when it comes to basic design. This is not copyright law. Letting your customers know some basic hard info that is not surrounded by superlatives and vaguery would help.

Twilcox1978, I appreciate the research you are doing in this matter. You seem reasoned and deliberate. I just went through the NEI report on the economic benefits of the Palo Verde plant, I am surprised to see the numbers you are discussing.

"In 2002, operation of the Palo Verde Power Nuclear Generating Station increased Maricopa County's economic output by $149.3 million. Adding the direct value of the plant's electricity output brings the county's economic output attributable to Palo Verde to $868.5 million.

The plant's total economic impact includes direct effects, which comprise the value of electricity

produced at the plants, as well as secondary--or indirect--effects resulting from plant operation.

The operation of Palo Verde, and its secondary effects, accounts for 3,943 jobs in Maricopa County. Earnings for these jobs total $245.2 million in the county. Additionally, the plant and its related economic activity provide $62 million to state and local tax coffers.

The plant is one of the largest employers in the far Southwest Valley area of Maricopa County. The plant directly employs 2,386 people, including long-term contractors and corporate staff. The vast majority of these workers live in Maricopa County. More than one of every 100 working people in the municipalities

of Avondale, Buckeye, Goodyear, Litchfield Park and Wickenburg work at Palo Verde. In addition, these jobs pay 13 percent above the average Maricopa County salary."

http://www.nei.org/filefolder/economic_benefits_palo_verde.pdf

They are painting a startling different picture and the surrounding communities, from other sources, have experienced remarkable benefits from said development. I know that there are some issues here in, but there is a middle ground to be found.

I simply question this company's propaganda. In all situations, I give utmost respect to those who can say it like it is. Upfront, direct, and sincere are best in cases of indecision.

those numbers that you post are valid. The company's application states that construction will be employ 5300 or so jobs. The Palo Verde is much bigger in terms of square footage, older more labor intensive building methods were used, higher wages (even when adjusted for inflation and it being 1976), and finally becauase of old technology there is more maintenance needed than for this design. It would make sense that it cost more and employed more. For a smaller plant with better production methods to employ more than PV is a bit of a stretch. The Palo Verde plant during construction employed an estimated 2800. There is no absolute number of course but that gap says something to me.

Anyways, have a great day and I am glad that you are taking the time to consider all factors. Feel free to attend the rezone hearing on April 22. Locals will be given the floor not politicians or non-profit groups.

Ok, one correction is in order on my part.

it will be 3785 construction jobs and 500 in permanent operation.

The indirect employment (EMT's, gas station clerks, etc.) will be 1100 or so. That is according to AEHI's economic plan.

sorry I did not mean to inflate my own numbers.

twilcox1978, I agree that upfront, direct and sincere are favorable qualities, don't get me wrong. At the same time, this is an early stage project and often times the shape of the project is just that, a shape. I don't begrudge folks that as I have and am addressing that as an entrepreneur and the owner of a start-up tech business.

And please don't think that I was accusing you of inflating, deflating or otherwise misrepresenting anything in this matter. I think you are a reasoned and judicious skeptic. I respect that. I was merely looking to a different data source and thought the numbers were interestingly different. I only began looking at Palo Verde after it was cited earlier.

I am comfortable with 500 folks directly employed and 1100 indirectly employed by virtue of this project being the number. AEHI made their projections and we have to make our own as well, but the net effect is significant job growth and an influx of money and opportunity. The cost of losing this potential project is too great to see it get killed over a zoning issue. The real debate is later, ranging from environmental protections and safety concerns. That is when the project can be seen more clearly as AEHI will have to make a ton of filings with a significant amount of detail related to the project.

Hi all,

If anyone has questions about anything nuclear, then feel free to ask.

I look forward to reading this blog.

NCSU NE Student,

What do you know about this new design that is being touted by AEHI as being so revolutionary?

twilcox1978,

To use an oversimplified analogy, our current fleet of nuclear power plants are like 1970s Honda Civics. Whereas, the new power plant designs are like a 2010 model Civic. The new ones are safer, have better controls, look nicer, use a similar amount of fuel and have comparable emissions.

Alternate Energy Holdings is planning on building an EPR (Evolutionary Power Reactor) design at Hammett.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-app...

Since we can use computer aided design software and simulation with these new reactors, they are more redundant, slightly more fuel efficient, easier to operate and ultimately safer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUw5CiVOnuA&feature=related

If you want me to go into more detail, I can. I just try to keep jargon out, so the public can understand.

Below is a pamphlet with a wealth of information supplied by the reactors designer, AREVA.

http://www.areva-np.com/common/liblocal/docs/Brochure/EPR_US_%20May%202005.pdf

I hope this blog accepts these links...

EPR stands for European Pressurized Reactor, not to knitpick. I realize that this design is more advanced. I do not share the same concerns as some about safety and terrorist attacks. There has not been an accident in quite a while so I would be assured that this trend will continue.

My questions center around economics. First, I ask about the design so that I can estimate the real cost of building this. For instance, if I know the square footage then I can estimate what the opportunity cost. Next, there are questions about water. I have spoke to the company and they claim there will be very little consumptive use. The existing literature provided by Areva, NRC, and NEI show that there would be consumptive use. The central person involved has slipped a few times and conceded that there could be consumptive use. I want a definitive answer. That is one of the crucial questions to be answered.

These questions being asked are for the future and are immaterial to the re-zoning question. Issues surrounding the nature of the proposed zoning change need to focus on the Commissioners inappropriate belief that the Comprehensive Plan is a law and requires some kind of "compliance." The Comprehensive Plan is a county document that reflects the county's "plan" for the future. These documents change as the reality on the ground changes. If there were a gross mistake in the plan, the Commissioners would see fit to modify this plan. Now that the reality of this narrative has changed, the proposal for a plant that would change the economic and employment landscape of the county, the Commissioners need to start looking at the Comprehensive Plan as a hindrance to economic development in the county. Relegating all industry to Simcoe Rd. is foolhardy at best, and a recipe for the eventual economic demise of the county at worst.

twilcox1978,

On a source of cooling,

There are a variety of ways to cool the steam back into water, but they all use immense amounts of water. However, the water is returned to source virtually unchanged.

The 2 designs I know of are:

1) The classic parabolic tower, which has two sub-designs

2) The shorter mechanical cooling tower

both pull water from a source and return it. Water usage varies widely, since there are once through and twice through designs and etcetera.

If the NRC is expecting their application, then I'm under the impression that this issue would have already been addressed.

On consumptive use,

Every steam cycle power plant that is built has to have some type of heat sink. Literally, hundreds of these heat sinks exits at current power plants, having negligible environmental impact.

The vast majority of the water that does not return to the source evaporated into the air. Ergo, it's not being used and then thrown down the drain.

Yes, some of the water will not return to the source. However, this amount is relatively small compared to the amount of water being returned to the source.

As an aside,

Not to get too deep into nonconstructive semantics, the US-EPR went through minor changes in the NRC and is different than the European EPR.

The following passage is taken from an AREVA document (bottom of page 1) on the US-EPR, which is linked below:

"The U.S. EPR (Evolutionary Power Reactor) is a large, advanced reactor of the pressurized water reactor (PWR) type offered by AREVA NP to provide the most predictable path for new baseload generation that is cost-effective, safe and environmentally conscious."

http://www.areva-np.com/us/liblocal/docs/EPR/U.S.EPRbrochure_1.07_FINAL.pdf

It is generally referred to in the industry as EPR.

On cost,

Instead of doing your own estimate, based on square footage, this reactor should be comparable to what Florida Power and Light (I think that is the company) paid for their AP-1000. They released the overall cost in a public statement.

The water issue is a non-starter in my opinion. The water is pulled from the river used and returned. There is some net consumption, but on the whole, the amount of consumption will be less than that of the agricultural uses. Industrial, potable systems and commercial only account for 4% of the water usage statewide. this plant won't result in a significant change in that equation.

To focus on the pure question of rezone, lets think about those who bought the land with the expectation that there would not be heavy industry in the area. Seriously tell me that you would thumb your nose at them. There is literature that supports decreased property value for all that are adjacent to it. The ag products that come out of that area would suffer competitively. This may be marginal but when one makes 86% of the median income these marginal amounts matter.

The comprehensive plan is meant to be tentative, I agree. There would have to be road improvements and other infrastructure that once built would be underutilized once construction ends. They claim to be willing to pay for it out of pocket. When one combines this, building the plant, decommissioning, paperwork, and all other costs it far exceeds 4.5 billion. They are having trouble getting funding and now they want the public to grant them this. Being that this project has uncertainty, the interest on the loans is going to be sizeable. This will translate in higher production costs. Typically that does not mean lower wages but rather charging a higher rate for their product. That pretty much shoots the pipe dream of 1.15 cents per kwh.

twilcox1978, buying land with the expectation that nothing will ever change is a fools errand. Things change and communities change over time. I am not thumbing my nose at adjacent land owners, there agricultural land will be suitable for industrial purposes post infrastructure development and be worth far more than a the present hay field. Claims that these properties would be worth less is spurious.

How would hay, potatoes, etc. be worth less? I've never eaten a potato that was stamped with its birthplace on the side. They would enter the commodity market just like any other.

I don't know what the end kwh is going to be, neither does anyone else. But what we can predict is that that they are going to charge the market rate for it. We can also predict that the market rate will be significantly greater than the production cost. We can also predict that market rate will be lower with the additional energy in it than it would be without it.

Bazookaman. You are usually correct in all your posts, but to correct one error. Scrubby's was solar HEATED, not solar powered. I helped him work on it several times.

Please show us your credentials to speak on any kind of power plant water usage or nuclear plant staffing? Never mind... As an engineer though somewhat dated...I can tell you that any thermal plant can operated with very low water consumption based on design, maintenance and efficiency losses. Also, I am glad Washington, Nevada and Wyoming sell Idaho about 50% of our power or it would be lights out and farms shutdown. May be if we build a real power plant in Idaho we could supply ourselves for a change.

I believe there are over 100 nuclear plants in the US and Gillispie was involved with many of them...I expect he knows much more than the bloggers on this site about what it takes to get this done. If I was a betting man, my money would be on his information not the uninformed critics on this blog.

Retired Exec,

I have spoke to the man twice and there are numerous PRO-NUCLEAR publications that have him quoted as he'll sell to the highest bidder. Interpret that without any bias and tell us all what that means.

There are 104 Nuclear Power reactors in the US. However, I'm under the impression that one of them is getting their turbine upgraded and is currently offline. The Sharron-Harris power plant is planing their outage soon.

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/

Hi all,

Interesting discussion. A few thoughts to share...

AEHI for sure will to the highest bidder. That is what Gillispie tells stock investors and as Twil says, pro-nuclear journals. His handouts like at Glenns Ferry claim he will sell power to Idaho cheaply. He has said 3-5 cents per Kwhr at meetings I have attended. Quite the doubletalker.

The Keystone report, partially written by Areva, says present nuke power costs over 11 cent/Kwhr, delivered TO the line, with more for transmission. Gillispie claims he'll produce it at under 2 cents/Kwhr! California is willing to pay over 16 cents/Kwhr already. These false promises reflect Gillispie's trustworthyness.

The Keystone report was BEFORE the nuke cost explosion that backed Buffet away from his Payette proposal. Found at http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NuclearFactFinding6_2007(2).pd...

NCSU NE student, what do you think of the Alloy-600 stress crack problem that effects half the US fleet of reactors? It is what caused the near meltdown at Davis-Besse in 2002. That's when the trusty nuke engineer covered it up and lied to the NRC. Lucky someone else found out and blew the whistle, but it represents an unforeseen SCIENCE flaw. The Alloy-600 got brittle after years of nuetron bombardment, which wasn't supposed to happen. Now the NRC is WATCHING the stress cracks, hoping the next earthquake won't rip them, and re-licensing the old plants. Please read more at www.MyIdahoEnergy.com

Since you like NRC quotes, here is one hoping the control rods don't snap off and become projectiles that rip safety barriers and protective equipment needed for safety control...Peter

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/prv.html

Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking of Upper Reactor Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles in PWRs

Control rod drive mechanism nozzles and other vessel head penetration nozzles welded to the upper reactor vessel head are subject to another phenomenon - primary water stress corrosion cracking. The issue is a potential safety concern because a nozzle with sufficient cracking could break off during operation. This would compromise the integrity of the reactor coolant system pressure boundary - one of three primary barriers that protect the public from exposure to radiation. The break may also result in the ejection of a control rod, which could damage nearby components.

Being of an economic mind, this company is not here because it is Idaho. Making money is the number one goal. If the company did not feel it could make a profit, they would not think twice about Idaho. There are relatively few heavy industrial operations here and so labor will be cheap due to limited demand for its services. The point is that they chose Idaho because they felt that cheap labor and low production costs would result. I tire of his infomercial speeches. Just because they do not have the character to be a bit more upfront does not mean that we cant see through it.

I would like to thank the creators of Elmore County's "2004 Comprehensive Growth and Development Plan." Their hard work and vision produced a wise and sustainable plan for the future of Elmore County. Ideally, such documents are created during times of political and social stability; when minimal social and political pressures exist to sway reason.

