Nuke plant proposal is wrong site and wrong design

Dear editor:

Alternative Energy Holding Inc. (AEHI) has promised the community 500 permanent, high-paying jobs and increased wealth to be spread among public facilities and private business.

But benefits can only begin to be realized if Elmore County agrees to support and permit a nuclear power plant on a piece of farm ground in Hammett.

Though these benefits as presented by AEHI chief Don Gillespie sound appealing, the nuclear power plant proposal is problematic for at least two very important reasons: the site location is poor and the designs proposed for the facility are not credible and have no known prototype.

With only about 18 percent of Elmore County land devoted to irrigated crop farming operations, AEHI has chosen a 1,280-acre farm sitting high on a hill above the Snake River to build their plant.

Surrounding this site, within a five-mile radius, is the quiet farming valleys of Hammett and Indian Cove. About 150 families have made their homes here just because the location is far removed from traffic, people and noise.

Elmore County, wisely foreseeing future industrial growth, allotted ground west of Mountain Home specifically for the kind of heavy industry a nuclear power plant presents. From all appearances AEHI has chosen their location as a site of "convenience'" -- a farmer was willing to sell ground -- rather than a site sanctioned for industrial growth and optimal for situating a power plant.

Besides of the spot zoning concerns related to the Hammett site, the water draw needed for this plant proposal is untenable at the particular river reach of the site.

Ralph Bennett, Idaho National Laboratory chief research engineer and advisor to the state of Idaho Office of Energy Resources, disputes AEHI's claim that their plant proposal will use approximately 1,120 acre-feet of water per year. Bennett says the water draw will more likely be 25,000 to 35,000 acre feet. Nuclear plants take a lot of water and often are located in wet or coastal areas, said Bennett.

Officials of the Idaho Department of Water Resource said the river is already fully appropriated at the Hammett river reach and irrigators with water rights junior to 1984 were almost asked to shut down two years ago because of drought.

Though AEHI may purchase additional water rights to meet their needs, IDWR officials indicated irrigation off-season water rights, i.e. water a nuclear plant needs to run year round, would be a difficult sell. The state has tried to protect the Snake during the irrigation off-season in order to flush the river out, keep it healthy and prepare for the stress of irrigation season draws.

Finally, the terrain of the proposed site is actually a large sloping hill with two dry creek beds running through the land on either side. If there was ever any problem with the plant, any kind of leak or damage, there would be no question it would find its way to the Snake. The river lies about 500 feet below the site.

An additional concern related to AEHI's nuclear plant proposal is their plant design options.

Bennett said the company has yet to present any credible designs or prototypes for the size of this plant. He said he loved nuclear "when it was done right." The various ways AEHI have presented to cool the massive heat generated during the energy production process are flawed or have no precedent, said Bennett. One design option offered by AEHI was to build a "dry-cooled" system that would use less water. Bennett said there has never been a dry-cooled plant the size of AEHI's 1600-megawatt proposal. The only one in the world that he's aware of is in Siberia, and it generates only 20 megawatts of electricity at a significant cost to the consumer.

Another cooling option AEHI appears more wedded to is a hybrid system that uses the steam from the nuclear plant for an adjacent chemical, bio-fuel plant, which then becomes a "heat sink." Bennett said with a 1600-megawatt reactor, AEHI would need to gather biomass from the entire Northwest to rid the plant of its heat.

Additionally, Bennett said he seriously doubted AEHI could get the nuclear regulatory commission to license that design because of the risks involved in having a nuclear plant located next to a chemical plant.

In conclusion, Bennett said it was his opinion that AEHI was not being completely forthright in this proposal nor did he consider it a serious project.

Diana Hooley