Nuclear power info meetings underway

Gillispie told so many lies last night time does not allow me to list them all. His handout claimed he could produce power for under 2 cents per kilowatt. According to the Keystone report, written by the Areva nuclear Company that designed the reactor he proposes, it will cost 8-11 cents per kilowatt. That's more expensive than wind or geothermal, before we have to outbid California, that pays 18 cents.

As reported, Gillispie told one Elmore citizen the odds of a nuclear accident was the same as a meteor hitting the gym. Specifically he claimed the odds were "one in a billion" Not reported was my documentation that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission states the odds are 1 in 17,000, but at the Ohio Davis-Besse reactor acid leak and cover up, in 2002, the NRC said the odds of a meltdown within the year was 1 in 1,000. So Gillispie misinformed the citizen by a factor of one million, but that is typical. Gillispie claimed in the Statesman and the BSU Arbiter that geothermal from Raft River cost 62 cents per kilowatt, but it costs 6.2 cents, cheaper than nuclear.

It should have been reported that the first and loudest applause was for the farmer neighbor of Gillispie's plant, who said he opposed the plant, and it would change Elmore forever, in a bad way! I guess that was not news worthy! Please google me and add "safest energy" to find our website with more truthful information about nuclear safety problems in modern reactors. I'd share the website name, but this paper does not allow that, just like the so-called "independent moderator" did not allow any documented opposition to speak...Peter 208-734-3338

As someone who has a degree in physics, I would love to hear the explanation for how spent radioactive fuel can be "reprocessed" into non-radioactive material, leaving "essentially no waste" as Mr. Gillispie claims. The last I heard, the only way that happens is by natural decay (which takes centuries or millennia, depending on the isotope) or by nuclear reprocessing which produces weapons-grade enriched materials (Mr. Gillispie claims that his plant will produce no weapons-grade isotopes). So which is it?

Also not mentioned is the promised "dry" technology that will allow this plant to operate without consuming huge amounts of water (nuclear plants comprise the "thirstiest" form of power generation).

It all sounds like a bunch of pie-in-the-sky promises of non-existent technology in an effort to sell Idaho on this project.

Furthermore, if Mr. Gillispie is correct in saying that the plant will not contain fissionable materials for making a nuclear weapon, our own government admits that a far more likely terrorist threat is the use of stolen radioactive materials as a contaminant in food or water supplies, or in a "dirty bomb" (a conventional explosive used to widely disperse radioactive materials, rendering a large area contaminated). Nuclear plants in states with larger populations (and the correspondingly larger tax revenue that goes with them) may have the law enforcement infrastructure to protect them from terrorist incursion, but how will rural Idaho be able to afford it? A rural nuclear power plant in a county with minimal law enforcement resources would be a very attractive target for terrorists looking to acquire radioactive materials for their nefarious plans.

id moderate:

Thanks for the information in your post. How can there be a "dry" system if it is water that cools the reactors? I also wonder where all the water will come from because a "dry" system is not likely. Oh...I believe that Mr. Gillespie stated that the waste water, from this so called "dry" system would be used on crops. If it is a "dry" system---why would they have waste water to recycle? Just wondering. Thanks for your post.

Find out who the ultimate owners of this operation are now, and who they will be once it is built and operating. Major capital assets like nuclear plants are often sold to others once they're built, and sometimes, those "others" don't think they have to honor the promises made by the original builders and owners.

Find out all/all the details about how it is sturctured, financed, managed, and how it is to be managed years down the line. Don't take what you are told at face value. Dig deeply.

Areva is noted as one of the companies involved in this deal. Areva is already in the US, big time.

Check out Areva at this Wikipedia link:

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

Areva is ultimately owned 90% by the French Government. Siemens, a German company with a checkered past and recent major corruption investigations, is also an owner.

Be very careful about taking what these people say to you at face value. Business ethics in Europe, if there is such a thing, are far different from what we try to enforce in this country.