An important purpose of a well constructed comprehensive growth and development plan is to serve as a foundation and reference document at times like this when a specific proposal such as AEHI's request for the rezoning of a parcel of prime agricultural land to heavy industrial use becomes a hotly debated public topic, when emotion and exigencies can easily override wisdom and reason. A comprehensive plan is by definition a holistic view created after much research and consideration of many facets, including economic development, historical, social and cultural patterns and priorities, as well as topographical, geological, hydrological and environmental concerns. Careful consideration of such parameters maximize the possibility that wise land and water use plans will be established. Elmore County's "2004 Comprehensive Growth and Development Plan" contains these attributes.

Elmore County's excellent comprehensive plan can be viewed as a check list of priorities, a reference point to weigh the impact of a proposed change against ALL the relevant points in the plan.

Some have suggested changing the "2004 Comprehensive Growth and Development Plan" in such a fashion that would easily allow for the proposed rezoning change. To do so, would negate the well-founded reasons for developing a comprehensive plan; it would be putting the horse before the cart.

Error correction:

It would be putting the cart before the horse.

DrPeterRickardsDPM,

Although I am not well versed on stresses in metal caused by neutrons, the NRC's license renewal process is very thorough, ensuring safety of operation for the next 20 years of opperations. Our profs did tell us about the Boric acid corrosion at Davis-Besse.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.com/newsarticle.aspx?id=25027&terms=nrc

The NRC document you gave was a provocative read.

In hindsight, it is important to note that no one was injured, the public was not in substantial danger and the NRC properly discovered and rectified the problem at Davis-Besse.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/January/06_enrd_029.html

http://www.world-nuclear-news.com/newsarticle.aspx?id=21030&terms=nrc

Although I am not well versed in the Primary Water Stress Corrosion of Reactor Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles, I'm not aware of any reactor that this has caused problems.

twilcox1978,

Do you have any sources indicating that a construction of an EPR in Idaho would be cheaper than in other states? I assume they would be comparable.

it is common knowledge in economics and amongst all that if labor supply exceeds labor demand they will accept lower wages. There is also lack of expectations on the part of these "local workers".They know not what to expect and so any wage would be acceptable and any wage that pays above the living wage ($11.31 or so) would be accepted by most with no question. Yes, they could bargain later for higher wages but that comes with a lag. Between initial recruiting and when this eminent complaint comes forth is going to be a few years. Any profit maximizing company would not jack up wages just for goodwill. Their first duty is to stockholders.

Cost of living is less here than in most states. I wont drown every one here in stats and such but for non-nuclear specific items there is a very high probability that they would spend less.

Finally, our unemployment insurance rates are on the low end. When one aggregates this over the total number it adds up. Being that there are no comparable workers in Idaho, the rating assigned to them by workers compensation is going to be low to start with. The lag will factor in again.

Being that this is first of a kind or at least it is according to the DOE, FERC, and NEI there will be higher than usual production cost that they need to account for. One does not have to know nuclear to know that this applies. Any project that has considerable complexity and interrelated components will not have proven production techniques. There is data to suggest that firms of all sectors encounter this and so the company suggesting that they can skirt the cost overruns and delays that plague finland and Korea is laughable.

twilcox1978,

Even if a difference exists, the cost of skilled labor from a local area is a drop in the pond, compared to the overall cost of the project.

"In March 2008, Progress Energy announced that its two new Westinghouse AP1000 units on a greenfield site in Florida would cost it about $14 billion, including land, plant components, cooling towers, financing costs, licence application, regulatory fees, initial fuel for two units, owner's costs, insurance and taxes, escalation and contingencies."

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

The discrepancy between pay of laborers at different sites probably isn't a contributing factor to the company's site selection. Other issues like demand for base load electricity and expected future growth are more likely greater contributing factors.

Thanks for the reply NCSU NE student, and thanks for reading the reference!

Please note the Alloy-600 stress crack problem is what caused the Davis-Besse acid leak that left only 1/4 inch of containment when ACCIDENTLY discovered. So NRC didn't really "properly dicover and correct the problem" as you say. The plant engineer discovered it by accident and then covered it up. No one knew to even inspect for this unforeseen problem. Only by the grace of God did a fellow employee find out and blow the whistle. He was prosecuted and harrased like most whistle blowers, but after years in court was finally exonerated.

While you say the relicensing is thorough, please understand they found alloy-600 stress cracks in the half of the entire US fleet that are PWR's. The other 50% have similar alloy-600 problems of a lesser degree. The NRC is simply watching these stress cracks while they renew the licenses. So to claim like Gillispie there are no problems and containment will always work for accidents (that he claims can never happen) is deceptive.

Here is another NRC quote for you and the professors. It is the latest NRC/DOE study on containment. I paste the url and a few snippets about scenarioes that could lead to "catastrophic failure." Most folks know what "catastrophic failure" means, but you never hear that quote from Gillispie, or INL, nor from their well bought politician/salesmen, do we?

Respectfully...Peter

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6906/cr6906.pdf

find at p 147 or p 166/206 on webpages

4.7 Issues for Future Consideration

4.7.1 Leakage

A great deal has been learned about containment behavior and containment analysis methods in

the last two decades of containment research, but questions still remain. One of the most

important behavior questions is that it is not known with certainty whether a leakage failure will reach an equilibrium state or if it will lead to a catastrophic failure.

_________________________

4.7.2 Other Considerations

Many aspects of containment integrity have still not been addressed in the various containment

integrity research programs. Some of these topics are listed below:

* The behavior of the containment under elevated temperature and pressure loads has not

been thoroughly investigated. Most of the containment tests have ignored the effects of

temperature on the material properties and thermal induced stresses associated with

elevated temperatures.

* The effect of aerosols within the containment atmosphere during an accident has not been

investigated. Aerosols may plug holes in the containment that may lead to a higher

pressure capability, but have the potential to change the mode of failure from a possible

benign mode to a burst mode. This applies to unlined concrete containments and lined

containments when the liner has failed.

* Seismic loadings coupled with severe accident loads have not been investigated in any

detail.

* Liner-anchorage-concrete interaction is significant in determining how liners tear in

concrete containments. These phenomena are still not fully understood.

Again, I quote Mr. Gillispie when i spoke to him on the phone, "Power will be sold to the highest bidder". He has been quoted on many occasions saying that phrase so he definitely knows what his marginal revenue is. If you know your economics, you will know that a firm will operate up until marginal cost equals marginal revenue. If the Marginal productivity of labor or wage is 800000 per year that will increase one's production cost beyond that of 1.15 cents per KwH. If you look at the Census, one will discover that Idaho's average wage is less than that most others. If you aggregate this over 5000 employees and over 4 to 6 years, this would be quite sizeable.

Any complex event has to have extensive planning and foresight. This glorified Billy Mays knows what he is doing in the short run and long run. In his economic plan, he counts on an average wage of $80000 per worker. When adjusted for inflation, exchange rate, and different employment laws the wages of Finland are $34556 or so per year. Why does that matter? Well it is similar in design and the physical environment is even less conducive to what is being done. This figure includes all levels, both the upper and lower end of the scale. The future is uncertain but this seems a bit strange.

Also, when adjusted for population, inflation, and other economic variables, the last plant built at Palo Verde in Arizona only produced 1900 jobs. That plant demanded vastly more labor, concrete, and other building materials. The interest rate on financing was much higher and so the risk on the investment was higher. that area had more skilled labor and so the expectations of wage and relative wage were high and so they knew what to expect.

Recent revelations about the Three-Mile Island Nuclear Plant melt-down 30 years ago.

http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/04/post-4.html

CitizenJ,

Over the past 30 years, there have been many thorough studies done on TMI. The vast majority are in line with the NRC fact sheet(linked below), which is a reflection of many of these studies. I find it hard to believe that anything startlingly new can be revealed, as your linked author suggests, about TMI now.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

DrPeterRickardsDPM,

I agree with your statements about Gillispie.

In hindsight, my statement about "properly discover and correct the problem" is inaccurate. We only spent a little time discussing Davis-Besse during our reactor operator training class, since our reactor doesn't use boron to help evenly burn the core. (unfortunately, haha). Our school has a 1MWt reactor that, although aging, is still very functional for research. http://www.ne.ncsu.edu/NRP/reactor_program.html We have a confinement system, not containment.

Dear NCSU NE student,

You have a refreshingly open mind and honest responses! Glad we agree on Gillispie, and it seems we now agree there can be meltdowns and catastrophic failure of containment. The NRC ranked the chance of a meltdown at Davis-Besse as 1 in 1,000 within the next year if the engineer had not been busted by a fellow employee!

Regarding whether Three Mile Island was the "success story" that pro-nuclear people claim...

Let's remember the melted core of Three Mile Island is still orphaned out over our water supply at INL, with no where to go. So we'll see in the next million years it remains deadly if it hurts anyone.

Let's take a look at what the NRC admitted on it's fact sheet. Here are 3 snippets...

In a worst-case accident, the melting of nuclear fuel would lead to a breach of the walls of the containment building and release massive quantities of radiation to the environment. But this did not occur as a result of the Three Mile Island accident.

But new concerns arose by the morning of Friday, March 30. A significant release of radiation from the plant's auxiliary building, performed to relieve pressure on the primary system and avoid curtailing the flow of coolant to the core, caused a great deal of confusion and consternation.

July 1980 Approximately 43,000 curies of krypton were vented from the reactor building.

___________________________________________

So compared to Chernobyl, we had less "clear" of a disaster. 15 curies of radioactive iodine is less than the millions released at Chernobyl, for sure. But clearly no unnecessary excess radiation is good for pregnant women and children, doctors orders. So when the Three Miles Island citizens hopelessly complain about hair loss and skin burns, Idahoans should learn how hard it is to "prove" your ailments are for certain the fault of any nuclear company! But taking an air bath in thousands of curies of radioactivity doesn't seem like a "good thing" to me, nor a negligible event, as NRC claims.

Well published Dr Rosalie Bertel was put in charge of the official government investigation. She swears to this day that nuclear engineer President Jimmy Carter was instrumental in suppressing and destroying vital data.

There are peer reviewed studies that found increased lung cancer and luekemia rates, like the 1997 study by Dr Steve Wing. That is on the pubmed website of peer-reviewed science articles (google pubmed), but you can read the full paper in the Nat'l Institute of Health's journal at http://www.ehponline.org/members/1997/105-1/wing.html

Here is the url for the original study's doctors rebuttal to Wing, and Wing's response to their ego whinings at http://www.ehponline.org/docs/1997/105-6/correspondence.html

Yes indeed, the science can be bothersome and bickersome, and proving liability is hard. Notice most studies on TMI focus on death rates from cancer, while Wing's study is more clear to study cancer "rates", since people can survive cancer, and death certificates are not always accurate to state the cancer as the cause of death, like if you die from a blod clot after surgery.

But I paste a snippet from the long correspondence between Wing and others. He examines if all this hair loss and skin burns can be attributed to mass hysteria, as NRC claims at TMI AND blames for most of Chernobyl's impact!

Seems those whining no-nothing citizens also had high DNA damage, just like those, umm, exposed to radiation.

Respectfully...peter

Furthermore, dozens of local citizens issued sworn affidavits that described erythema, hair loss, nausea, and vomiting (22,24), all symptoms that can occur following acute exposure to high doses of radiation. Aware that such symptoms may arise from other situations and that this event was highly stressful, we reviewed medical literature on mass hysteria to evaluate whether the reported symptoms corresponded to those typically found in outbreaks of unexplained disease that have been ascribed to psychogenic origins (25, 30). Our review of the case reports at TMI suggested that they did not correspond to the classical mass hysteria scenario, which involves people in close proximity to each other, predominately female, and not including erythema and hair loss. Since the publication of Susser and Hatch's work, some of those who complained of symptoms have had tests for chromosomal aberrations, which supported their contention that they experienced acute radiation effects (31, 32).

NCSU NE Student,

If you have any free time over the summer, here are two books you might find worth reading, if you haven't read them already.

Manufacturing consent : the political economy of the mass media / Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky

A people's history of the United States : 1492-present / Howard Zinn.

CitizenJ,

Although the title of the first book initially turned me off, I have great respect for Noam Chomsky and may read through it.

DrPeterRickardsDPM,

For the public's concern, the EPR will not release significant amounts of radiation during operation. Only in select few events (like a highly improbable, yet possible, core meltdown) will significant amounts of radiation be released. However, to phase the amount of radiation exposure in context, we should compare this does to other common exposure sources. http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html We see that the average dose of individuals that live close to TMI is far less than the yearly exposure of flight attendants, who are clearly not in any sever health risks.

Not really directed @ anyone,

Idaho needs more base load generating capacity. Currently, the 3 best suited options for base load operation are hydroelectric, coal and nuclear. With most of our nation's large hydroelectric sites already tapped, we are left with only coal and nuclear as viable options. Personally, I prefer a "clean" nuclear power plant that doesn't release airborne pollutants over the comparatively "dirty" coal fired power plant.

CitizenJ,

I just talked to one of my political science friends who has a copy of Noam's book and will let me read it. Thanks for the suggestion.

Howdy NCSU NE student,

Please check out the post I put on wind power as a baseload on the rezone blog from Stanford 2007. The US geothermal power can also provide a sure fire 24/7 baseload of over 5 times the US electric consumption. Most articles pumped into media are framed as coal vs nukes, but there is plenty of renewables. Bush and our republican delegation zeroed out the geothermal subsidies, while I think we need to fund it like a bailed out ripoff banker! Nuke lobbyists talk with money, but geothermal and wind are better for National defense, without ever risking a meltdown and forced evacuations and impoundment of crops.

