Nuke plant proposal shifts to Elmore County

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc., has abandoned its plan to build a nuclear power plant near Bruneau and is now seeking approval to construct the facility along the Snake River in Elmore County.

The move was made for a number of reasons, including the discovery of a fault line on the Bruneau property as part of the company's evaluation of the site.

The area is known to have a number of fault lines, but most are over 500,000 years old, CEO Don Gillespie of AEHI said. The fault line they discovered "is a little younger than that, although not much, but we thought it would be a big hurdle," and would drive up the analytical costs for future filings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The company already has filed a Notice of Intent with the NRC, the first formal step toward building a nuclear power plant.

"Last July, when we decided to do this in Owyhee County, I always thought we ought to have a back-up plan," he said, and briefed the Elmore County Commissioners at that time about the possibility of locating the plant in Elmore County if the Owyhee County site proved problematical. He said he received some "positive signs," from the commissioners at that time.

The property in Elmore County is located near the Snake River on land owned by DeRuyter Properties, LP, a company owned by a dairy farmer in Owyhee County who has been using the 1,400 acres of land to grow hay. Gillespie said AEHI has signed a six-month contract for rights to the land, and if purchased would include the water rights. He said the water rights would cover all the water needs of the proposed 1,500 -megawatt power plant.

Gillespie said the company is still looking at a design for the power plant, and is considering utilizing a third-generation "light water" design by General Electric that already has been pre-approved by the NRC. That design requires very little water for cooling and does not need the tall cooling towers that were common with plants built prior to 1990. In fact, Gillespie said, a hybrid variant of the design that AEHI is looking at "could run almost dry, which could be important in a dry year in Idaho."

Using a pre-approved "standardized" design would significantly reduce the amount of time needed for federal approval. Under changes made in federal law recently, designed to encourage development of nuclear power, some portions of the federal permitting process, which can take years, have been combined to run in parallel, allowing both the construction and operating permits to be sought at the same time. Gillespie said he hopes to begin those filings with the NRC by December or early 2009.

Federal approval isn't the only hoop AEHI will have to jump through. Both state and county agencies will have their say. Gillespie has been in contact with the Elmore County Planning and Zoning office, but has not formally requested any papers to file, yet. He expects to do so within the next month, seeking the necessary conditional use permits the county would require.

He also intends to hold a series of public information meetings in the relatively near future to explain his plan to Elmore County citizens.

Gillespie said that, for his company, moving to the Elmore County site had a number of advantages.

"There are no fault lines on this side of the river," he said, "we'd be close to rail access, although we'd have to run a short spur, and that's important considering the size of some of the equipment these plants require. With the Owyhee site, we realized we'd probably have to build a bridge over the Snake River," since existing bridges couldn't support the weight of some of the equipment, "and we'd have to cross BLM land, and that could be a problem."

The Elmore County site eliminated those problems, he said, adding that the land "is flatter, and easier to construct on."

The site is located about 15 miles upriver from C.J. Strike Dam, and roughly six miles south of Hammett.

Gillespie said the company intends to eventually build two plants on the site, although it potentially could hold three. The first plant would cost between $4 billion to $5 billion to construct (including paperwork costs).

During construction, Gillespie said an economic analysis AEHI had done by an independent firm in Oregon, showed that the project would generate $2.6 billion in economic input to the state of Idaho, approximately $2.3 billion in Elmore County alone. By comparison, the entire assessed valuation of all property in Elmore County just recently cracked, barely, $1 billion.

Gillespie said at current tax rates, once completed the plant would create somewhere between $40 million to $70 million in additional property tax revenue for Elmore County, the upper figure being higher than all county governments' current property tax revenues combined. "That could mean some significant tax reductions for everybody else," he noted.

Gillespie said that despite the setback in making the site change, the process "is moving pretty fast. The support in this state has been incredible, especially from the state leadership, the governor and congressmen."

Idaho has a long history of nuclear power. The first city ever powered by nuclear energy was Arco, and the INEL complexes west of Idaho Falls operate a number of experimental reactors.