This is not to say that nuclear power plants should not be built. They are obviously one of the major sources of future energy given the cost and diminishing supply of petroleum, but once these people have the go-ahead, you had better be sure you've nailed them down to all their promises. Performance bonds held in escrow, standby letters of credit that can be drawn in the event of a major default on their contractual promises, and other forms of surety, all with unambiguous language are what Elmore County needs to protect itself from heartache later.

French nuclear technology is world class, as the Wikipedia website says; but, don't get me started on French promises. They're past masters at squirming out of them. Some believe that when a contract is signed, sealed, and delivered, that's it. French and other Euros believe they can treat those same contracts as just one more stage of the negotiations, especially if they are dealing with us naive 'Mercuns.'

Idaho is as pristine as it gets these days. Don't let absentee ownership screw it up.

Get professional help and remember, you get what you pay for. Don't go on the cheap with advisors for Elmore County now. You will be glad you did later on. This is the big leagues and these guys play hardball.

To be fair to those that did not have the opportunity to attend the informationnal meetings for the good citezens of Elmore County due to work or other commitments; here are the of the FAQs of the Idaho Energy Complex (IEC).

_

Your plant would produce 1,600 megawatts -- how much is that?

That's enough energy to power all the homes in Idaho three times over. However, if you count agricultural, industrial, commercial and residential use together, 1,600 megawatts would meet about two-thirds of Idaho's total energy needs. Since Idaho imports around 80 percent of its energy, the IEC would do much to give Idaho a sustainable energy supply and, depending on market conditions, could also sell power regionally. And that's not even counting the energy from the attached biofuels generator, which could be used to power motor vehicles in Idaho and help curb gas price increases in the state.

What is your time line for construction?

Building a power plant is a very complex process. We began in 2006, submitting a letter of intent to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and holding preliminary conversations with NRC officials and Owyhee County and Idaho residents to tell them of our intentions. However, our moving a few miles upstream means will have to change our time line. We are planning to submit our application to Elmore County some time this summer. If the process goes reasonably well, the plant could begin generating power in late 2016.

Don't nuclear plants emit radiation?

An operating nuclear plant emits no measurable radiation above background at its property line. A typical person living in the US receives 360 millrem per year, mostly from radon, followed by medical x-rays and most of the remainder from the sun and earth. By comparison, some dental x-rays give 100 millrem. A coal plant emits more radiation than a nuclear plant (yes, coal is slightly radioactive). In addition, a coal plant emits soot, greenhouse gasses, mercury and other pollutants.

Is nuclear power bad for the environment?

Commercial nuclear power produces zero greenhouse gas emissions and more environmental groups are taking a second look at its uses in light of global warming concerns. The IEC will result in significant greenhouse gas savings. To generate the same amount of electricity as the IEC, a coal plant would spew 11.3 million metric tons of carbon, 8,416 metric tons of nitrogen oxide and 10,433 metric tons of sulfur dioxide annually into the atmosphere, while a wind farm would require 150,000 acres. It's worth pointing out the Idaho Energy Complex could power much of Idaho, with energy to spare. The presence of such generating capacity could add new points of discussion to the debate over how to best protect salmon and the continued need for dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers.

How expensive is nuclear power?

Nuclear power produces electricity for about 1.7 cents a kilowatt, the cheapest source of power after hydro. Nuclear power is also highly reliable: A nuclear plant is able to produce power 89 percent of the time, compared to 73 percent for steam turbine coal, 29 percent for hydro, 27 percent for wind and 19 percent for solar. While we support the democratic process and the ability of citizens to speak out on proposed power plants, it should be kept in mind that a lot of cost is added by all the difficulties opponents to commercial nuclear plants put them through.

Is nuclear fuel is dangerous? Does the waste pollute our environment?