While I appreciate you acknowledging meltdowns could happen, I appeal that what may seem "highly improbable" can follow Murphy's law at any moment. A well intended team of doctors sometimes cut off a patients good leg, and leave the bad leg! Beyond just the mechanical or human error is the terrorist threat. Even the NRC test mock-armed invasions succeeded to invade half the nuke plants they tested! Photos of sleeping guards are available!

Then there are disgruntled employees. INL had an armed security guard baracade himself in a no-go area a few New Years Day's ago. This time they managed to talk him down, but anyone can "go postal," including nuke workers. And many engineers are Islamic. While most are wonderful people, religion motivates, and we are in multiple wars. On day one of the Iraq invasion one Islamic soldier rolled a grenade into his troops barracks.

One disgruntled nuclear worker out in California was at least dumb enough to call in his threats a few years back. When they arrested him at home he had many weapons, including an anti-tank rocket launcher! The 1961 SL-1 meltdown at INL was caused by a lover's triangle. Folks can go psycho when their co-worker is cheating with your wife or girlfriend.

Have your professors talked about meltdowns from cyber-terrorism, or the plant computers? Holy cow, a disgruntled employee or invader can turn off every control system and cause a disaster. No airplanes needed. The DOE admits we are in a constant battle to stay one step ahead of these cyber vulnerabilities. While not connected to the internet like most power plants, here is the NRC on the threat inside a nuclear plant.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/security-enhancements....

Cyber Security

While the September 11 attacks didn't have a "cyber" component, it is no secret that cyber security is a growing and serious issue. The NRC has already issued a series of advisories and orders requiring nuclear power plants to take certain actions, including enhancing protection of their computer systems. Several new rulemakings are proposing further cyber security requirements. One proposed rule would require nuclear power plants to implement strategies to protect computer systems, detect cyber attacks, and isolate and neutralize cyber intruders. However, it is important to note that computer systems that help operate the reactors and other power reactor safety equipment are isolated from the internet to protect against outside intrusion. As suggested by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Commission is also considering adding a cyber threat component to the DBT. In addition, the NRC routinely interacts with the DHS's National Cyber Security Division to coordinate federal cyber security activities in the nuclear sector."

________________________

I do agree that EPR will emit small amounts of radioactivity during normal operations, that the NRC considers negligible, and compared to a meltdown they are tiny. While Germany has as strick a nuclear safety standard as we do, please check this pubmed NIH peer-reviewed journal from Germany. While the US looks at "death" certificates and declares no problem, they studied the childhood luekemia rates around anuclear plant where there had been no accidents. The closer to the nuclear power plant the kids lived, the higher the childhood luekemia rate. They can't say for sure why, of course.

Maybe the continual small releases aren't that good for pregnant moms and kids, maybe it's the heavy ElectroMagneticField from all the power, and maybe one BIG coincidence, but they can't find that problem near wind mills...Peter

From PubMed online ..

International Journal of Cancer 2007 Dec 7

Leukaemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants.

Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schulze-Rath R, Schmiedel S, Blettner M.

Institute for Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, German Childhood Cancer Registry, Obere Zahlbacher Strasse 69, 55131 Mainz, Germany.

A case control study was conducted where cases were children younger than 5 years (diseased between 1980 and 2003) registered at the german childhood cancer registry (GCCR). Population-based matched controls (1:3) were selected from the corresponding registrar's office. Residential proximity to the nearest nuclear power plant was determined for each subject individually (with a precision of about 25 m). The report is focused on leukaemia and mainly on cases in the inner 5-km zone around the plants. The study includes 593 leukaemia cases and 1,766 matched controls. All leukaemia combined show a statistically significant trend for 1/distance with a positive regression coefficient of 1.75 [lower 95%-confidence limit (CL): 0.65]; for acute lymphoid leukaemia 1.63 (lower 95%-CL: 0.39), for acute nonlymphocytic leukaemia 1.99 (lower 95%-CL: -0.41). This indicates a negative trend for distance. Cases live closer to nuclear power plants than the randomly selected controls. A categorical analysis shows a statistically significant odds ratio of 2.19 (lower 95%-CL: 1.51) for residential proximity within 5 km compared to residence outside this area. This result is largely attributed to cases in previous studies of the GCCR (especially in the inner zone) as there is clearly some overlap between those studies. The result was not to be expected under current radiation-epidemiological knowledge. Considering that there is no evidence of relevant accidents and that possible confounders could not be identified, the observed positive distance trend remains unexplained. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSear...

DrPeterRickardsDPM,

On Geothermal,

While geothermal power plants can provide base load power, it is impractical to consider widespread adoption, based on current use and growth rates.

"Geothermal electric power plants are located in Alaska, California, Nevada, Utah and Hawaii; the total installed capacity of the country is 2,687 MW, but with only 1,935 MW actually running, with a 5% increase on year 2005. A total of 130 MW is currently under construction." http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull28-3/art3.pdf

2.6MW is far less than 1% of the electricity we generate in the US. To consider this energy source, which does have a relevant contribution, to have a major impact is impractical.

On Leukemia,

Although this is only mildly relevant, Germany is in the process of phasing out all their nuclear power plants. This is not to discredit the validity of your linked study. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357238.stm

The following passages are from the results section of your linked paper. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/117859649/PDFSTART "On the basis of the categorical analysis, our result indicates that 20 out of the total observed 37 leukaemia cases living within the 5-km zone are attributed to the fact that they are living in this 5-km zone. These are 0.8 cases/year in the under 5-year-olds or 0.3% of the roughly 6,000 German children diagnosed with leukaemia in this age group (1980--2003)." "The observed positive distance trend remains unexplained, [under current current radiation-epidemiological knowledge.]"

Not to discredit the correlation they found or the sanctity of human life, the number of children in Germany that could have their leukemia explained (~20 children from what I could tell) is a very small number, especially when compared to total number of leukemia patients in the US (~30,000/year http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=12712476&cmd=showdetailvi... ). One could even argue that "leukemias associated nuclear power plants" are less than the naturally occurring variance in a population from year to year.

Needless to say and for the public's concern, the construction of an EPR in Idaho is not going to cause a rampant outbreak or even noticeable blip in childhood leukemia.

On employees and computer security,

Employee negligence, misconduct, poor performance, and etcetera is not by any means exclusive to the nuclear industry. Also, with the many operators and employees at a nuclear power plant, it would be extremely difficult to disconnect all of the hardwired SCRAMS and cause irrevocable damage to the facility.

I would like to reiterate one of your statements that really closes the discussion on malicious computer attackers. "Computer systems that help operate the reactors and other power reactor safety equipment are isolated from the internet to protect against outside intrusion."

Good Morning NCSU NE student! I appreciate that you are reading and thinking about these issues. Gillispie denies they exist, and INL refuses to debate me, so again I must state how refreshing this chance for discussion is to me.

First, your geothermal quote only reflects that geothermal is presently 1% of our energy, so you conclude "to have a major impact is impractical." So, yes, our energy glass is 99% empty of geothermal presently, but I am being very pratical. The DOE has already mapped out the high geothermal areas across our whole country, and like at Raft River, Idaho, the newer closed loop technology can endlessly tap even the less hot geothermal sources. Bush Co cut the geothermal subsidies to spend BILLIONS to subsidize incentives for their nuclear lobbyists. We are even subsidizing the French governments Areva uranium enrichment plant in Blackfoot!

We could spend that money to tap the safe geothermal, and provide 5 times the 1990 total US electric consumption! The INL speech teams and Gillispie, and Butch say our only choice is coal or nukes, and they are outright lying for money. I think our kids and our energy independence are priceless.

On luekemia: You are missing the point by comparing unrelated numbers when you say "the number of children in Germany that could have their leukemia explained (~20 children from what I could tell) is a very small number, especially when compared to total number of leukemia patients in the US (~30,000/year...)"

The comparable numbers are right within your quote though. Within the 5 km area around the normally operating nuclear plant, 37 cases of childhood luekemia were found. The normal rate should only find 17 kids with luekemia, so they state that 20 extra kids got luekemia from this nuke plant. That is more than double the normal rate! That is why they call it "statisically significant" (especially if they are YOUR kids). This does not happen at windmills, and the INL speakers, and DG, claim it never happens with their beloved "clean, safe nuclear power."

On cyber-terrorism at nuclear plants:

Yes, I clearly stated that the nuke plants are not connected to the internet, and I focused only on disgruntled employees and armed intruders, providing real examples of both. So I am not sure why you think that "really closes the discussion..." You also dismiss it as "it would be extremely difficult..." Well, I would have an extremely difficult time developing computer viruses, but hackers just broke into the Pentagon's F-22 info! I am quoting the DOE experts on nuclear terrorism, and they are admitting they must daily stay one cyber-step ahead of this ever growing threat. It would be much worse of a threat if they were connected to the internet, but they are only TRYING to prepare for this threat that Gillispie claims can never happen. When I debated him on Doug McConnaughey's radio show Gillispie actually claimed "There are no computers in a nuclear plant you idiot!" Perhaps Donnie G has been retired too long! But the innocent citizens of Idaho who nod their heads during INL Rotary Club speeches never hear the DOE quote "One proposed rule would require nuclear power plants to implement strategies to protect computer systems, detect cyber attacks, and isolate and neutralize cyber intruders. " I don't see the dismissing phrase of how "extremely difficult" this cyber-terrorism would be within the DOE literature.

Here is another example of how REAL and SERIOUS the threat of cyber-terrorism is from the feds...Peter

http://www.us-cert.gov/control_systems/csthreats.html

Cyber Threat Source Descriptions

Cyber threats to a control system refer to persons who attempt unauthorized access to a control system device and/or network using a data communications pathway. This access can be directed from within an organization by trusted users or from remote locations by unknown persons using the Internet. Threats to control systems can come from numerous sources, including hostile governments, terrorist groups, disgruntled employees, and malicious intruders. To protect against these threats, it is necessary to create a secure cyber-barrier around the Industrial Control System (ICS). Though other threats exist, including natural disasters, environmental, mechanical failure, and inadvertent actions of an authorized user, this discussion will focus on the deliberate threats mentioned above.

National Governments

Terrorists

Industrial Spies and Organized Crime Groups

Hacktivists

Hackers

NCSU NE Student,

I hope you find Chomsky's book to be worth the time you spend reading it.

DrPeterRickardsDPM,

On Geothermal,

While I support the utilization of geothermal energy, current generating capacities and growth in this field do not suggest that the industry will be able to expand significantly fast enough to comprise a significant portion of US electrical production.

On Leukemia,

My statements were not to discredit the validity of the study. Rather, by phrasing them in the context of total leukemia incidents, we find that the increase in childhood leukemias, as shown by the study, is lost in the noise created by the natural variance in occurrence of the disease. You are right; I was comparing dissimilar variables. Unfortunately, I could not find statistics on German leukemia, but the overall point would be similar. Again, this is not to decrease the validity of the association that the German scientists found.

I step back from my previous quotations and will attempt add further clarity to the discussion,

On digital attacks,

Based on our previous statements and for the sake of the public, we should break "cyber-attacks" into two categories. One, attacks from the outside through electronic means. Two, attacks from within the facility by individual interfacing physically with equipment.

On outside electronic attacks,

From reading our previous posts, it appears we are both in agreement that digital attacks from outside the facility would not be effective, since crucial operating computers, although networked with each other, are not connected to the internet.

On inside attacks,

No system can be practically designed to stop a individual from the inside with enough technical knowledge. This is true of any system that an individual would want to compromise for malicious purposes and is not constrained specifically to the nuclear industry.

Besides, I don't know of any instance wherein a terrorist organization has obtained control of a nuclear reactor and used it for malicious purposes.

I am enjoying this civilized exchange and look forward to continued discussion.

Good afternoon NCSU NE student,

Thanks again for the reply. We are making progress with our communications!

On geothermal- Well, the technology and DOE maps of high geothermal areas already exist. Instead of giving the $750 BILLION we just handed to corrupt bankers, if we used part of that for incentive to drill and tap, is it really that hard to kick this Manhatten Project into high gear?

On leukemia- I appreciate you admitting "You are right; I was comparing dissimilar variables."

But it was not just that you used the US total figure for childhood leukemia, instead of Germany's, to compare it to the TOTAL number of kids that live within 5 km of a nuke plant. Most kids fortunately do not live within 5 km of a nuke plant, (YET). Let's be clear, there was childhood leukemia before the industrial age from natural causes, of which natural radioactive radon is high on the list of suspected causes. We are all in a constant battle for our immune system to defeat the natural and man made toxins and infectous agents that surround us. Dr's recommend checking your home for radon for this very reason. Well insulated houses with a crack in the foundation often let the radon in, and concentrate it, leading us to believe it is the second leading cause of lung cancer, after smoking. We can lessen our exposure to the sun and radon, which are inescapable facts of life. But the present medical understanding is there are no safe amounts of radiation exposure, so we only take x-rays when vitally needed.

So the study correctly compares the natural rate expected near the nuke plant, which was 17 cases for that population size, and found an extra 20 cases, totaling 37 kids with leukemia, over DOUBLE the normal rate. Usually any elevated disease rate over 20% is considered "statisically significant," and they found over 100% increase. It is important that the Elmore families understand this, when all they hear is how safe it is from AEHI.

On cyber-terrorism- You admit "No system can be practically designed to stop a individual from the inside with enough technical knowledge."