But Gillespie knows he'll face opposition from some of the state's environmental groups, which tend to be opposed to nuclear power on principle.

And in fact, the first shot was fired almost immediately by the Snake River Alliance over the weekend.

"The last thing Idaho needs is a nomad nuclear power plant developer bouncing from county to county, looking for the best deal for his outrageously bad idea," Alliance Executive Director Andrea Shipley said. "Moving this scheme 15 miles upstream on the Snake River and across the county line doesn't make it any more acceptable. It was a horrible idea at C.J. Strike Reservoir and it's an equally bad idea outside of Mountain Home.

"The opposition to AEHI's ill-conceived merchant nuclear plant is far stronger today than it was when Mr. Gillispie came to Idaho in 2006," Shipley contended. "AEHI is now starting from scratch and its proposal will meet even greater and more formidable opposition in Elmore County. We guarantee officials there will soon be made aware of his company's dismal record in Owyhee County. In fact, we encourage Elmore County officials to give their colleagues next door a call to see what they'll be dealing with in the months ahead -- assuming of course that AEHI doesn't pack up and move to another county first."

Shipley cited water issues, radioactive waste storage and potential light pollution of the Bruneau observatory as drawbacks to the plan, among other factors.

Shipley also charged that AEHI had been "pulling the wool over the eyes of Owhyee County officials. We will make sure it does not happen in Elmore County. This company has a record of building structures without permits and not responding to county demands to pay its permit fees. It has not been a good corporate citizen of Owyhee County or of Idaho."

Shipley added that using geologic features to justify the move was just "scrambling for excuses," by AEHI and "changing the site will have no impact on the growing campaign to prevent construction of AEHI's plant in Elmore County or anywhere else in Idaho."

View 39 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • After paying years of high Energy Costs would this mean lower energy bill for the homeowner at the end of the month, IF NOT, lets forget about this nuke plant.

    As a citzen/taxpayer Im tired of building these things and still the cost go higher every year.

    Maybe this time "we the people" should say

    "NO" and just deal with it.

    Maybe, we can get local "Free POWER",, why , that funny, because it will be all of us if something goes wrong that nuke plant that will "GLOW IN THE DARK" for 10K years or is it 50k ???

    -- Posted by Freedom on Wed, Apr 9, 2008, at 10:10 AM
  • There are hundreds of nuclear power plants in operation throughout the world. They have been in operation for decades and there have been only a few accidents. They are also one of the cleanest forms of energy.

    -- Posted by mule on Wed, Apr 9, 2008, at 10:45 AM
  • This plant will never happen because the environmentalists will just tie it up with litigation in the courts for years until the developer just gives up. People fear change, and although technology has advanced tremendously and I have no problems whatsoever with this proposal, most people are ill-informed and will find any excuse they can to oppose this. They will dig up fears that have been used for 50 years that have long since been proven unfounded, but they won't listen. And in the end we will all still just sit around and whine about soaring energy costs while opposing anything that helps alleviate them.

    -- Posted by mattnielsen on Wed, Apr 9, 2008, at 11:15 AM
  • why arent people looking into solar energy we certainly have enough sun around here and what about more wind turbines? i realize there are days that the sun doesnt shine and the wind doesnt blow all on the same day but even at that there are ways to store energy. i'd rather see more of that sort of thing being looked into than something that will enable me to use the neighboring cattle for flashlights.

    -- Posted by just1 on Wed, Apr 9, 2008, at 2:11 PM
  • To answer the question about why don't we use more renewables: Renewables aren't reliable. Wind, hydro and solar produce energy less than a third of the time and wind especially has a gigantic environmental footprint - a wind farm of any size needs huge amounts of cement, metal, wiring, plastic, surface area and access roads and takes a heavy toll on birds and bats. It's no surprise that environmentalists oppose renewable projects, even when they pay lip service to renewables. I've yet to see the Fake River Alliance stand up at a public meeting and support a renewable developer facing opposition from neighbors - radical enviros can't bring themselves to actually support anything. To put it in their words, "The last thing Idaho needs is a nomad obstructionist environmental group bouncing from county to county to oppose any plan - renewable or otherwise - to produce power."