The waste from fossil fuels (coal, gasoline and natural gas) is just as hazardous and includes soot, carbon monoxide, radiation, particulates, mercury, ozone and gasses that trap heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. Fossil wastes are largely dispersed directly into the atmosphere, where they enter the water, soil and food chain. In contrast, nuclear byproducts are contained in concrete-and-steel containers. If this material is handled and stored correctly, it poses no risk to human health or the environment. New processing technologies under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership will allow the U.S. to reprocess spent fuel rods into a form that can be reused in a reactor (commonly done in other countries). The fuel rods still have 95 percent of the potential energy after the first cycle, and within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from a reactor. In effect, nuclear power can have no "waste" at all. For more information, please visit Nuclear Waste Management.

Does transporting spent nuclear fuel ("waste") expose the public to risk?

Over the past 25 years we have had more than 1,300 shipments of spent fuel, 4 accidents and 0 releases of radiation, according to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission brochure on spent fuel transportation, page 6. The NRC continuously evaluates ways to increase the safety of shipping.

Does Idaho really need a nuclear plant?

Idaho hasn't added any base-load power generation in 30 years and as of this writing, the IEC is only proposed base-load power plant. Idaho is ill-prepared to face its future energy needs, according to a study of proposed power plants compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Agency (USEIA). Between 2007 and 2011, Idaho is scheduled to bring on line 337 megawatts of energy, mostly from wind and geothermal projects, putting it dead last among the 11 Western states. The next-lowest state, Montana, is scheduled to add 593 megawatts of capacity, and California is set to develop the most capacity of the Western states: 6,342 megawatts. Already, Idaho imports half its electricity, mostly from coal-burning plants in Wyoming and Nevada. The USEIA forecasts energy demand in the U.S. will grow by 42 percent by 2030.

Doesn't Idaho have plenty of renewable energy sources and can't those provide for our needs?

Renewable energy has an important role to play. On our website, www.alternatenergyholdings.com, you can see how we are actively involved in researching renewable energy. In fact, a biofuels plant is a significant component of our proposal, using excess reactor heat to produce biofuels from local crops and ag waste. But renewables cannot meet our "base load" requirements because more than half the time, there is no sun or wind. The base load is the form of energy that is at the core of our civilization's power supply, and it must be absolutely reliable. Typical base load sources are fossil fuels, nuclear and sometimes hydro -- although hydro is subject to the weather, like most other forms of renewables. And even renewable sources have problems -- wind farms are a significant factor in bird and bat deaths and in some cases must be shut off for months at a time during migration season. Hydro is no longer a viable option due to environmental concerns and now only powers about 6% of the U.S.; most hydro sites have long since been developed. As for solar and geothermal, they are currently minor contributors with extremely high production costs; considerable developmental work is necessary before these energy alternatives are cost competitive. However, nuclear power is the largest base-load clean energy source available, period. It doesn't contribute to global warming, it doesn't damage its surrounding environment and its reliability doesn't depend on cooperation from the weather.

Would a new nuclear reactor put pressure on Idaho farmers, ranchers, and other water right holders who are already struggling? Wouldn't your reactor use a huge amount of water for cooling?

Farmers were among the first supporters of our energy plant, because they recognize the importance of affordable and reliable energy. Additionally, our biofuels plant would provide them with an important market for crops and farm waste that would otherwise have to be burned or buried. In fact, our goal is to use the spent water for irrigation for fields around the complex. More importantly, the Idaho Energy Complex won't need nearly as much water as a conventional reactor. A conventional plant design would use perhaps 60 million gallons of water a day for cooling but our proposed reactor is a "dry" type that would consume just 100,000 GPD. To cool a car like a conventional plant, you would pour large amounts of water on the engine -- effective, but wasteful in the arid West. The dry-type cooling system is analogous to a very large auto radiator, a closed system where coolant is circulated among fans and heat-sinks to dissipate heat. Finally, the proposed site for the IEC provides ample water rights to meet the facility's needs.

Aren't nuclear reactors linked to nuclear weapons?

The spread of nuclear weapons is a concern to all of us. However, Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace who now supports nuclear power, disagrees with the notion that nuclear power plants and nuclear weapon proliferation must be directly linked. Moore instead contends we should emphasize international efforts to monitor and stop possible sources of bomb materials.

Is nuclear power natural?