That is exactly the bottom line that makes windmills and geothermal the best for National defense and security. Any worker (or doctor) can go postal, but only a disgruntled nuclear worker can devastate a Chernobyl like, widespread disaster. If geothermal can produce more than we use, why do so-called "conservatives" wan't to bet everybodies farm everyday that nothing will go wrong?

You state "Besides, I don't know of any instance wherein a terrorist organization has obtained control of a nuclear reactor and used it for malicious purposes."

Well, thank goodness SO FAR, correct! But when the NRC nock-invasions have succeded to intrude at HALF the nuke plants tested, let's admit terrorists have been found with nuke plant blueprints also!

Since nuke plants ARE interconnected via the intranet, are you SURE there are no Islamic nuke engineers who are a tad upset with US foreign policy? If we end up attacking Pakistan, if the Taliban overthrows this nuclear power, will all the Pakistan engineers keep on saluting the US flag? The Pentegon gets thousands of attempts to hack it daily, and they sometimes succeed. Malware has been found planted on our grid, laying in wait to attack.

While I generally agree with your assesment of inside vs outside attacks, here is the international nukers at IAEA admitting the conbo can also attack us, and even saying more than my statements at http://entrac.iaea.org/I-and-C/WS_IAEA-EPRI_2006/CD/Presentations/Wahlstrom/Wahl...

Attacks by outsiders

hackers gaining access through external data transmissions lines

denial of services attacks through a flooding of important communication channels

Attacks by insiders

switching off an important computer system

intentional release of computer viruses into the Intranet

modification of important parameters

installation of malevolent code into the systems

Attacks with a combination of actions from both insiders and outsiders

the largest hazard potential.

threats include all the threats above

a possibility that an attack is planned and implemented over a period of time

DrPeterRickardsDPM,

I have no stance on the allocation of government funds.

On Leukemia,

Yes yes, the study is very valid and meticulously constructed. However, I still maintain my previous stance on Leukemia. This increase of childhood leukemia, although significant by itself, is lost in the variance of death from of accidents, suicide, drunk driving, etcetera.

Alarming the public of a ~100% increase in the disease without any context would be a disservice to the community and nuclear industry. If you want to present the findings of the German study, that is fine, just put in a context. For example, "A German study has shown an approximate doubling of childhood leukemia from living near nuclear power plants. However, this increase is related to ~.8 increased cases per year (or something like that)." By saying it this way, you prevent alarm in the public by throwing out information out of context. Just saying a doubling would probably make people think the disease would become rampant.

That was probably a bit too long. Oh, well.

On Chernobyl,

Comparing a malicious attackers damage to that of Chernobyl reactor #4 is like comparing dissimilar variables. Yes, they are both nuclear reactors. However, they have numerous differances.

1) Chernobyl #4 was a Gen2 reactor. EPR is Gen3+

2) Chernobyl #4 had neither a containment nor confinement building. EPR has Contaiment.

3) Chernobyl has did not utilize digital monitoring equipment.

4) The RBKM-1000 design was not simulated in a computer model or had a thorough safety review, by modern standards.

5) Lastly and most importantly, the RBKM-1000 design had a positive void coefficient at low power, creating a positive reactivity feedback loop. Modern reactor designs do not include this flaw and I am under the impression that no existing US power plant does either.

Most of the damage that Chernobyl caused came from the uncovered core catching on fire. This threw radioactive particulate into the air to settle in the surrounding area. This type of disaster is so infinitely remote with modern power plant designs that Chernobyl should not be a reason to prevent modern design construction.

Just to add clarification, Chernobyl reactor #4 blew up like a tnt explosion not with the stereotypical mushroom cloud. Reactors #1-3 at the Chernobyl power plant continued to operate until 2001, since there was minimal damage done to them.

On terrorism,

A terrorist attack has so many more desirable sites than a nuclear facility, as we've see with the European train bombing and Indian hotel. These tend to be relatively low cost high damage attacks in public places. An attack on a natural gas pipeline, fiber optic line, public transit system, etcetera would be several orders of magnitude likely.

Add the odd chance that the Pakistani government becomes replaced, we have more concern over the direct damage of the nuclear warheads, rather than mal-intent by nuclear engineers.

Good evening NCSU NE student,

I continue the discussion below, but here is your Zen question of the day, from the unforeseen alloy-600 stress crack problems that plague half the US fleet of nukes...

What will be the next unforeseen technical flaw in the Generation 3 and Gen 4 reactors?

If you answered, "We do not know that risk because unforeseen science flaws are unforeseeable," then enjoy your "moment of Zen":-)

Scientists are not perfect, as we found out when the Columbia spaceship blew up, and the infamous O ring bcame the "Oh my God" ring. We sure "had learned a lot" from all the decades of previous space flight, but still got a minor detail a little wrong. Opps! Was the Columbia a Gen 3 or Gen 4 spaceship?

Back to the discussion... Well, I must respectfully disagree with the context you propose is appropriate to frame the German study that found over double the rate of childhood leukemia in kids living within 5 km of a normally operating nuclear plant. You agree that is what was found, but you want to frame it in the context of "This increase of childhood leukemia, although significant by itself, is lost in the variance of death from of accidents, suicide, drunk driving, etcetera."

I am comparing our abundant wind and geothermal power to the risks of nuclear power. You are comparing the number of kids who suffer from childhood leukemia from living near a nuclear power plant to "the variance of death from of accidents, suicide, drunk driving, etcetera." What do the suicide and drunk driving rates have to do with whether Elmore kids are forced to grow up with AEHI as a neghbor if this rezoning to M2 Industrial is permitted? I think my statements are accurate, supported by peer-review studies, and in the appropriate context for the decision before Elmore County.

On Chernobyl- I by no means said US nuclear plants are built like Chernobyl, which did not even have containment. But I have provided DOE and NRC documents that admit meltdown scenarios, and admit containment flaws that could lead to "catastrophic failure." If the containment fails, radioactivity spews out of the plant as if there was no containment, doesn't it? NRC admits that in the documents I provided, and Elmore citizens should hear "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." I don't believe the containment flaws were mentioned in the DVD Donnie G's gang sent to everyone, nor in any speech given by INL at Rotary Clubs and high schools.

So it is accurate, documented, and in proper context when I say "On cyber-terrorism- You admit "No system can be practically designed to stop a individual from the inside with enough technical knowledge."

That is exactly the bottom line that makes windmills and geothermal the best for National defense and security. Any worker (or doctor) can go postal, but only a disgruntled nuclear worker can devastate a Chernobyl like, widespread disaster. If geothermal can produce more than we use, why do so-called "conservatives" wan't to bet everybodies farm everyday that nothing will go wrong?"

On terrorism-

Al-quada has mentioned attacking nuclear power plants, and have been caught with blueprints, but you insist it is not a concern because "An attack on a natural gas pipeline, fiber optic line, public transit system, etcetera would be several orders of magnitude likely."

Again, I am comparing nuke risk to wind and geothermal risks, and you are comparing which terrorist targets are softer. Even if you forget about Arab terrorists, disgruntled employees destroy where they work. Homeland Security and DOE admit it.

Had to share a recent engineer written article on cyber-terrorism from Industrial Weekly. On his list of already hit plants was the infamous Davis-Besse nuclear plant, in 2003. I'll try to verify that with NRC. Even Homeland Security and DOE have been breached.

Then I'll add the luckily "innocent" shut down of the Hatch nuclear power plant in 2008 article. Innocent because the guy from the company that made the software update wasn't trying to meltdown the plant, but they installed faulty updates in just one computer. If he had intentionally updated a virus that prevented safety systems from alerting of the trouble he was causing, we would not be talking about this as a theoretical, low chance scenario, would we? ...Peter

http://www.industryweek.com/articles/hacking_the_industrial_network_18937.aspx?S...

Hacking the Industrial Network

The expense of protection is a fraction of 1% of the IT budget.

By Frank Dickman, Engineering Consultant

April 17, 2009

The Issue

It was a Trojan program inserted into SCADA system software that caused a massive natural gas explosion along the Trans-Siberian pipeline. The Washington Post reported the resulting fireball yielded "the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space."

Malicious hackers have discovered SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) and DCS (Distributed Control Systems) since reports of successful attacks began to emerge after 2001. A former hacker interviewed by PBS Frontline advised that "Penetrating a SCADA system that is running a Microsoft operating system takes less than two minutes." SNIP... Then he cites:

Jan 2003 Davis-Besse nuclear plant safety monitoring system knocked offline 5-hours by the Slammer worm.

Sep 2007 Hackers compromise Homeland Security computers, moving information to Chinese websites. - CNN

2003-2005 Undetected for 2 years, Chinese Army downloads 10-20 terabytes data from Pentagon, DOE, others.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060501958_...

Cyber Incident Blamed for Nuclear Power Plant Shutdown

By Brian Krebs

washingtonpost.com Staff Writer

Thursday, June 5, 2008; 1:46 PM

A nuclear power plant in Georgia was recently forced into an emergency shutdown for 48 hours after a software update was installed on a single computer.

The incident occurred on March 7 at Unit 2 of the Hatch nuclear power plant near Baxley, Georgia. The trouble started after an engineer from Southern Company, which manages the technology operations for the plant, installed a software update on a computer operating on the plant's business network.

The computer in question was used to monitor chemical and diagnostic data from one of the facility's primary control systems, and the software update was designed to synchronize data on both systems. According to a report filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, when the updated computer rebooted, it reset the data on the control system, causing safety systems to errantly interpret the lack of data as a drop in water reservoirs that cool the plant's radioactive nuclear fuel rods. As a result, automated safety systems at the plant triggered a shutdown.

NCSU NE Student

I have spoken to many in the industry and all have stated the industry is becoming more captial intensive versus that of being labor intensive. Do you agree with this? If not, why?

If these statements are true, how can a developer claim to be creating more jobs than any other plant in history has. Job creation estimates are difficult but as I have researched the two biggest in recent memory, they have not came close to these estimates.

twilcox1978, so what if Gillespie sells to the hiest bidder? Idaho farmers, computer makers, hot tub fabricators, ammo mannufacturers etc all sell to whoever pays them most. We buy coal power from other states because we dont generate our own. Better we sell our power to them. Why the double standard. Also you cant just look at the jobs at the plant only, which cant be offshored overseas to China. There are the spinoff jobs and major industries that can come to a state when there is lots of cheap power. You have to look at that also. Ag doesnt produce as many of those kinds of spinoff jobs - ag doesnt draw more industries because there is more food to go around.

I agree with that concept. The issue is that the developer has said many times that he will supply all of Idaho's energy needs. That would be fine it was true. I spoke to him twice and have read what he states in Pro-nuclear publications. These sources say that he will sell it out of state. So the myth that Idahoans will be paying 1.15 cents per Kwh is bogus. That would only be true if Idahoans were the end user. It can be reasonably assumed that to maximize his profits as well as those of the stockholder he is going to sell to someone who will purchase it for 12 to 13 cents per Kwh. All I desire is an upfront, honest approach. Repeatedly misleading the public and preying upon their needs is not honorable.

I think he has been honest about the power. He has said the plant could, repeat could, supply all the states energy needs, but its up to Idaho Power company to buy the power. He has also said he will offer it first to Idaho power but I dont see you mention that. We have farmers selling all their food to people out of state and to the highest bidder using our soil and water and resorces so how is that bad if we sell power to people out of state? If Idaho farmers sell food out of state to the higest bidder that drives up food prices for us. This isnt a socialist country and the farmers should have the right to sell their food for as much as they can. Everyone should. I think you should be asking Idaho power if they are going to buy it because they wont get it up and build a power plant in Idaho. They scare too easy so we buy coal power out of state, sending out money there when we should keep it here.

He would not sell to Idaho Power and take a loss. If there are two bidders for my product and one is willing to pay more, then they get it. The operating cost is more likely to be around 7 to 15 cents per Kwh. He could sell it to someone else and make a larger profit. It is simple maximization. The future is uncertain and so businesses make as much as they can now not later. When they deal in MW, this premium of 6 to 9 per KwH would become quite sizeable. One of his selling points to the public is that their power bill will go down. When you sell to the highest bidder, thats not Idaho.

If he is going to sell to California, thats fine. But at least say those exact words and dont give propaganda to the public that states that their power bill will go down. He knows that the likelihood of Idaho Power buying all of his power is slim so being realistic would help. Black is black and white is white. Double talk does not work with me.

Hi Tim,

Since your expertise is the economics, you must read the Exective Summary of the 2007 Keystone report, written by nuke companies like Areva, Entergy and a mix of credentialed people from all sides. Page 3 has the authors, and page 11 states the economics. They state that the cost of nuclear power is 8-11 cents per Kwhr. That is "delivered to the line," so you must add on some pennies for transmission. Found at...

The Exec Summary is at

http://208.72.156.157/~keystone/files/file/SPP/energy/NJFF-Exec-Summ-6_2007.pdf

So Gillispie's hand out and statments claiming he will sell it at profit to Idaho for less than 3 cents/Kwh, is a lie, according to Areva and the other nuclear companies! That was 2007, and the costs of construction are up from then!

You say above "So the myth that Idahoans will be paying 1.15 cents per Kwh is bogus. That would only be true if Idahoans were the end user." See what you get for listening to Gillispie! :-)

But I do believe you are correct that Gillispie will obviously sell it to the highest bidder, as he tells his stock holders. California already pays over 16 cents /Kwhr, so the bidding starts there! We can bid a few cents less, since there will be MORE transmission costs to Ca & Oregon, than in Idaho. But starting at 8-11 cents delivered to the line, we have to add our own transmission costs, and don't forget profit for Idacorp, who will sell it's sister company Idaho Power, who will take profit to sell it to you frontliners in Elmore County!