    -- Posted by Nucleus on Wed, Apr 9, 2008, at 11:03 PM
  • I am a concerned Idaho native, and I have been following this story for several months now. It bothers me that the Snake River Alliance seems to just want to sling mud and personally attack people, not help with any solutions. The SRA is trying to blur the real issues with slander instead of dealing with sound information. It is time to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

    -- Posted by darkside on Thu, Apr 10, 2008, at 1:15 PM
  • Hi Darkside,

    I am not in the SRA for the record, but I haven't seen them slander anybody.

    I have supported windmills in my area. I have also not slandered Gillispie, but I have corrected his claims many times. For example in the Statesman Gillispie repeated claims that Raft River geothermal costs 61 cents per kilowatt! Here is a snippet...

    Dr. Peter Rickards: In terms of safety and economics, nuclear power is wrong for Idaho

    BY PETER RICKARDS - Idaho Statesman

    Edition Date: 03/28/08

    Bruneau nuclear promoter Don Gillispie made many incorrect claims in his March 16 Reader's View. Gillispie was wrong to state: "Idaho's Raft River geothermal plant was recently approved to sell electricity for 61 cents a kilowatt hour, more than 10 times Idaho Power's average residential rate." This nuclear engineer simply does his math wrong by a factor of 10!

    I asked the president of U.S. Geothermal, which owns Raft River, what is the real cost. Doug Glaspey confirmed "it is 5.36 cents per kilowatt-hour." Gillispie has been corrected before, so why is he repeating this lie in the Statesman?

    Let's look at Gillispie's non-binding claim, that he will sell his nuclear power at 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. The list of authors of the Keystone Report includes his favorite French nuclear company Areva, found on page 3 of 108. The stated cost to deliver nuclear power is 8 to 11 cents/kilowatt-hour (page 11 of 108). The Keystone report is available on their website.

    So the geothermal at Raft River is cheaper than this merchant nuke, even if Gillispie wanted to be a nice guy! But Gillispie's a merchant plant that sells to the highest bidder. Gillispie coyly refuses to sign a contract with Idaho Power for this "3 cents" he repeatedly claims! We will have to outbid California to buy this power, and they already pay three times our rate.

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Thu, Apr 10, 2008, at 2:37 PM
  • Actually, I have been thinking, when Mtn Home School District wants 3X (Thirty Something) Million (the cost keeps going up each election where it gets shot down).

    Why not do something to HELP the local tax paer.

    For 6M GE can provide commercial windmills to power all the residences, and maybe some commercial (comm rates are dirt cheap, 3c/kwh). We could collectively as a county, say, buy windmills, and sell the power to ourselves on the cheap, and use extra to fund things, like needed school improvements. Could govt's be wise and good servants and even MAKE money for their citizens instead of just shake them down when they want to spend more?

    PS--If you want Proactive govt, Precinct 7 voters can vote for Bob McEntee for Repulican Precinct Committeman on the May 27th primary.

    -- Posted by RAM on Thu, Apr 10, 2008, at 3:28 PM
  • If we are NOT going to get local Free Power well I think they are asking too much to build that thing here.

    I would say too the Nuke plant Management is this.

    Give us Free Local Power,,, or take a hike

    -- Posted by Freedom on Fri, Apr 11, 2008, at 4:59 AM
  • Rickards is once again on his "let's keep it in Idaho" bandwagon. I don't see him demanding that renewable projects keep all their power in-state - and they shouldn't. I don't see him demanding that Idaho farmers, ranchers, computer chip makers or hot tub factories sell only in-state. This might blow Rickards' mind, but we have a regional economy with many things, including power. We are already competing with California for food and gasoline, for example. Idaho is connected to a regional power grid - where we have been a taker, not a giver - and Idaho is dependent on imported power from out-of-state for two-thirds of its needs. It's about time we developed a power plant in-state and started putting our people to work.