In a sense, all life on Earth is nuclear powered, since the sun uses a nuclear fusion reaction to burn hydrogen. Also, the very first nuclear reactors were naturally occurring. Fifteen natural fission reactors have so far been found in three separate ore deposits at the Oklo mine in Gabon, West Africa. First discovered in 1972, they are collectively known as the Oklo Fossil Reactors. These reactors ran for approximately 150 million years, averaging 100 kW of power output during that time. Because of natural radioactive decay, the proportion of fissionable uranium is no longer high enough to support such a natural reactor anymore.

Doesn't nuclear power receive large government subsidies?

All forms of energy receive some kind of government incentives (or "subsidy," depending on perspective), including coal, gas, wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and others. The premise is that some industries, such as energy generation, are so crucial to society that they need some incentives to reduce their economic risks and promote their research, exploration, development and distribution.

According to the Spring 2006 Issues in Science and Technology magazine, the U.S. Government gave $644 billion for energy incentives between 1950 and 2003 (in 2003 dollars). Incentives most often took the form of tax breaks, but also included research and development support and market support. According to the study, oil received the largest subsidy at $302 billion over the 53-year period, but renewable energy (solar, hydropower, and geothermal) was second place at $111 billion. This compares to $63 billion for nuclear power, $81 billion for coal and $87 billion for natural gas. According to the study, "… although the government is often criticized for its failure to support renewable energy, federal investment has actually been rather generous, especially in light of the small contribution that renewable sources have made to overall energy production."

We don't begrudge the incentives that renewables - or any other source of power - have received. A balanced approach to our energy future is crucial and our civilization has a great interest in exploring all forms of generation. The Idaho Energy Complex may take advantage of these incentives and use them as intended: generating safe, clean power for Americans.

Will the Idaho Energy Complex sell its electricity outside of Idaho?

We expect the power to be sold and used both within and outside the state - and that's a good thing, for several reasons. Idaho is part of a giant Western energy grid that extends from Canada to Mexico and power is constantly sent between states on this grid. Indeed, Idaho is very dependent on this grid, importing half its electricity from out-of-state , so if interstate power transmission were restricted, Idaho would be in serious trouble. Renewable energy also depends on interstate transmission and in September 2007, the governors of Colorado, Wyoming and other states said more power lines are needed between states, to better allow sharing of electricity. According to the president of the Geothermal Energy Association, the lack of lines between states will hurt the development and profitability of renewable energy.

The IEC will be a free-market producer of power, as opposed to a government-regulated utility monopoly. If a government regulated utility project fails, consumers will primarily be on the hook to pay off the failed project. With a free-market plant like the IEC, investors are primarily bearing the risks of construction and performance, not the general public.

While the IEC will operate in the free market, we will give first choice to Idaho for purchasing power. We have contacted and offered power to the 3 state utilities and have interest from two of them.

Also, there are bottom-line business incentives for selling the power in the Treasure Valley and Idaho. Idaho has a huge need for power and is a ready market. Transmission loss (electricity dissipating as it travels) can amount to 30 megawatts every 500 miles. The regional transmission grid is at capacity, so it is economically and logistically preferable to sell as close to home as possible. Idaho consumers will have an advantage because there will be less transmission loss to pay, compared to more remote customers. Because of transmission loss, electricity is largely a regional commodity and the more of it that exists in a region, the more downward force there will be on market prices regionally. By making Idaho a net exporter of electricity, instead of an importer, we will also be' adding over $2 billion to the state's GDP.

Regardless of the type of power or plant ownership, the IEC is the only proposal on the table for a base load power source in Idaho. We would welcome any regulated utility or free market producer who proposed a base load plant in Idaho, but so far, no one else is stepping up to the plate. Without a new base load plant in Idaho such as the IEC, it's far more likely we will continue to be at the mercy of out-of-state plants and the prices their operators choose - instead of becoming a power exporter ourselves.

What nuclear reactor will be used at the Idaho Energy Complex?