The DOE says Idaho can double our present energy use by 2030 with wind power at about 7.5 cents /Kwhr! The economics combined with the health risks clearly favor turning down the rezone for Gillispie's BS.

Dear Walmart_greeter,

RE: "so what if Gillespie sells to the hiest bidder?"

Idaho was one of the few states wise enough NOT to buy into deregulation of electricity when it was popular with freemarket people like you. I love the free market too, but energy is as necessary as food, and to prevent the Enron style price gauging that ruined California businesses is wise for Idaho to prevent! The "Of course we should let them sell to the highest bidder" idea had small and large businesses close when overnight their electric bill doubled. We need to kick some Idaho Power butt and turn up the heat to quit dragging their feet on wind power. Id Power refused to partake in the South Twin Falls China Mt wind project, that will produce 500 MegaWatts of wind power. Nevada has bought in since Id Power refused. Id Power wants it's own nuke or coal plant to maximize profit. Wanna bet that Idaho customers will pay Nevada Power to reimport this China Mt (Idaho) electricity. Then we can let Idacorps take a little profit, then Id Power, and THEN we will have paid through the nose.

Please remember California and Oregon BAN new nuclear power plants because of the risk to their neighborhoods! But they are willing to let Elmore kids take all the risk and but Donnie G's juice, IF YOU LET THEM...Peter

"When you sell to the highest bidder, thats not Idaho."

Well tell that to the wind farm in S. Idaho thats selling all its power to Southern California! Or tell it to the farmers in Elomre who sell food to people in California, forcing us to buy out of state food from California farms. Idaho Power wont build a power plant because of all the nimbies so dont blame someone else who will come in and build a plant. Someones got to get it done and Idaho Power dosnt have the gumption. If Idaho Power wont buy the power thats a probem for Idaho Power, not the co. generating it.

You are conveniently missing the point WalMG. Idaho still regulates electricity and we are letting Id Power and companies like AEHI push us around and exploit us. All done with the blessing of our politicians like Butch, who take money from them to look the other way. Elmore citizens can and should just say "NO" to exploiting Elmore County...Peter

Again, its well established that the power will not stay in Idaho. Thats fine, if he would be upfront, consistent, and honest. Only those who cant back up their thoughts with solid, proven reasoning need an informercial-like approach to win the battle. Our rates will not go down because it is being sold to the highest bidder, which is not Idaho as you and I and many others have confirmed.

If the company was going to persuade the opposition, they should leave out the cheap power argument. It is simply slick salesmanship. I have done that job before and know how to disguise the main point. I agree with you about Idaho Power and this company is simply finding a niche and hoping to run with it. Again, when Warren Buffett was going to build in Payette he left no uncertainties. The whats, how, whens, wheres, and whys were all answered directly. He was honest and cooperative with all. This older version of Billy Mays and his Michelin man need to cut to the chase. I realize that people dont always like the blunt truth but it shows that one has no other motives and lets everyone know what to expect.

Hi all,

Sorry for not replying sooner. Although exams this week have kept me busy, I'm finished now! haha

DrPeterRickardsDPM,

As we discussed earlier, there will always be unforeseeable accidents, regardless of technological improvements. Although we will never be able to completely eliminate accidents, these new Gen3+ designs push the possibility of problems out even further, making a remote possibility even more uneventful. While this is not to say that an accident is not possible, it is certainly not probable.

On leukemia,

From the origional source: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/117859649/PDFSTART

"Our result indicates that 20 out of the total observed 37 leukemia cases living within the 5-km zone are attributed to the fact that they are living in this 5-km zone. These are 0.8 cases/year in the under 5-year-olds or 0.3% of the roughly 6,000 German children diagnosed with leukemia in this age group (1980--2003)."

Since the study evaluated 16 reactors, the number of leukemias associated per power plant is .05 per year, assuming the association between distance from power plant and leukemia functions the same with Gen3+ reactors. By dividing 1 by .05, the study indicated that each power plant averages 1 leukima patient for every 20 years of reactor operation.

Using 1.3 child deaths/year/10,000 people in Elmore, ID, the information above and ~30,000 people in Elmore, we find that it would take ~80 years of reactor operation (The entire lifetime of the plant with 2 extensions) to cause the same number of deaths from childhood leukemia. This assumes that every chase of leukemia ends a life, which is not the case. Clearly, mothers should be more concerned about other causes of death to their children.

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/Rankings.aspx?state=ID&ind=1005

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_population_of_Elmore_County_Idaho

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080130163633AAzB17K

The above is probably my strongest and therefor last position on the issue. Although anyone is welcome to present a counter argument, we appear fervently set in our respective stances on the issue. I suggest we table the issue. After reading both of our posts, one of my philosophy/genetics says constructing a Nuclear Power Plant in this manner with the knowledge of increased low rates of childhood leukemia is acceptable under Utilitarian and Pragmatic ethics.

On reducing the number of Nuclear Power Plants to increase national security,

This only reduces the number of targets that a party could target, not reducing the amount of damage they could do. Besides, at our university's reactor, I'm under the impression that the SCRAM circuits are analog, operating independent of any computer system. Although the same may not be true for commercial power plants, it would be a rather tedious process for one individual to circumvent all of the safety processes, which is much more difficult that uploading a single malicious piece of code on one machine. While it is possible to attack a power plant from the inside with code as we discussed earlier, there are certainly plenty of terrorist targets out there. They could just as easily C4 the bottom of a windmill...

twilcox1978,

Although I'm not well versed on the issue, I'm under the impression that the number of personal required long term for operating a nuclear power plant is comparable, based on the number of reactors it has and regardless of design. As you said, it is difficult to calculate how many employees a contracted firm will hire. While Progress Energy has increased the cost of it's power in Florida and subsequent capital, they are trying to offset the future expense of building 2 AP1000s down there. I see a current slight shift to focus on raising capital, if the industry is to expand. http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-app...

That being said, I find it hard to believe "how a developer can claim to be creating more jobs than any other plant in history." This is especially difficult to imagine with modern construction techniques create shorter build times.

Regardless of job creation claims, Idahoan electric bills are most likely going to fund jobs in State, rather than going out. Even if the NPP firm sells to California, they are still bringing money into the state.

Miscellaneous,

Based on current energy prices, I also agree that the claim of < 2 c/kWh is impractical.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/brochures/rep2007/images/us%20map.png

Since I don't know much about the intricacies of regulated and deregulated markets between states, I don't understand how a firm is exploiting Idahoans by selling to CA.

Hi NCSU NE student,

Glad to see you're back online after exams. I'll respond below on some stats you confused, but here is the radioactive news "leak" of the day about corrosion leaks in the aging reactors they are re-licensing. I'm guessing you will see it as a "success story," like the Davis-Besse alloy-600 stress crack fiasco and their shut down from the slammer computer worm. :-) You dismiss the computer threat above by saying "...it would be a rather tedious process for one individual to circumvent all of the safety processes..." At least you admitted it could happen, unlike Butch and Gillispie! I gave you solid references that say that China and other hackers do it all day long, sometimes with success at Homeland Security and DOE, so as "tedious" as it may seem to you, our enemies are hard at work.

Leak story found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/nyregion/02nuke.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

At the Indian Point Nuclear Plant, a Pipe Leak Raises Concerns

By MATTHEW L. WALD

Published: May 1, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The discovery of water flowing across the floor of a building at the Indian Point 2 nuclear plant in Buchanan, N.Y., traced to a leak in a buried pipe, is stirring concern about the plant's underground pipes and those of other aging reactors across the country.

A one-and-a-half-inch hole caused by corrosion allowed about 100,000 gallons of water to escape from the main system that keeps the reactor cool immediately after any shutdown, according to nuclear experts. The leak was discovered on Feb. 16, according to the plant's owner, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, a subsidiary of the Entergy Corporation.

Entergy and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission emphasized that the Indian Point reactor could still have been shut down safely with either of two other backup systems, although operators generally avoid using both.

They also stressed that the supply pipe was quickly repaired after the leak was found and that the water itself, which is cleaner than tap water, posed no environmental threat. Yet the leak's discovery has prompted Entergy and the regulatory commission to begin studying how the chief system for cooling during shutdowns, so important that the Indian Point 2 has three pumps in place to do the same job, could be endangered by the failure of a single part.

More broadly, it has raised concerns about the monitoring of decades-old buried pipes at the nation's nuclear plants, many of which are applying for renewal of their operating licenses. Indian Point 2, whose 40-year operating license expires in 2013, already faces harsh criticism from New York State and county officials who want it shut down. SNIP

At a nuclear plant, a central water system takes heat from the reactor in the form of steam and turns it into electricity. During a shutdown at Indian Point 2, that system often turns off and a pipe measuring 12 inches in diameter carries water from the tank into the cooling system to carry off excess heat.

The buried portion of neither the eight-inch supply pipe nor the 12-inch pipe connecting the tank to the reactor cooling system has been visually inspected since the reactor began operating in August 1973, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nor does the commission require such inspections.

Paul Blanch, an electrical engineer and nuclear safety expert who worked at Indian Point in 2001 and 2002, said that because neither pipe had been inspected, except for a short section that was replaced when the hole was located in February, "they shouldn't be operating right now."

He said the plant could be operating with a backup system that is ready to fail. SNIP

____________________________________

On leukemia-

In your self- statistic conclusion you advise Elmore mothers within 5 km not to worry about doubling the rate of childhood leukemia for kids under 5, from normal operations of the nuke plant. You attempt to compare it to the rate of ALL causes of childhood death, that includes car accidents, drownings etc. That is just inappropriate. I compare nuclear risks to wind and geothermal riksks. You compare doubling the leukemia risk to car accidents. That is not only silly, but the reference you give is a statistic on all causes of death for the youth ages 15-17!

You said "Using 1.3 child deaths/year/10,000 people in Elmore, ID, the information above and ~30,000 people in Elmore, we find that it would take ~80 years of reactor operation (The entire lifetime of the plant with 2 extensions) to cause the same number of deaths from childhood leukemia. This assumes that every chase of leukemia ends a life, which is not the case. Clearly, mothers should be more concerned about other causes of death to their children."

From your reference- http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/Rankings.aspx?state=ID&ind=1005

Child Deaths: Rate Per 10,000 Age 15-17 (Number) -- 2005

Elmore 1.3

Ada 2.4

Lincoln 14.3

__________

So Elmore's healthy "rural quality of life", at least for kids ages 15-17, in 2005, was almost twice as safe as Ada Co, and ten times safer than Lincoln Co! Elmore Moms must already be doing a pretty good job of keeping their kids safe! But perhaps they would be happy to sacrifice a few kids for chemotherapy at the alter of nuclear power and Donnie G! You say so what if California bans new nuclear plants, but will but the Elmore nuclear power. Ask not what California can do for us nobodies, ask what we can do for California!

While I appreciate you're sharing you're references, the one from Yahoo only says leukemia is treated with harsh chemotherapy, and may return, needing harsher treatments! Do you know the old saying, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"? Hope the Elmore moms prevent the rezone! Peace out and enjoy your break...Peter

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080130163633AAzB17K

Q- Is leukemia treatable?

my friend has leukemia and i just wanna know if its treatble or not cuz i might not see him again :(

P.S. if its not treatable please tell me why

Answer-

The acute leukemias tend to affect younger people

The acute leukemias, if left untreated, can kill within months. Treatment strategies include intensive chemotherapy treatments that nearly destroy the bone marrow. If the leukemia returns later, a bone marrow transplant may be necessary

Kelly and Don tell us the safety of the proposed plant and site is guaranteed by vigilant DOE and NRC Federal Regulators:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/usnews/story/755943.html

"The inspector general's five-month investigation also found that contractors bought 9,500 tons of substandard steel reinforcing bars for the Savannah River Site near Aiken, S.C."

"While the investigation focused on contractors and subcontractors, it also said that the Energy Department failed to supervise them adequately and demand that they meet established safety standards."

Note that these comments are from the DOE's own inspector general, not some rabid SRA "anti-nuke".

If the Federal Government, which has apparently unlimited resources and no profit motive, is failing to catch contractors cutting corners, what could happen if a commercial enterprise interested only in making money just jumps at the lowest bid? They clearly have an incentive, given their earnings record and the serious going concern questions raised in their annual report, not to mention their clear statement that they intend to have another company operate the site.

Whoops, or was that WPPS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Northwest

Selling to the highest bidder is not exploiting Idaho. What is exploiting is feeding the public an infomercial that is unrealistic. Speaking one's true intentions and not sugarcoating and speaking to the moment is not going to work. If that is what he meant to do along then the company should say it. Promising 3785 jobs and suckering in the public is not being honest. the developer knows that this is more of a best case scenario and not the most likely number. Again, it is simple slick salesmanship, nothing more.

twilcox1978

I would like to know the real reason you are so upset. Unlike the Dr. you have real challenges that favor answers rather than the "bla, blah, blah..." of hypothetical scare tactics and conspiracy. You have some very good questions but I think you would be better addressed as "questions" rather than accusations.