    -- Posted by Nucleus on Fri, Apr 11, 2008, at 1:52 PM
  • Hi Nucleus,

    Windmills bring good jobs too, but never have a meltdown that forces evacuations. One technician needed for maintaining every 5 windmills. Pocatello just got a windmill production factory with great jobs! Construction jobs to erct the windmills will employ many more.

    A diversified energy supply is much better for national defense than clustering a huge nuclear target that so many depend on for power.

    I am aware Idaho both imports and EXPORTS power in seasonal exchanges. Despite the repeated claim we import 2/3 of our power, we actually produce more than we consume, if you look at the 2006 IRP from Idaho Power.

    On our website (that I am not allowed to mention, but google me), you will see my public comments on the EIS for the new western states grid. We want to build the new grid through the known DOE mapped areas of high wind, geothermal, and solar. We site the 2007 Stanford study that shows hooking up wind farms can provide a steady baseload power as reliable as coal, and cheaper.

    Idaho was one of the wise states to NOT deregulate electricity when it was fashionable. Idaho can have a clean energy future. California bans these nuclear nightmares, so why should Idaho take the risk, and still have to outbid them for the power? I am glad foreign markets crave Idaho potatoes, but the merchant Sempra coal plans for Jerome, and Gillispie's nuclear plans carry huge risks that Idaho families do not need to take...Peter

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Fri, Apr 11, 2008, at 4:42 PM
  • So, Dr. Rickards, are you for merchant renewable projects, but against merchant nuclear plants? It sounds like you understand the realities of the regional energy grid and that renewables will have to sell out of state to the highest bidder to remain competitive. However, when it comes to nuclear power, you're like OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE THESE GREEDY MERCHANTS WANT TO SEND OUR POWER OUT OF STATE!!! And wind power carries significant impacts- miles and miles of access roads, million of tons of cement, generators killing birds and bats, huge areas of land. The nuclear plant says it will generate 1,600 mw on 1,400 acres. There's a wind project proposed for Illinois that would generate 300 mw on 25,000 acres. At that rate, you would need nearly 100 times the area of the nuke plant to generate as much power. Try getting THAT approved!. And regarding these "nuclear disasters," I think more people get cancer from X-rays than nuke plants. You are a doctor so if I am wrong on this please set me straight.

    -- Posted by Nucleus on Fri, Apr 11, 2008, at 7:38 PM
  • So, Dr. Rickards, are you for merchant renewable projects, but against merchant nuclear plants? It sounds like you understand the realities of the regional energy grid and that renewables will have to sell out of state to the highest bidder to remain competitive. However, when it comes to nuclear power, you're like OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE THESE GREEDY MERCHANTS WANT TO SEND OUR POWER OUT OF STATE!!! And wind power carries significant impacts- miles and miles of access roads, million of tons of cement, generators killing birds and bats, huge areas of land. The nuclear plant says it will generate 1,600 mw on 1,400 acres. There's a wind project proposed for Illinois that would generate 300 mw on 25,000 acres. At that rate, you would need nearly 100 times the area of the nuke plant to generate as much power. Try getting THAT approved!. And regarding these "nuclear disasters," I think more people get cancer from X-rays than nuke plants. You are a doctor so if I am wrong on this please set me straight.

    -- Posted by Nucleus on Fri, Apr 11, 2008, at 7:39 PM
  • Hi Nucleus,

    RE: So, Dr. Rickards, are you for merchant renewable projects, but against merchant nuclear plants?

    No, I am for regulated electricity, and opposed to nuclear and coal plants, especially the merchant versions of them.

    Most wind power signs contracts with Idaho Power, and comes under regulation and fair play with consumers. I did object to the recent sale of south hills Idaho wind power to Nevada. But I bet they got tired of awaiting the court obsessed foot-dragging Idaho Power to sign them up. Renewable merchants are great for the economy, but we should keep prices fair via the PUC. You do remember Enron price gauging don't you?