We will use advanced-design nuclear reactor. This reactor is considered 'dry,' meaning it requires far less cooling water than any other nuclear power plant in the United States, and it features the industry's highest standards in safety and reliability.

-

If you have read this far and everything above, congradulations. you are truely interested in both sides of this issue.

So who is lying? Is it the IEC or the Snake River Alliance (SRA)? You, the good citezens of Elmore County decide.

http://www.idahoenergycomplex.com/faq.htm#Your_plant_would_produce_1,600_megawat...

To be fair to those that did not have the opportunity to attend the informationnal meetings for the good citezens of Elmore County due to work or other commitments; here are the of the FAQs of the Idaho Energy Complex (IEC).

_

Your plant would produce 1,600 megawatts -- how much is that?

That's enough energy to power all the homes in Idaho three times over. However, if you count agricultural, industrial, commercial and residential use together, 1,600 megawatts would meet about two-thirds of Idaho's total energy needs. Since Idaho imports around 80 percent of its energy, the IEC would do much to give Idaho a sustainable energy supply and, depending on market conditions, could also sell power regionally. And that's not even counting the energy from the attached biofuels generator, which could be used to power motor vehicles in Idaho and help curb gas price increases in the state.

What is your time line for construction?

Building a power plant is a very complex process. We began in 2006, submitting a letter of intent to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and holding preliminary conversations with NRC officials and Owyhee County and Idaho residents to tell them of our intentions. However, our moving a few miles upstream means will have to change our time line. We are planning to submit our application to Elmore County some time this summer. If the process goes reasonably well, the plant could begin generating power in late 2016.

Don't nuclear plants emit radiation?

An operating nuclear plant emits no measurable radiation above background at its property line. A typical person living in the US receives 360 millrem per year, mostly from radon, followed by medical x-rays and most of the remainder from the sun and earth. By comparison, some dental x-rays give 100 millrem. A coal plant emits more radiation than a nuclear plant (yes, coal is slightly radioactive). In addition, a coal plant emits soot, greenhouse gasses, mercury and other pollutants.

Is nuclear power bad for the environment?

Commercial nuclear power produces zero greenhouse gas emissions and more environmental groups are taking a second look at its uses in light of global warming concerns. The IEC will result in significant greenhouse gas savings. To generate the same amount of electricity as the IEC, a coal plant would spew 11.3 million metric tons of carbon, 8,416 metric tons of nitrogen oxide and 10,433 metric tons of sulfur dioxide annually into the atmosphere, while a wind farm would require 150,000 acres. It's worth pointing out the Idaho Energy Complex could power much of Idaho, with energy to spare. The presence of such generating capacity could add new points of discussion to the debate over how to best protect salmon and the continued need for dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers.

How expensive is nuclear power?

Nuclear power produces electricity for about 1.7 cents a kilowatt, the cheapest source of power after hydro. Nuclear power is also highly reliable: A nuclear plant is able to produce power 89 percent of the time, compared to 73 percent for steam turbine coal, 29 percent for hydro, 27 percent for wind and 19 percent for solar. While we support the democratic process and the ability of citizens to speak out on proposed power plants, it should be kept in mind that a lot of cost is added by all the difficulties opponents to commercial nuclear plants put them through.

Is nuclear fuel is dangerous? Does the waste pollute our environment?

The waste from fossil fuels (coal, gasoline and natural gas) is just as hazardous and includes soot, carbon monoxide, radiation, particulates, mercury, ozone and gasses that trap heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. Fossil wastes are largely dispersed directly into the atmosphere, where they enter the water, soil and food chain. In contrast, nuclear byproducts are contained in concrete-and-steel containers. If this material is handled and stored correctly, it poses no risk to human health or the environment. New processing technologies under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership will allow the U.S. to reprocess spent fuel rods into a form that can be reused in a reactor (commonly done in other countries). The fuel rods still have 95 percent of the potential energy after the first cycle, and within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from a reactor. In effect, nuclear power can have no "waste" at all. For more information, please visit Nuclear Waste Management.

Does transporting spent nuclear fuel ("waste") expose the public to risk?