I don't know you or your background but why do attack rather than ask. Business is business; with the current speed of commerce things change at a moments notice. How can you make a judgement without a measure? I've never heard a promise other than the plant will bring jobs to the area. Everytime I've heard or read anything about employment the time, employment, and expectations are speculative. Statements leaning towards inferred slander is just poor form. It might be helpful to just ask a question without trying to shove your opinion down their throats.

Also I don't appreciate that by "suckering in the public" you are referring that hardworking men and women trying to make a better place for their families are ignorant. It has nothing to do with AEHI. It has everything to do with hope.

I have spoken with the relevant parties and they dodge the questions. Yes, I favor probable consequences rather than those that are unlikely. The motives behind the proposed plant are just like any business. Again, my only complaint is that the company states one thing in public and then changes the tune when the speaker/camera is off. Truth is truth. One's true intentions have a way of coming to the surface in the end. If the public knows the true intentions, they will make a better decision.

Why do I continue? I intend to do this for a living for the next 40 years. I intend to be the economist/researcher who lets the public or any company that employs me the truth behind something. I come from a very conservative hillbilly background and know that not all can see things in cost/benefit, cause/effect, rationale.

Yes, employment and associated items are all speculative. It has to do with probability. The probability that this plant will employ more than any other plant in the history of the US, is rather improbable. The last plant built only employed 1900 or so. It used outdated, labor intensive building methods, more concrete, and had a less favorabble financing situation. Now that tells me that the chances that they will simply employ the extra 1500 or so when they dont need to is, again improbable.

I guess in the end I dont respect salesmen and do my best to temper their sugarcoating. I realize that they need to make money and being upfront and including the costs as well as the benefits may not help them win the battle. Their job is to promote not to inform. Well thats where I find my niche.

twilcox1978,

I agree with you. AEHI should be more direct about the information its saying. Although the construction will create jobs for the area, the numbers used appear inflated. I really enjoyed your last two paragraphs, finding them both accurate and provocative.

__________________________________________________

ID@heart,

I'm under the impression that twilcox1978 use of "suckering in the public" is addressing the way in which AEHI is presenting information in their slick PR relations and DVD distribution.

Come on; let's not make Ad Homeniem attacks at anyone. This is not constructive to our productive discussion. Peter spends a lot of time constructing responses. To dismiss them with a sentence or two is neither professional, nor appropriate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_homeniem

__________________________________________________

Justthefactsplease,

Considering the volume of nuclear power reactors here in the US (104) and the sheer complexity of each one, I am sure there are numerous inconsistencies with regulations across our fleet. Yet, even in the presence of these discrepancies, I'm under the impression that the fact still stands that "no death has ever been directly, medically attributed to an accident at civilian nuclear power plant."

__________________________________________________

DrPeterRickardsDPM,

On the linked article,

First off, I'm glad you posted the NY times article, which I enjoyed reading it. As you suggested, I do cast the incident in a positive light. However, this is not to go so far as to simply put the incident in a category of "win" for the nuclear industry.

The article brings two things forward:

One. Even if this partial failure of a non-crucial system were to escalate to remove the functionality of this component, redundancy is designed into the system, ensuring safety in the event of failure. To more specifically address the ID design, the EPR has 3 redundant safety systems housed in predominantly different buildings, each able to shut the reactor down.

Two. Everyone runs their reactors for a very long product life. Our school's 3rd reactor was built in the 70s and it's the only one we still operate. With any machine you operate for such long time, components will fail. Stuff like the article will happen even in the midst of preventative maintenance. That being said, I don't think the article is that alarming.

The following is another expert from the NY Times passage, which was previously neglected to be copied, "The Company initially said the pipe was losing 18 gallons a minute but later amended that to 12; either number is small relative to the 600,000-gallon tank, he said." Although the leak did exist, it was in a redundant system of a non-crucial component.

__________________________________________________

On digital security,

Yes, by all means as you showed above, even the most robust digital barricades can be circumvented. However, that being said, I thought we already established that an outside digital attack would not be effective, since the crucial systems are separated from the internet.

Perhaps, I should have added more contexts to my statement about "difficulty." I meant it from an inside attack perspective. An attack on a nuclear power plant that attempts to cause harm would take a significant amount of time. There is no secret combination of buttons or strong piece of code that will cause a reactor to instantly "blow up."

The party would have to dilute the Boron out of the primary coolant loop (I am under the strong impression this more evenly controls neutron population and core burn up). I wish someone with experience from industry was here... Anyway, in this period of time, the security forces would have neutralized the threat of an individual. If a large party that security could not neutralize would attempt to barge into the control room, after running through most of the plant, operators could have easily performed a simple manual SCRAM. I'm under the impression that it takes a commercial reactor several hours with full staff to come back online after the reactor has been shut down. In this window, additional police forces could arrive.

While the Boron is being diluted out of the primary coolant loop, they would have to disable the SCRAM system AND trick the control system into thinking the SCRAM system is still operational, so the controls would still carry out commands. Since all of these procedures, although possible, would take a significant amount of time, I think any threat to the facility would be neutralized before any significant damage could be reached.

As an aside, I really like this line idea you came up with. Haha.

__________________________________________________

On the heated topic of Leukemia, haha

Ok, to refocus the discussion lets toss out some of my poorly constructed arguments. First to go is the original counter argument about these finding's deaths falling within the variance of other forms of death in the population as a whole. Second, let's get rid of the comparison statics about death in the upper age of children. Although I tried to bring this in as more directly applicable to Elmore county, this data is not on the children in the under age 5.

After stripping all of that off, my core argument is left: "As indicated by the German study, the 40 year operating license results corresponds to an increase of ~2 cases of childhood Leukemia." Whether this is an actual doubling of their rate in Elmore County, as you suggested, I have no idea... Although death is possible from the disease and its treatment is harsh, "Today, about 85 percent of children with ALL [subtype of Leukemia] live five years or more" and "children 1 to 9 years old have higher survival rates than do infants or older children"

The last quotes are found on bullets 9 & 10 of link below. I'm sorry the study doesn't cover all types of Leukemia." Needless to say, the prognosis for Leukemia is not as harsh as diseases like pancreatic cancer.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/ALLinchildren

Here is a list of causes of death in the US overall. This isn't really used in my claim against Leukemia,

http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx

As I tried to show earlier with more direct, although not directly relevant data, there is a naturally occurring risk of childhood death. The construction of a nuclear power plant only marginally increases the chance of such events. If the mothers within the 5km band are so concerned, they have the option to move a few kilometers away, significantly reducing their children's chances of receiving a low risk and low probability disease.

Although wind and Geothermal apparently don't have these negative aspects, AEHI wants to build a nuclear reactor. As a private firm, it is their choice, no ours, on what type of energy they choose to install. In closure, I don't think a small increase (on a total number of cases basis) of a potentially curable disease is enough to prevent the construction of a nuclear power plant.

NCSU- Agree completely re the deaths and accidents. Just connecting the dots- which are the acknowledged lack of forthrightness on the part of the company, their abysmal financial record, and a well documented case of the regulators we rely upon failing to catch economically motivated dangerous shortcuts. This creates the potential for the 'perfect storm' accident- the only reason we would assume a plant to be safe is if those charged with its enforcement are effective, and combining a lack of enforcement with a company's financial incentive to cut corners ought to give a reasonable person cause for concern. Thus, the company and its backers need to be more consistent in their message- is there sufficient funding, where is it coming from, or is this going to be a finance as it goes, and then stops, a la WPPS?

The Combined Operating License lets them run the plant after it is constructing according to a pre-approved design. All of the parts are already chosen; they just need to purchase and assemble.

While a sub-contractor of a contractor, as you suggested, may try to cut corners get the bid, the EPR is SO over designed with numerous passive and active safety features that even with a slightly compromised construction, these new Gen3+ reactors are probably even safer than our current, aging fleet.

Thanks for the compliment, NCSU NE student.

I emailed someone at AEHI and asked this question:

From your standpoint, do you figure the construction employees to have families or largely single?

the response was that he figures few workers to bring wives and/or families due it being expensive to uproot them.

If the workers were local, this would not be an issue. One cant uproot a local for a local job. If they intend to bring in outsiders, then just say it. It makes perfect sense why they would. Training is expensive and on a venture like this, one can not afford errors. This further invalidates their claims on economic growth. Nothing against this area but I predict few outsiders would stay here. Overall, this venture appears not to be as bullet proof as they make it seem. It has flaws just like anything else.

This is consistent with what I've heard from Progress Energy and Dominion. These two companies said they would create a blended workforce, drawing largely on local labor and importing most technical/specific skill.

AEHI will have to hire Nuclear Engineers and operators either from other reactors, out of retirement or fresh out of college. Progress and Dominion said they could relocate some of the workforce from existing facilities, but AEHI can't do this just like any firm building a reactor for the first time.

Yes, the new Nuclear Power Plant will pour money into the local economy with a neighborhood or two of new and high paying jobs, but it won't turn Elmore into the next economic hub...

Additionally, this email asked about the construction time. The response was that it would be built on a modular method. Some parts would be pre-assmebled and brought to the site. This individual replied also saying that a lot of the steel and metalworking would be done elsewhere. If one reads the economic report, a large part of the wages and production time pictured are of this element. That will distort the ripple effects that will occur. Again, I see the logic why they would do it that way. Just dont take applications for jobs that dont exist.

Question: The building of any plant, does it take specific training or certifications?

This proposed modular method is being heavily considered by the Shaw group who will be contracted to build two AP1000 at Progresses site at Sharron Harris, NC. This allows for faster build time and stronger components. There is significantly less on site fabrication, equipment and personal.

I think they are using a similar technique in Florida. However, their construction just got pushed back at least 20 months, since they can't start excavating or pouring foundation until their application completely finishes review.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Delay_in_groundwork_for_Florida_nuclear_050...

Hi all,

Thanks for sticking up to ID@heart's baseless personal attack on me, NCSU NE student!

So on to more "constructive" discussion, I'll toss in a couple references on construction flaws at EPR in Finland, and the years of delay they caused, and the cost overruns. Areva, the French Gov't company, is selling off some assets to keep afloat!

But don't worry US taxpayers, we are giving the French Gov't company an $800 million tax break in Blackfoot, and up to $2 Billion subsidy in loan guarantees, in case they can't pay their loans off in Blackfoot. In a nuclear menage a'tois, it is the taxpayer that will really get scr*wed! :-) Oregon is STILL paying off their WPPS (woops) loan guarantee subsidy for an unfinished nuke plant. As Bush would say, "Ahh, fool me once, umm, err, yah can't fool me.." ...Peter

Found at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/power-failure-what-britain-should-lear...

Power failure: What Britain should learn from Finland's nuclear saga

It was hailed as the template for all future reactors -- but then they tried to build it.

By Michael Savage

Wednesday, 16 January 2008

SNIP- Yet to say that Finland's experience bodes well would be optimistic to say the least. It was not long before Olkiluoto 3 was hit by a slew of safety concerns, building blunders, spiralling costs and chronic delays.

The new project was intended to deliver something altogether superior to Olkiluoto's two existing reactors, built in the 1970s. But a number of key components have already had to be remade after failing to meet safety standards. The consortium building the reactor found itself in trouble for selecting cheap and inexperienced sub-contractors. The delays have meant that the facility will contribute little to Finland's Kyoto commitments to reduce greenhouse gas omissions to 1990 levels by 2012.

The 1,600MW-capacity reactor, which was meant to be producing energy by 2009, is now around two years behind schedule. It is more than €1bn over budget, without taking into account the cost of the lost electricity production time which, rough estimates suggest, could run to €600m. After Finland's government rejected greener energy sources for being too expensive, that has angered many Finns. SNIP

The first major safety problem came with the first component to be built -- the concrete base, which was not mixed properly. Construction was set back two months as a result. Further problems occurred with an important new safety feature -- the steel container designed to house radioactive materials in case of an accident and to protect the reactor from outside threats. The finished container was found to have inadequate welding, an outdated design and was even damaged during storage. It emerged that it had been built by a Polish company more used to building fishing ships than nuclear power plant components. Those are just the most high-profile design flaws. At the last count, the Finnish nuclear regulator had detected 1,700 "listed quality deviations" on the project. SNIP

____________________________________________

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7838cf20-03a4-11de-b405-000077b07658.html

Areva concedes assets in return for backing

By Peggy Hollinger in Paris

Published: February 26 2009 02:00 | Last updated: February 26 2009 02:00

Areva has been pushed to concede asset disposals in return for the government's eventual backing for a capital increase, after the group yesterday said it would incur a €1.7bn ($2.2bn) loss on its troubled Finnish nuclear reactor project.

The French state-owned nuclear group, which yesterday reported a sharp drop in net profit from €743m to €589m last year fuelled by extra charges on the Finnish reactor, will sell non-strategic assets and open up others to outside investment to help to meet its €2.7bn investment programme over the next year. Areva has also initiated a €600m cost-cutting programme and hopes to reduce working capital by €300m.

The moves come as the government weighs the future of Areva, the world's biggest nuclear group.

Anne Lauvergeon, chief executive, has argued for a capital increase to meet investment needs estimated at €11bn in the next three years as a growing number of countries launch nuclear programmes. The decision by Siemens to pull out of the engineering joint venture has put added financial pressure on the group as it said yesterday that stake was in its books at €2.05bn.

Ms Lauvergeon has until now resisted pressure to finance the programme by selling assets such as the group's stakes in French companies GdF-Suez, ST Microelectronics, Safran or Eramet. But the government has insisted on changes to this stance in return for its support on a capital increase. It is also pushing for Areva to spin off or sell a minority share in its transmission and distribution business.