    Geothermal does not take up much space. Rooftop solar gov't financing programs would offset Idaho's biggest problem, peek demand in the summer. That would not take up any space. Ranchers and farmers in southern Idaho can provide the acreage for modern windmills, and STILL USE their land, all while making extra money.

    re: Your comment - "And regarding these "nuclear disasters," I think more people get cancer from X-rays than nuke plants. You are a doctor so if I am wrong on this please set me straight."

    First, doctors don't give x-rays to pregnant women, unless it's a matter of life and death. That's because the fetus is the most sensitive to radiation and in the 1950's Dr's documented an increase of leukemia in pre-natal x-rayed children.

    For a healthy person, if an x-ray is NEEDED, the risk of 1-3 x-rays causing cancer is worth the needed x-ray.

    But radioactive fallout means inhaling man made radionuclides, like plutonium and cesium. Alpha emitters like plutonium-238 are much more dangerous for kids to inhale, and give a much higher dose than a simple x-ray. The National Academy of Sciences and physicians agree, there is no safe level of radiation exposure, and every exposure carries a risk.

    While American nuclear plants have containment Chernobyl did not, our website had the 2006 DOE/NRC documents admitting containment flaws and scenarios for "catastrophic failure." Chernobyl caused thousands of cancers, hundreds of miles away. Thousands more cancers were prevented by forced evacuations and impoundment of crops and cattle. Elmore county kids will have to carry or have nearby, potassium iodine pills that Homeland Security passes out in case of terrorist strikes at nuclear power plants. That pill does not stop all the radioactive iodine-131, but helps block that one radionuclide (2% of the fallout), while you evacuate.

    There is NO NEED for Idaho families to take this risk for Gillispie's profits.

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Fri, Apr 11, 2008, at 10:06 PM
  • I think I prefer wind/solar energy, but also hope one day for successful fission nuclear, as it may be better than fusion...

    And yes, current nuclear seems to be safe (except for the waste), but I always compare nuclear energy to air flight: safest until an accident, in which the potential damage done in only one accident could be gigantic. Did that keep me from flying? Of course not, I loved it (don't need to anymore).

    So I'm waffling here, and being what my father used to call "an old woman" for my doubts. I guess I just don't know enough, but I do wonder about the waste.

    -- Posted by senior lady on Sat, Apr 12, 2008, at 6:32 PM
  • Hi Senior Lady,

    Good thoughts to share. With all respect to your father, doubts are good to check out at any age, for both men and women! The nuclear waste is a huge concern. Even if they turn to the expensive reprocessing and breeder reactors we will need a long term repository, and we have none. If the proposed Yucca Mountain Nevada site is ever forced open, against the will of Nevada citizens, it will be filled by the current backlog of nuclear waste! We will need a whole new dump for this next generation Gillispie and INL and our delegation are proposing!

    RE: your thoughts "current nuclear seems to be safe (except for the waste), but I always compare nuclear energy to air flight: safest until an accident, in which the potential damage done in only one accident could be gigantic."

    The main difference to me is flying is a personal risk you take. If your plane crashes, we in Idaho will not have to impound crops and cattle, nor evacuate the state. The risk of a meltdown gambles everybody's farm, every day.

    Modern nuclear problems have come close to serious accidents. Check out the 2002 Ohio nuclear plant called Davis-Besse. An unforeseen acid leak ate through the steel containment until only 3/8ths of an inch was left! When the nuclear engineer finally noticed it, he decided to lie to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and cover it up, so he could run the plant for profit. LUCKILY, this was discovered before a huge disaster, and the engineer is now convicted in jail. But it reveals the human flaw factor, and the technology problem of the unanticipated acid leak. We really don't need to take this huge risk. Idaho is a paridise and geological wonder. Let's be the cleanest energy state in the Union, instead of the risk takers for the rich west coast cities that will outbid us for this nuclear power they ban from their neighborhoods. Idaho can double our present electric consumption according to IDWR engineer Gerald Flieschman. We can grow in a clean green way, that will attract good businesses to move to Idaho...Peter

    -- Posted by DrPeterRickardsDPM on Sat, Apr 12, 2008, at 9:14 PM
  • Did I confuse fission with fusion? Which is which?