Over the past 25 years we have had more than 1,300 shipments of spent fuel, 4 accidents and 0 releases of radiation, according to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission brochure on spent fuel transportation, page 6. The NRC continuously evaluates ways to increase the safety of shipping.

Does Idaho really need a nuclear plant?

Idaho hasn't added any base-load power generation in 30 years and as of this writing, the IEC is only proposed base-load power plant. Idaho is ill-prepared to face its future energy needs, according to a study of proposed power plants compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Agency (USEIA). Between 2007 and 2011, Idaho is scheduled to bring on line 337 megawatts of energy, mostly from wind and geothermal projects, putting it dead last among the 11 Western states. The next-lowest state, Montana, is scheduled to add 593 megawatts of capacity, and California is set to develop the most capacity of the Western states: 6,342 megawatts. Already, Idaho imports half its electricity, mostly from coal-burning plants in Wyoming and Nevada. The USEIA forecasts energy demand in the U.S. will grow by 42 percent by 2030.

Doesn't Idaho have plenty of renewable energy sources and can't those provide for our needs?

Renewable energy has an important role to play. On our website, www.alternatenergyholdings.com, you can see how we are actively involved in researching renewable energy. In fact, a biofuels plant is a significant component of our proposal, using excess reactor heat to produce biofuels from local crops and ag waste. But renewables cannot meet our "base load" requirements because more than half the time, there is no sun or wind. The base load is the form of energy that is at the core of our civilization's power supply, and it must be absolutely reliable. Typical base load sources are fossil fuels, nuclear and sometimes hydro -- although hydro is subject to the weather, like most other forms of renewables. And even renewable sources have problems -- wind farms are a significant factor in bird and bat deaths and in some cases must be shut off for months at a time during migration season. Hydro is no longer a viable option due to environmental concerns and now only powers about 6% of the U.S.; most hydro sites have long since been developed. As for solar and geothermal, they are currently minor contributors with extremely high production costs; considerable developmental work is necessary before these energy alternatives are cost competitive. However, nuclear power is the largest base-load clean energy source available, period. It doesn't contribute to global warming, it doesn't damage its surrounding environment and its reliability doesn't depend on cooperation from the weather.

Would a new nuclear reactor put pressure on Idaho farmers, ranchers, and other water right holders who are already struggling? Wouldn't your reactor use a huge amount of water for cooling?

Farmers were among the first supporters of our energy plant, because they recognize the importance of affordable and reliable energy. Additionally, our biofuels plant would provide them with an important market for crops and farm waste that would otherwise have to be burned or buried. In fact, our goal is to use the spent water for irrigation for fields around the complex. More importantly, the Idaho Energy Complex won't need nearly as much water as a conventional reactor. A conventional plant design would use perhaps 60 million gallons of water a day for cooling but our proposed reactor is a "dry" type that would consume just 100,000 GPD. To cool a car like a conventional plant, you would pour large amounts of water on the engine -- effective, but wasteful in the arid West. The dry-type cooling system is analogous to a very large auto radiator, a closed system where coolant is circulated among fans and heat-sinks to dissipate heat. Finally, the proposed site for the IEC provides ample water rights to meet the facility's needs.

Aren't nuclear reactors linked to nuclear weapons?

The spread of nuclear weapons is a concern to all of us. However, Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace who now supports nuclear power, disagrees with the notion that nuclear power plants and nuclear weapon proliferation must be directly linked. Moore instead contends we should emphasize international efforts to monitor and stop possible sources of bomb materials.

Is nuclear power natural?

In a sense, all life on Earth is nuclear powered, since the sun uses a nuclear fusion reaction to burn hydrogen. Also, the very first nuclear reactors were naturally occurring. Fifteen natural fission reactors have so far been found in three separate ore deposits at the Oklo mine in Gabon, West Africa. First discovered in 1972, they are collectively known as the Oklo Fossil Reactors. These reactors ran for approximately 150 million years, averaging 100 kW of power output during that time. Because of natural radioactive decay, the proportion of fissionable uranium is no longer high enough to support such a natural reactor anymore.