Ms Lauvergeon said yesterday that she was "sure that we will find the best funding solutions in the coming weeks".

But it is clear that her battle to resolve financing needs and at the same time loosen the government's grip on the company through a market flotation is unlikely given current conditions. Ms Lauvergeon is also under scrutiny for the group's handling of the Olkiluoto project in Finland, originally budgeted at €3bn. The construction of the world's first new generation EPR reactor is running three years behind schedule.

Yesterday, Ms Lauvergeon took an unusually aggressive stance by refusing to take the blame for the cost overruns and delays.

"The project made significant headway [but] . . . is penalised by TVO," the group said.

Meanwhile, Areva reported a 21 per cent increase in its order book to €48.2bn, while turnover rose by 10.4 per cent to €13.2bn.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

It is amazing how they skirt the questions when this Finnish plant is brought up? Well, there are differences of course but plenty of similarities. In an arena like this where errors are not permissible, granting someone leeway is not likely.

Back to economics (all take a collective yawn!). This Finnish plant is not going to be generating at 1.15 cents per kwh. I will need to relocate the source but while digging on Lexis-Nexis I recall someone at Areva saying that it would end up being about .09 Euros per kwh. Using the average exchange rate over the last year that means 12 or 13 cents per KwH. Hmmm... makes one wonder.

Everything is more expensive over there.

I can understand comparing construction times across countries, but not prices across different currencies.

Nuclear electricity is most affordable, not ~1 cent/kWh affordable, but cheap none the less...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/images/info/finlandpowercosts.jpg

Note: The link isn't in euro cents/kWh

Hi NCSU NE student,

Bottom line is DOE admits wind power is CHEAPER than nuke power, if you read my DOE references below!

I looked at your cost 2003 graph from world-nuclear, and it appears to exagerate wind costs, at least according to the 2007 from our own nukers at the Dept of Energy! The INL spokesman told me, in his 20% wind by 2030 presentation, that wind power costs about 7.5 cents /Kwhr! That is backed up by their report and executive summary found at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf

Om page 46/248 ..."in 2006 the price paid for electricity generated in large wind farms was between 3.0 and 6.5 cents/kilowatt-hour (kWh), with an average near 5 cents/kWh (1 cent/kWh = $10/megawatt-hour [MWh])." That did include their little tax break.

For the 2007 data see page 11/27 , Figure ES-5 at the Executive sunnary at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/42864.pdf which shows it costs about 6.5- 8.5 cents/kwhr.

If you see my Keystone report reference above, written by Areva and Entergy, they admit nuke power is 8.5 - 11 cents "delivered to the grid," which means adding on a few more pennies.

Cheaper, and no chances of a meltdown, and much quicker to replace if terrorized...Peter

By all means, throw up as many turbines as we can to meet the 20% by 2030 deadline. The technology is proven and economically viable.

Apparently, we surpassed the Germans in installed wattage??? When this happened, I do not know..

http://cleantechnica.com/2008/12/27/us-becomes-largest-wind-power-producer-in-th...

If we look at electrical production across the world, we see a blend of power sources used by every country (except Lithuania, but they don't really count because of their size, haha). Each energy source has its advantages. Nuclear can produce virtually all of its installed capacity 24/7/365, making it incredibly well suited for base load power production. That being said, Nuclear power plants aren't well suited to provide day or peak load power, in part because of their incredibly large principle investment. So yes, wind is a great part to the puzzle of supplying electricity. Yet alone, it does not provide the whole picture. This is by no means to imply that you suggested moving the whole grid to wind. Rather, we will always need some form of base load power. Nuclear is particularly well suited to provide that.

As a private firm with many economically viable options, it is AEHI's decision, no ours, to choose what source of energy they want to build.

Hi NCSU NE student,

Baseload, or a steady supply is important,but geothermal is 24/7 rock steady, and can provide FIVE TIMES our US electric consumption of 1990, according to the Uni of Utah Geophysics Dept.

RE: Your comment, "As a private firm with many economically viable options, it is AEHI's decision, no ours, to choose what source of energy they want to build."

Indeed, that is why AEHI included a coal plant on their SEC submission!. That is why the County Commissioners should say NO to the rezone!

Anyway, the 2007 Stanford study of wind documented interconnecting widespread wind farms is as reliable a baseload as coal. Wind and GEothermal, toss in solar for hot summer peaks, who needs nukes? Two summers ago, some nuke plants had to SHUT DOWN during peak summer heat because their discharge water was overheating the rivers and killing the fish. Some of us like our fish cooked at home or at camp, not cooked in the river. :-)

Here is a quote from the 2007 study from Stanford...Peter

Wind power, long considered to be as fickle as wind itself, can be groomed to become a steady, dependable source of electricity and delivered at a lower cost than at present, according to scientists at Stanford University.

The key is connecting wind farms throughout a given geographic area with transmission lines, thus combining the electric outputs of the farms into one powerful energy source. The findings are published in the November issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology.

Wind is the world's fastest growing electric energy source, according to the study's authors, Cristina Archer and Mark Jacobson, who will present their findings Dec. 13 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. Their talk is titled "Supplying Reliable Electricity and Reducing Transmission Requirements by Interconnecting Wind Farms."

However, because wind is intermittent, it is not used to supply baseload electric power today. Baseload power is the amount of steady and reliable electric power that is constantly being produced, typically by power plants, regardless of electricity demand. But interconnecting wind farms with a transmission grid reduces the power swings caused by wind variability and makes a significant portion of it just as consistent a power source as a coal power plant.

"This study implies that, if interconnected wind is used on a large scale, a third or more of its energy can be used for reliable electric power, and the remaining intermittent portion can be used for transportation, allowing wind to solve energy, climate and air pollution problems simultaneously," said Archer, the study's lead author and a consulting assistant professor in Stanford's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and research associate in the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution.

Although Denmark has ~20% of their electricity coming from wind, in total, the US has more installed capacity than them. I'm really hesitant to rely on wind for base load, since no one has ever done it before. http://www.eurotrib.com/files/3/070602_elec_coming_from_wind_2006_top_10_countri...

Although heat can force some Nuclear Power plants to shut down, we find that these infrequent outages don't keep the NPPs offline too long. During this window, it is not a problem for other energy sources to pick up the slack. The parent firm could also purchase power from a local utility.

Based on current installed capacity, I am very skeptical over solar's cost effectiveness, although the technology does produces electricity hand in hand with out day load increase and peak. That being said, prices of solar cells have steadily decreased over the years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Ren2006.png

http://evjump.com/Technology/files/pv-costs_450.png

From previous post, "This study implies that, if interconnected wind is used on a large scale, a third or more of its energy can be used for reliable electric power" Using wind in this fashion would mean installing three times whatever you want base load to be. That doesn't seem constructive to me, especially when Nuclear can produce ~90% of it's installed capacity.

If AEHI wants to build interconnected wind farms, they can, note to be repetitive. However, it appears they are more heavily considering the nuclear option...

Hi NCSU NE student,

RE: "Although heat can force some Nuclear Power plants to shut down, we find that these infrequent outages don't keep the NPPs offline too long. During this window, it is not a problem for other energy sources to pick up the slack."

Well, they are shutting down during peak demand of summer heat. Even toxic states like New Jersey have adopted rooftop solar installation assistance plans to offset the initial investment for families because solar matches peak summer demand.

But you are very kind with your philosophy to let AEHI do what they want in Elmore County. I smell a coal plant coming. Butch likes "clean coal" so maybe they can experiment with CO2 sequestration in Elmore, like they hope to in Pocatello, ie, inject it 1/2 mile under our water and hope for the best. Donnie G didn't mention the possibility of a coal plant by mistake on his SEC application, did he? ...Peter

I have been researching what the public infrastructure cost would be and although not finished it is far above what a company with shaky financing can afford. I say this because as one man told me on the phone, "We are planning on funding the public infrastructure before the plant becomes operationsl". That is possible, let me begin with. Probable, well that is to be debated. Their rough figure of 3 million that appears in the economic analysis is not nearly enough. I harp on it because the public needs to know it. This is one of the selling points and it is flawed.

I have no science to back me up but from the outside looking in, it would seem that uranium has a finite supply. As we keep mining for it, the cost of extracting would seem to climb. I may be incorrect but so goes life.

"operational", sorry i cant type.

The NRC is expecting AEHI's application. I take this much more seriously than someone considering the "possibility of a coal plant." I wouldn't take a company seriously that didn't consider all viable options. http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-ap...

Regarding heat & outages,

I think this issue is inherent with any steam cycle plant, not just nuclear. The steam turbine is the backbone of our current electrical infrastructure.

On Uranium prices,

Yes you have a most accurate assumption, increased demand coupled with a lessening of material from the "Megatons to Megawatts" program has led to significant increases in Uranium prices. This increases makes more sites with lower grade ore economically viable for mining, increasing out finite supply. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/uploadedImages/wnn/Newsletters/Uprice95on.gif

Fortunately, this increase is not likely to translate into higher electric bills, since nuclear is the most resistant to changes in fuel price. http://content4.clipmarks.com/blog_cache/www.uic.com.au/img/02FCE01E-8A93-42A2-9... Sorry for the small photo. Yellow is the fuel cost, I think...

One of the reasons that Nuclear has again became a possibility is that its input-output ratio is known. With relatively little variation, an operator or stockholders knows if you do certain things, certain will result in linear fashion. Wind does not have this degree of certainty. There is a range but when money is tight, people like certainty. Nuclear can be thought of as a controlled experiment. Wind/solar/geothermal has variation and nature's whims behind it. I am an advocate for those three but I can see why some do not simply jump on the bandwagaon just because we give them our propaganda.

I agree with you 100%!

Hi twilcox and NCSU NE student,

I hear ya but...

RE: "Wind/solar/geothermal has variation and nature's whims behind it."

Well, the Raft River geothermal rocks steady 24/7 for 5.25 cents / Kwhr. When the US geothermal potential can provide 5 times the 1990 US electric consumption, it is more reliable and safer than nuke power.

If we are going to base our energy plan on catch phrase, as Stanford said about connecting widespread wind farms being as reliable a baseload as coal,ie, "The wind doesn't always blow here, but it's ALWAYS blowing somewhere!"

RE: "input-output ratio"

That phrase is used by Id Power and most to designate efficiency. It usually compares how much power it takes to build a facility vs how much power it produces. Even Id Power admits wind is way on top of that list with a 1:80 input-output ratio, better than nukes. Respectfully...Peter

I bleed green for all of this stuff but not every plot of land has geothermal capabilities. For those many areas that do not, people want something that is stable and predictable. Being that nuclear is really a controlled experiment, manipulating the process can be done. When its mid-June and Jane Doe wants her wind turbine in Shoshone (or wherever) to turn, her will alone does not make it turn. I know that you all know this, maybe even better than I. I am just not so blind to not understand why nuclear has not became irrelevant. If it was up to me, I would be 100% against it but its probably a good thing that I dont call all the shots.

Could you clarify this: "I am just not so blind to not understand why nuclear has not became irrelevant."

I don't understand.

OK, sorry it was vague. I feel that nuclear has not became irrelevant partly because of society's need for things that are proven and stable. I dont like it but cant blame folks for not wanting to invest in something that does not have a proven track record. Wind/solar/geo can work out for someone but for large scale projects, there is a degree of certainty that nuclear brings. Long winded answer .... but us darn economics types. Overall, from an economic standpoint I can see why nuclear has not became irrelevant. This debate tends to take on the dynamics of a religious debate at times but I am sure that you have noticed this as well.

Ah, I understand and agree with you.

Hi all,

Well, from an economic point of view, the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says nukes and coal are irrelevant, and nukes are TOO EXPENSIVE. This report lets his opposition use their old old framework trying to deny reality, but signs of life at FERC! ...Peter

No need to build new U.S. coal or nuclear plants -- FERC chairman

Noelle Straub and Peter Behr, E&E reporters

No new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States,

the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said today.

"We may not need any, ever," Jon Wellinghoff told reporters at a U.S.

Energy Association forum.

The FERC chairman's comments go beyond those of other Obama

administration officials, who have strongly endorsed greater efficiency

and renewables deployment but also say nuclear and fossil energies will

continue playing a major role.

Wellinghoff's view also goes beyond the consensus outlook in the

electric power industry about future sources of electricity. The

industry has assumed that more baseload generation would provide part of

an increasing demand for power, along with a rapid deployment of

renewable generation, smart grid technologies and demand reduction

strategies.

Jay Apt, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Electricity

Industry Center, expressed skepticism about the feasibility of relying

so heavily on renewable energy. "I don't think we're where Chairman

Wellinghoff would like us to be," Apt said. "You need firm power to fill

in when the wind doesn't blow. There is just no getting around that."

Some combination of more gas- or coal-fired generation, or nuclear

power, will be needed, he said. "Demand response can provide a

significant buffering of the power fluctuations coming from wind.

Interacting widely scattered wind farms cannot provide smooth power."

Wellinghoff said renewables like wind, solar and biomass will provide

enough energy to meet baseload capacity and future energy demands.

Nuclear and coal plants are too expensive, he added.

"I think baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism," he said.

"Baseload capacity really used to only mean in an economic dispatch,

which you dispatch first, what would be the cheapest thing to do. Well,

ultimately wind's going to be the cheapest thing to do, so you'll

dispatch that first."

