Nuclear power plant is our best alternative

Dear editor:

As with most controversial topics, we have heard some radically pro, some radically against and a full range in between. After considering all sides from a scientific basis to social issues, I have come to a favorable position about nuclear power as a good proposition for Elmore County.

Scientifically, there are inherent dangers with nuclear power as with many other industries. We lose lives regularly due to accidents on our highways, through air travel and in industrial plants. We still continue on with these activities, because we know they are regulated to some extent. We deem those losses, although tragic, an acceptable risk of doing business. It is my understanding that in the USA there have been no accidents in the nuclear industry that have resulted in any health risk due to radiation. If this is the track record here, in an industry that is dealing with older technology, operations with more modern technology should be considered safe. Even experimentation with innovative nuclear technologies at INL near Arco, Idaho, has not produced any catastrophic damage to the surrounding area. In fact, we in Elmore county have not heard anything negative from the residents living near INL. Actually INL is currently working on projects for new (very high temperature reactors) VHTR reactors as well as recycling nuclear waste. Both these projects could help solve some of the issues here and are scheduled to be on line before the proposed Elmore County project is completed. So in conclusion of this portion of the discussion, nuclear power does have risks, but they are manageable risks and have a history of being effectively managed within this country.

The social issue discussion has several points. One of the biggest categories is "not in my back yard". Individuals have their own reasons to support this logic, and many of them are based in fear. This is mainly fear of the unknown or potential consequences from this type of operation coming into our area. Because they are in fact unknown, none of us can say for certain what those consequences might be. In response to this issue, I have been questioning people that have experience living near electronuclear facilities on the east coast. All reports indicate that rather than moving away from these nuclear facilities, communities tend to move closer. Friends that have visited relatives in the area say that they have shopping malls, residential neighborhoods and even schools in the immediate area. One person recounted a story from his childhood about a nuclear reactor being built purposefully upstream and away from a community. Now when he goes back to visit, the community has grown right around the power plant. He says it sits there kicking out power every day, and the residents hardly notice.

Other people have criticized AEHI's business plan. Some have said that they will probably get the approvals then sell it off to another company for the actual construction. if you are against Mr. Gillespie or AEHI in general, I don't see how you see his failing to complete this project as a negative.

The fact is that we are out of base load electric power in the USA, and electronuclear plants will be built somewhere by someone.

We can argue about the number of jobs or when they will begin, but we know they will be numerous, good paying, and they will begin.

There is also the increased tax revenues that this facility will generate. They will be large, and either we get them or somebody else does.

Lastly, people have argued both sides of the water issue and removing land from our agriculture base. With declining commodity prices, we may very well see more farmers go out of business.

If this nuclear facility goes into the proposed location, it will only dry up the land under its footprint because of its consumed water. The other roughly 90% of the water, that it uses but does not consume, can be leased from local farmers and then later used for irrigating crops on their farms or returned to the river during the non-growing season. If this water were slightly warmer, it could in fact extend the growing season for those farmers. Those same farmers that leased their water to the nuclear plant would not have to lift the water all the way from the river but just pressurize at their farm. In addition to receiving rents for the water, their pumping cost would be greatly reduced. New agribusinesses such as greenhouses or fish farming could come into to the area to utilize this warmed water. These same activities are currently taking place in areas that offer geothermal heated water. I see this as a plus for agriculture in our county. Some people have suggested putting the facility off Simco Road. Because the local farmers do not have water rights from the Snake River, you would have to dry up many more acres of farm land to provide the water. This same water could be used for irrigation in that area and used for recharge during the winter. That sounds good but presents major problems. Security on that length of pipeline from the river would become a major problem. Fish flush in the Snake River during the non growing season would also be a big issue. We in Elmore County may not think of this as a big deal but, the logistics and politics needed to resolve it would be colossal. This is a nightmare that is not easily reconcilable.

I am a huge proponent of alternative energy such as solar or wind, but unfortunately they do not produce electricity consistently and need to be matched with base load production, the production for which you can count on any time of day or night. There are a number of people that would like to remove dams along the Snake River which endangers our present hydroelectric production. This does not bode well for gaining new hydroelectric production. Coal fired electric generation is an alternative but, it does have a large carbon footprint. With the current administration proposing large carbon taxes, this alternative would be expensive. It seems that those organizations which have come out against this proposed nuclear facility have been against every other type of base load electric production both present and future propositions including hydro. What other alternatives are there that have a small carbon foot print?

A nuclear electric power facility at this intended location is our best alternative.

David Ascuena