    -- Posted by senior lady on Sun, Apr 13, 2008, at 12:39 AM
  • few accidents

    it only takes One

    but I don't mind a Nuke plant, it just gives China something else too Aim at.

    what I don't like is the Idea of the power Grid and our water supply filling the pools of the Southern Western State, then telling the Idaho property owner to flip the bill for it. FREE POWER FOR ELMORE

    -- Posted by Freedom on Mon, Apr 14, 2008, at 5:09 AM
  • Do you Wanna Know why a Nuke Plante is By the Snake River, the longest Dam less River in the United States.

    In Case of a MELT DOWN

    -- Posted by Freedom on Mon, Apr 14, 2008, at 9:59 AM
  • "It gives something else for China to aim at???" Wow.

    Methinks China isn't worried about much besides Tibet right now bro. It's North Korea that you should be worried about, and I seriously doubt they're too concerned with the Snake River.

    -- Posted by mrfresh28 on Mon, Apr 14, 2008, at 10:14 AM
  • But if we are going to have this Nuke Plant

    this is Business

    just like alaska with their Big Oil Shares

    no one special,,,, Equal Shares for Each Property Owner

    the Nuke Plant can pay to Each Property Equal Shares in either

    Monthly "Cash/Stocks/Free power for every property owner in Elmore County

    the Nuke plant can pay us "monthly/ or yearly

    the price can be high for filling thoses Pools in the West Coast and playing those music for those Rock Stars

    -- Posted by Freedom on Mon, Apr 14, 2008, at 10:55 AM
  • Ive been to north korea, thats not a problem

    -- Posted by Freedom on Mon, Apr 14, 2008, at 10:57 AM
  • LOL. You've been to North Korea, eh? When exactly?

    -- Posted by mrfresh28 on Mon, Apr 14, 2008, at 11:06 AM
  • 1983 even got pictures, been too the bridge of no return, Ive cross the line,, been there done that,

    have you done anything like that MrFresh28, you know korea or phippines, I guess not

    -- Posted by Freedom on Mon, Apr 14, 2008, at 11:10 AM
  • do you know what it like looking eye ball too eye ball with a North Korean, I have,,, some where is the North Korea Army is my Picture me for sure

    -- Posted by Freedom on Mon, Apr 14, 2008, at 11:15 AM
  • hey Mrfresh, have you ever been too Smokey Mountain

    -- Posted by Freedom on Mon, Apr 14, 2008, at 11:16 AM
  • they're alot of Vets reading this who know what Im talking about,,, they know

    -- Posted by Freedom on Mon, Apr 14, 2008, at 11:20 AM
  • then I come back to the states and read the writings of a guy who thinks I should put my Crack pipe down,,, hahahaha what a guy

    -- Posted by Freedom on Mon, Apr 14, 2008, at 11:22 AM
  • Only in America, Free speech is great !

    -- Posted by Freedom on Mon, Apr 14, 2008, at 11:37 AM
  • Haha. I stand corrected, freedom. You don't need to put your crack pipe down bro. It appears from your recent posts that what you actually need is to take your Tourette's medication.

    Free speech is hard to understand in random, fragmented sentences. Just thought you'd like to know. Cheers!

    -- Posted by mrfresh28 on Mon, Apr 14, 2008, at 2:52 PM
  • maybe, but I paid my due brother,,,, did you

    -- Posted by Freedom on Mon, Apr 14, 2008, at 3:43 PM
  • And,,,, I do know how too Vote "NO"

    its NO today tomorrow and forever

    no, bond at all, sorry

    -- Posted by Freedom on Mon, Apr 14, 2008, at 3:54 PM
  • Oh Great, a nuke plant, now we can ride out in the desert at night drink beer and watch Elmore county glow or is the grow?