He added, "People talk about, 'Oh, we need baseload.' It's like people

saying we need more computing power, we need mainframes. We don't need

mainframes, we have distributed computing."

The technology for renewable energies has come far enough to allow his

vision to move forward, he said. For instance, there are systems now

available for concentrated solar plants that can provide 15 hours of

storage.

"What you have to do, is you have to be able to shape it," he added.

"And if you can shape wind and you can effectively get capacity

available for you for all your loads.

"So if you can shape your renewables, you don't need fossil fuel or

nuclear plants to run all the time. And, in fact, most plants running

all the time in your system are an impediment because they're very

inflexible. You can't ramp up and ramp down a nuclear plant. And if you

have instead the ability to ramp up and ramp down loads in ways that can

shape the entire system, then the old concept of baseload becomes an

anachronism."

'A lot that is still not understood'

Asked whether his ideas need detailed studies, given the complexity of

the grid, Wellinghoff said the technology is already moving that way.

"I think it's being settled by the digital grid moving forward," he

said. "We are going to have to go to a smart grid to get to this point

I'm talking about. But if we don't go to that digital grid, we're not

going to be able to move these renewables, anyway. So it's all going to

be an integral part of operating that grid efficiently."

The North American Electric Reliability Corp. reported last week on

challenges in integrating a twentyfold expansion of renewable power into

the nation's electricity networks but did not specifically address

whether additional baseload generation would be needed. A spokesperson

for NERC did not have an immediate response to Wellinghoff's comments

today.

Revis James, who directs energy technology assessment for the Electric

Power Research Institute, said recently that it is not clear how fast

renewable energy can be added without creating reliability issues. "No

one knows what the magic number is," he said. "Are we moving too fast?

On the policymakers' side, there's a lot that is not still understood

about the implications of a large share of renewables." Impact on

nuclear power

Wellinghoff's statement -- if it reflects Obama administration policy --

would be a huge blow to the U.S. nuclear power industry, which has been

hoping for a nuclear "renaissance" based on the capacity of nuclear

reactors to generate power without greenhouse gas emissions.

Congress created significant financial incentives to encourage the

construction of perhaps a half-dozen nuclear plants with innovative

designs, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu has promised Congress to

accelerate awards of federal loan guarantees for some of these

proposals.

But a major expansion in U.S. nuclear energy would require a high

effective tax on carbon emissions from coal plants, or an extended loan

guarantee and tax incentive policy, according to the Congressional

Research Service and outside consultants. The leading energy bills

before Congress do not provide more loan guarantees.

"If expansion of nuclear plants is the nation's policy, then Congress

has to recognize that the U.S. energy companies cannot afford to do this

alone," said Paul Genoa, policy director for the Nuclear Energy

Institute, in a recent interview.

"The president needs to show his cards on nuclear energy," said energy

consultant Joseph Stanislaw, a Duke University professor. "He cannot

keep this industry, which must make investments with a 50-year or longer

horizon, in limbo for much longer."

"I think [new nuclear expansion] is kind of a theoretical question,

because I don't see anybody building these things, I don't see anybody

having one under construction," Wellington said.

Building nuclear plants is cost-prohibitive, he said, adding that the

last price he saw was more than $7,000 a kilowatt -- more expensive than

solar energy. "Until costs get to some reasonable cost, I don't think

anybody's going to [talk] that seriously," he said. "Coal plants are

sort of in the same boat, they're not quite as expensive." Can

renewables meet demand?

There's enough renewable energy to meet energy demand, Wellinghoff said.

"There's 500 to 700 gigawatts of developable wind throughout the

Midwest, all the way to Texas. There's probably another 200 to 300

gigawatts in Montana and Wyoming that can go West."

He also cited tremendous solar power in the Southwest and hydrokinetic

and biomass energy, and said the United States can reduce energy usage

by 50 percent. "You combine all those things together ... I think we

have great resources in this country, and we just need to start using

them," he said.

Problems with unsteady power generation from wind will be overcome, he

said.

"That's exactly what all the load response will do, the load response

will provide that leveling ability, number one," he said. "Number two,

if you have wide interconnections across the entire interconnect, you're

going to have a lot of diversity with that wind. Not all the wind is

going to stop at once. You'll have some of it stop, some of it start,

and all of that diversity is going to help you, as well." Push for grid

modifications

But planning for modifying the grid to integrate renewables must take

place in the next three to five years, he said.

"If we don't do that, then we miss the boat,"Wellinghoff said. "That

planning has to take place so you don't strand a lot of assets, a lot of

supply assets."

Unlike coal and nuclear, natural gas will continue to play a role in

generating electricity, he said.

"Natural gas is going to be there for a while, because it's going to be

there to get us through this transition that's going to take 30 or more

years."

Chu reiterated before the House Energy and Commerce Committee today that

he supports loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants and is working

with the White House on the issue.

"I believe nuclear power has to be part of the energy mix in this

century," Chu said.

Chu also noted today that nuclear technology, along with renewables, is

an area where the United States has lost its lead. "We are trying to

start the American nuclear industry again," he said.

Coal currently provides half of U.S. power, while nuclear energy

accounts for about 20 percent.

On nuclear energy's cost effectiveness,

Virtually all of the author's comments and quotations failed to quantify their statements. Although they were accurate in the statement about prohibitively high instillation cost, NPPs practically produce their installed capacity all year, which is different than solar. Their statement was an attempt to show that nuclear energy is not economical. However, I think this is in stark contrast to the ~430 commercial power reactors operating across the world.

On base load power,

Although one of the individuals quoted phrases base load power as a purely economic decision, base load power sources need to produce a large degree of their installed capacity all of the time, since that is another way to define base load power (electricity demanded all of time). Currently, hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear are best suited to accomplish this, while well supplied coal plants can also serve as base load.

I don't understand how having a power plant that always produces its installed capacity (when this amount is less than base load) is a problem, as one of the quoted me suggests is too "rigid"...

I think that renewable energy and some of the ideas listed above are very feasible out West. As for the East, I am not so sure. I would to see the claims substantiated as well. I am sure that he is quite intelligent and well read but I need more than just talk. That is my primary complaint about AEHI.

I hate to prop up nuclear but one idea for AEHI is to follow the lead of Palo Verde where they use waste water from the Phoenix area. A lot of pipes would need to be laid but it would have its benefits.

I wont blabber on like usual but there needs to be more done on the part of Idaho Power. They are one of the reasons that renewables have not become more prominent. Their lack of investment has made this discussion come into existence.

A few questions for you fine gentlemen,

What is load factor when it pertains to nuclear? If that load factor goes up or down, what effect does that have on cost or productivity?

Besides the fuel source, are there any others materials used that have a finite supply? This would be something like Cobalt (if it were used) or some metal or alloy that has limited supply?

Thanks for your time.

A few questions for you fine gentlemen,

What is load factor when it pertains to nuclear? If that load factor goes up or down, what effect does that have on cost or productivity?

Besides the fuel source, are there any others materials used that have a finite supply? This would be something like Cobalt (if it were used) or some metal or alloy that has limited supply?

Thanks for your time.

On load factor,

Our installed capacity of nuclear is less than the minimum amount of electricity demanded on the grid all of the time. Because of this, Nuclear power plants turn on and stay on, pouring all of their electricity into the grid without fear of overloading it. Being more direct, yes, it is arduous and slow to change the amount of electricity generated in a nuclear reactor.

On supply of material,

All of the raw material is basically readily avaliable. However, there are a few bottlenecks in the manufacturing line, specifically with heavy forging. A Japanese firm that does these very specific, large castings is already something like 2 years behind... However, Areva has allocated funds to nearly double their facility that can do similar castings in France.

When a company is taking on so much debt to construct such a massive machine, some price issues of individual components fall by the wayside.

Hi all,

RE: What is load factor when it pertains to nuclear? If that load factor goes up or down, what effect does that have on cost or productivity?

NCSU NE student replied in part "Our installed capacity of nuclear is less than the minimum amount of electricity demanded on the grid all of the time."

But added "Being more direct, yes, it is arduous and slow to change the amount of electricity generated in a nuclear reactor."

I must disagree and clarify a bit. "Base load" is generally the amount of steady supply of the power required by a region. Base load plants like geothermal, nukes, coal, and widespread connected wind farms can usually provide a steady base load supply of power. But from a defense strategy, when accidents happen, it is a decade to replace a nuke that millions rely on, and quicker to replace wind and geo.

But NCSU student, Gillispie proposes a 1,600 MW plant, and that is the average consumption of Idaho, though peak demand can be up to 3,000 MW or more. We already produce about 3,000 MW, between our hydro and Id Power's coal plants in Wyoming and Nevada, so Gillispie's excess has to go somewhere. So it is not really "less than the minimum amount of electricity demanded on the grid all of the time," at least as far as Idaho grid is concerned. Down the transmission line to California, Vegas, and Oregon is where it is headed.

On the other question, although uranium, especially good uranium higher in U-235, is a finite supply, I know of no other limiting element. But I agree with NCSU student that nuke castings is bottlenecked for a real BOOM in nukes envisioned by the advertising team trying to orchestrate a "nuclear renaissance." Perhaps the broke Areva can sell enough assts, or get US subsidies, to boost their castings production, but I'd prefer they cast geothermal and wind construction with our limited resources...Peter

As we all know, the Grid doesn't stop at State lines. Regardless, all of the electricity produced by the Nuclear power plant or any other base load set up would be sold into the grid. After which, it is difficult (if not impossible) to tell which power plant's energy is directly being consumed by Idahoans and what is being sold across state lines.

Although it is difficult and inefficient to change the output of a nuclear plant, I don't see how this is relevant, since they are run at capacity all of the time.

On nuclear power station loss,

When NPPs have refueling outages every ~18 months they are offline for at least a week or two. During this time, the grid and other power plants have to soak up their load. This transition is done seamlessly without the public noticing. When TMI went off line, the region still had electricity with some additional strain placed on the grid.

About the load factor, I was reading this on one of the links provided by Dr. Rickards. Is load factor much the same as capacity factor? Is it a measure of how efficient the plant is ran? Does the age of the reactor play into this load factor rating that i was reading about (i.e 86%).

On another note, most of the newly proposed plants that look like they are going to be approved have a simlilarity. They are being built alongside other existing nuclear reactors or in areas that have power generating facilities already in place. This tells me that the infrastructure being in place prior is an asset for those proposing plants. Just an observation.

finally go to Fox12news.com and check out Gillispie's claim that "someone" is sabotaging his cause. It is rather humorous. Have a great weekend everyone.

Although I don't really know what "load factor" is. Capacity factor is how much electricity is being produced, compared to what is installed. This measurement is not a reflection of how efficient the machine is.

A nuclear power plants run ~90% capacity factor. Meaning, on average, they produce about 90% of the plants installed capacity. If we look at the whole electrical generation process from fission to the grid, the process is only ~30% efficient, since so much heat is lost. As NPPs age, their capacity factor can actually be increased through upgrades like replacing the steam turbine with a more powerful one.

While a wind turbine may have high efficiency at converting wind into electricity, it's capacity factor is low because of intermittent wind. However, this doesn't really matter, since the cost per installed kilowatt outweighs the technologies low capacity factor. In summary, with financial incentives, wind technology is affordable enough to install more MWs to overcome its low capacity factor. Efficiency falls by the wayside if the technology is cost effective.

Good afternoon all,

I am not sure if you can answer but if you cant then feel free to comment.

One question that i have thought about it is, if the financing is intermittent and therefore planning is going to be, will that inconsistency affect the area. One example is that of the farm hand that hears about one of these jobs. Simplistically lets say that it is the second step (whatever that may be). He thinks that it will begin on June 1, 20XX. Due to shaky financing (not nonexistent), they have to postpone when they need this farm hand. He now goes back to work and finds that his job was taken. Also, while he was gone there was lost production. Amplify this over the county and what contingency if any do they have for the lost production due to time loss and having to retrain this new wave of farm hands or whatever they do.

If I was them I would make sure that all steps were ready to go and that the gaps were minimal. I have my sources and they tell me that the financial picture is bleak. Trying to run up a hill intermittently is exhausting. The gain to the county after the plant is built may make up for it but these are just things to think about.

(If you fell asleep while reading this, dont feel bad most do)

Question for you two:

If this plant is OK'd but Idaho Power has no agreement with them to transmit the power would this put the brakes on the project or does AEHI have a legal avenue to make this work? I doubt that they would invest in building the power lines and necessary infrastructure so some agreement with Idaho Power has to be in place. I would think that once the rezone is approved (hopefully not.. but one never knows) that this would be the next issue to tackle.

Hi Tim,

I'm not 100% sure on this issue, but I am 95% thinking Id Power can not legally refuse to transmit any power generated. There is a limit though to the present grid, and new transmission lines are being done right now. Not coincidence, they criss-cross east to west, and north to south at the INL.

I have proposed the western grid go through the DOE maps of high wind and geothermal, to serve generations to come cleanly. The present plans hook up coal plants and nuke schemes to the big cities that ban these plants, like Vegas, LA, Portland< Phoenix etc...Peter

I have been made aware that our friends at AEHI have an unstable financial picture. Uneven financing is going to change everything. Any delay or lag will be exacerbated. Try explaining that to the average Joes that are supposedly going to be employed at this plant. The bigger the task, the harder the mistakes are felt by the lay public.

Can a company really be "financially stable" to accrue ~7 billion dollars in debt?