Doesn't nuclear power receive large government subsidies?

All forms of energy receive some kind of government incentives (or "subsidy," depending on perspective), including coal, gas, wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and others. The premise is that some industries, such as energy generation, are so crucial to society that they need some incentives to reduce their economic risks and promote their research, exploration, development and distribution.

According to the Spring 2006 Issues in Science and Technology magazine, the U.S. Government gave $644 billion for energy incentives between 1950 and 2003 (in 2003 dollars). Incentives most often took the form of tax breaks, but also included research and development support and market support. According to the study, oil received the largest subsidy at $302 billion over the 53-year period, but renewable energy (solar, hydropower, and geothermal) was second place at $111 billion. This compares to $63 billion for nuclear power, $81 billion for coal and $87 billion for natural gas. According to the study, "… although the government is often criticized for its failure to support renewable energy, federal investment has actually been rather generous, especially in light of the small contribution that renewable sources have made to overall energy production."

We don't begrudge the incentives that renewables - or any other source of power - have received. A balanced approach to our energy future is crucial and our civilization has a great interest in exploring all forms of generation. The Idaho Energy Complex may take advantage of these incentives and use them as intended: generating safe, clean power for Americans.

Will the Idaho Energy Complex sell its electricity outside of Idaho?

We expect the power to be sold and used both within and outside the state - and that's a good thing, for several reasons. Idaho is part of a giant Western energy grid that extends from Canada to Mexico and power is constantly sent between states on this grid. Indeed, Idaho is very dependent on this grid, importing half its electricity from out-of-state , so if interstate power transmission were restricted, Idaho would be in serious trouble. Renewable energy also depends on interstate transmission and in September 2007, the governors of Colorado, Wyoming and other states said more power lines are needed between states, to better allow sharing of electricity. According to the president of the Geothermal Energy Association, the lack of lines between states will hurt the development and profitability of renewable energy.

The IEC will be a free-market producer of power, as opposed to a government-regulated utility monopoly. If a government regulated utility project fails, consumers will primarily be on the hook to pay off the failed project. With a free-market plant like the IEC, investors are primarily bearing the risks of construction and performance, not the general public.

While the IEC will operate in the free market, we will give first choice to Idaho for purchasing power. We have contacted and offered power to the 3 state utilities and have interest from two of them.

Also, there are bottom-line business incentives for selling the power in the Treasure Valley and Idaho. Idaho has a huge need for power and is a ready market. Transmission loss (electricity dissipating as it travels) can amount to 30 megawatts every 500 miles. The regional transmission grid is at capacity, so it is economically and logistically preferable to sell as close to home as possible. Idaho consumers will have an advantage because there will be less transmission loss to pay, compared to more remote customers. Because of transmission loss, electricity is largely a regional commodity and the more of it that exists in a region, the more downward force there will be on market prices regionally. By making Idaho a net exporter of electricity, instead of an importer, we will also be' adding over $2 billion to the state's GDP.

Regardless of the type of power or plant ownership, the IEC is the only proposal on the table for a base load power source in Idaho. We would welcome any regulated utility or free market producer who proposed a base load plant in Idaho, but so far, no one else is stepping up to the plate. Without a new base load plant in Idaho such as the IEC, it's far more likely we will continue to be at the mercy of out-of-state plants and the prices their operators choose - instead of becoming a power exporter ourselves.

What nuclear reactor will be used at the Idaho Energy Complex?

We will use advanced-design nuclear reactor. This reactor is considered 'dry,' meaning it requires far less cooling water than any other nuclear power plant in the United States, and it features the industry's highest standards in safety and reliability.

-

If you have read this far and everything above, congradulations. you are truely interested in both sides of this issue.

So who is lying? Is it the IEC or the Snake River Alliance (SRA)? You, the good citezens of Elmore County decide.

http://www.idahoenergycomplex.com/faq.htm#Your_plant_would_produce_1,600_megawat...