    -- Posted by ghost raider on Tue, Apr 15, 2008, at 2:56 PM
  • LOL, "paid my dues"...what exactly does that mean, freedom? Have I served in the military? Absolutely not. Would I fight for my country if I thought our national security was truly in danger? Absolutely yes.

    Like I've said many times before, I am thankful to you and all who have served in the past. But don't try to make me feel guilty because I live my life differently than you. My grandfather taught me that was exactly what Vets like him fought for.

    -- Posted by mrfresh28 on Wed, Apr 16, 2008, at 10:49 AM
  • *

    The one thing this plant lacks is MONEY!!! Gillespie has only months to secure the funds for the property, then comes the funds for infrastructure. We in Elmore County have more risk of exposure from NASCAR exhaust than this plant. The question is does he own anything to Owyhee County for filing and permits?

    -- Posted by workingbee on Wed, Apr 16, 2008, at 11:32 PM
  • When you're invited to leave comments, you are asked to stay on topic. Why, Freedom and Mr. Fresh, were we subjected to your juvenile little pathetic argument? Both of you did nothing more than prove you're idiots. Dr. Rickards, if you are going to present an argument, I think you should present all the facts. Yes, alpha emitters are of primary concern, but you also failed to mention (perhaps deliberately?) that alpha particles can be stopped by a simple piece of paper. So, time (duration of exposure), distance (the farther away the better) and shielding (building walls,clothing, etc) would keep everyone safe from a minor accident. The plant would be placed at a distance away from the main population., and everyone would be educated on what to do in the event of an emergency. I grew up less than a mile away from Farley Nuclear Power plant in Alabama, and my father even worked there as a security guard. Every household in the area had an alert box and there were daily "tests". Precise instructions were given as to the appropriate response if there were an incident. The only thing that box ever did was to encourage us to keep it turned on by announcing random names for free dinners and other prizes!! I'm more concerned with a nuclear power plant being so near a military base, but I do support the power plant being built somewhere in Idaho. Oh, and one more thing; just because there are dishonest people running businesses (referring to the Ohio plant reference earlier by a different reader), doesn't mean everyone is dishonest. Do your research, ask questions, and pay attention. If Gillespie really is dishonest, it'll come out eventually. But give the man a chance. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? When it comes to determining whether a power plant should be built in our area or not, it shouldn't be about whether to be greedy or share, or whether the person wanting to build it exaggerated numbers, but instead, whether it is indeed a safe-both healthy and economic, choice for the people of Elmore County and all of Idaho

    -- Posted by sgt_elle on Sun, Apr 20, 2008, at 11:11 AM
  • Thank you for that keen observation, sgt elle! I have never been called an idiot before, and sincerely appreciate all the praise I can get. Have a great day!!!

    -- Posted by mrfresh28 on Mon, Apr 21, 2008, at 10:26 AM
  • We are going to allow this thing to be built here and then become #1 on the list for terrorist attacks.

    If anybody thinks this will help Idaho to get less expensive power---they are dreaming. It will go to the highest bidder for sure. The only thing it MAY provide Elmore County are jobs. This is not clean power and this thing will be too close to the Snake River.

    Elmore County will approve anything without checking it out first. What kind of a tax break will we give this and then call it "progress or growth" for Mtn. Home? The free ride needs to come to an end so that we can afford things for the new schools maybe without a 37 million dollar bond. If they have billions to spend on building this thing, they should pay 100% of the taxes on the building, etc. Clean power? Yeah right.

    -- Posted by OpinionMissy on Thu, Apr 24, 2008, at 12:48 PM
  • People keep saying that we need jobs in this area and when they come people complain that it is not good enough, the strip mall doesn't pay enough, we don't need another gym, the cheese factory is only here because of tax breaks, but I bet the people working at these locations that you say aren't good enough are happy that they are here because they have a job, with out having to travel to Boise to get it. It takes time to bring in the big business that we all want. To listen to you people I wonder why some of you even live here if it is so bad. There are a lot places smaller and worse off than Mountain Home.

    -- Posted by small town on Thu, Apr 24, 2008, at 2:18 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: