Idaho; Proposed Nuclear Plant on Snake River Delayed, Not Gone

Who is in favor of creating even more nuclear waste that we have no safe place to dispose of? Certainly not the people of Idaho, though once again lower income rural populations like Elmore County bear the brunt of poorly planned nuclear energy projects that depend upon uranium mining and generation of radioactive nuclear waste that lasts into nearly infinity (your grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren will still be vulnerable to leaks from radioactive waste, half life is in millions of years on average for this stuff), all for a few lousy jobs that usually go to well trained people from outside the community..

Seems like someone always stands to profit from the continued dependency on unsustainable nuclear energy, and in this case it is Alternative Energy Holdings Inc., as if they wanted people getting free energy from the sun and wind! Why those corporate CEOs from Alt. Energy Holdings wouldn't know how to survive without their profits from charging customers for nuclear energy! Talk about reversing evolution and natural selection, now some people need to contaminate an entire river ecosystem with radioactive nuclear waste byproducts just to further their own economic and physical survival! Did we turn Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" upside down or what!!

Here's the details on the latest nuclear power plant profiteers coming to Idaho;

"Alternate Energy Holdings Inc.(AEHI:PK), an investor-funded company seeking to build an advanced third-generation nuclear power plant in Southwest Idaho, said it is pleased at a unanimous decision by Elmore County Commissioners today to consider in more detail a proposal to rezone land for a proposed nuclear power plant.

The company has applied to Elmore County to rezone 1,300 acres of land for the plant, which would use 200 acres and leave the rest in farming. The three-member commission began discussing the issue June 8 and continued discussion until today while legal staff continued researching issues.

In deliberations Monday, Commissioner Connie Cruser said the current discussion reminds her of 40 years ago, when her high school debate team discussed the Hells Canyon Dam complex, which is Idaho’s largest power plant at nearly 400 megawatts.

“The very same questions were discussed back then: water and farmland and infrastructure,” Cruser said. “It was an important decision then and I’m glad they made the right decision because we’ve had a lot of years of electricity. This is an important decision not just for Elmore County, but the state and region.”

AEHI CEO and President Don Gillispie said the commission is clearly seeking to balance Elmore County’s rural heritage with its goals for economic development. Gillispie has previously said the county’s comprehensive plan is well-intentioned, but could not have foreseen the possibility of a large-output, carbon-free power plant that would stimulate thousands of jobs.

“As our plans progress, we hope the commission realizes that our proposed plant will serve both rural preservation and economic development,” Gillispie said. “The commission today could have rejected our rezone request outright – to the delight of our opposition – but they instead chose to give it, and their comprehensive plan, further consideration.”

One commissioner noted the comprehensive plan apparently limits industrial growth “only” to a small zone in the north of the county. But the area has no water or services and a questionable ability to support the heavy industry that can provide reliable, well-paying jobs for county residents; there is little land available for sale at that location as well. The commission voted Monday to ask its advisory Planning and Zoning commission to clarify if heavy industry may be developed in other areas of the county.

“The comprehensive plan says we want to try and encourage new business in the county, that’s the general feeling, but the word ‘only’ is an issue,” said Commissioner Arlie Shaw.

“This is too important of an issue to decide on one word in the comprehensive plan,” Cruser said. “We knew things would come up and you can’t foresee everything” in a comprehensive plan. The AEHI application “is not in conflict with the comp plan in every area and I would like to see it go back to P and Z.”

Commission Chairman Larry Rose made the motion for the Planning and Zoning commission to consider to what extent the comp plan may need to be changed to reflect the best interests of the county with regard to industrial development.

“The comprehensive plan is only a plan [guide line for the county]. It obviously can and should be changed as time goes along,” Rose said. The AEHI proposal “really doesn’t fit with anything that was brought up in the meetings” to create the comp plan.

The Commission also directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to work with AEHI on drafting a development agreement. The agreement would state the general conditions under which the land may be used if rezoned. If it turns out the nuclear plant isn’t built, the development agreement will specify the land would revert to agricultural zoning. AEHI initially submitted a development agreement to do that, but withdrew it when it was discovered the county’s guidance was in conflict with state law regarding the time frame. The company agreed to resubmit as is when the time frame conflict was resolved.

In other AEHI news, on June 5, the company announced it signed an agreement with Source Capital Group Inc. to raise money for the project. The funds will cover land, water rights and engineering services to obtain Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval to construct and operate an advanced nuclear plant in Elmore County, Idaho, estimated to total some $70 million. Every company that has undertaken the NRC application process has successfully completed it and received a construction/operation license.

The Elmore County Commission in April heard more than four hours of testimony in favor of AEHI’s request to rezone land for the plant, with over 500 supporters packing the hearing room.

About Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (http://www.alternateenergyholdings.com)

Alternate Energy Holdings develops and markets innovative clean energy sources. Current projects include the Idaho Energy Complex (an advanced nuclear plant and bio-fuel generation facility), Energy Neutral which removes energy demands from homes and businesses (http://www.energyneutralinc.com), Colorado Energy Park(nuclear and solar generating plants) and International Reactors, Inc., which assists developing countries with nuclear reactors for power generation, production of potable water and other suitable applications.

“Safe Harbor” Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: This press release may contain certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Sections 27A & 21E of the amended Securities and Exchange Acts of 1933-34,which are intended to be covered by the safe harbors created thereby. Although AEHI believes that the assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements contained herein are reasonable, there can be no assurance that these statements included in this press release will prove accurate.

US Investor Relations:

208-939-9311

invest [at] aehipower.co

above info found @;
http://cleanidahoenergy.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/elmore-county-commission-votes-to-continue-considering-nuclear-plant-rezone/

The "cleanenergyidaho" website in comment above is really a mouthpiece for Alternative Energy Holdings corporation, though it has same basic contact into for people who are concerned about another brand new nuclear facility adding to our already burdensome stockpile of nuclear waste. so really, this is an issue that concerns everyone, as we'll never know which community would bear the brunt of being chosen as a nuclear waste disposal site. Am in favor of a moratorium on any new nuclear plants until our society can figure out how to safely reprocess nuclear waste, and even then i feel we should get any remaining energy from reprocessing only, and just leave the rest of the uranium in the ground, shut down the old nuclear plants and fix every household rooftop with small windmills and solar cell tiles so everyone can harness their own energy..

Here's some background on Alternative Energy Holdings from Snake River Alliance, the primary group organizing against the Elmore County nuclear power plant proposed by Alternative Energy Holdings..

This is the html version of the file; http://www.snakeriveralliance.org/Portals/2/documents/Bruneau%20reactor%20fact%20sheet%20December%2018,%202006.pdf.

Proposed Nuclear Reactor by Bruneau, Idaho
December 18, 2006

What is proposed?

On December 5, 2006, Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc., announced it had signed
a letter of intent to construct, own, and operate a 1,500-megawatt economic
simplified boiling water reactor near Bruneau, Idaho. The company plans to sell
most of the electricity to West Coast states, though some of the power would be
sold to area irrigators.

What is Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc.?

AEHI is a “penny stock” company incorporated in Nevada, though its
announcement was made by its president, Donald Gillispie, from Virginia. Penny
stocks are subject to less regulation by the Securities and Exchange
Commission. AEHI went public three months ago in a reverse merger with
Nussentials, Inc., which sells natural food supplements. A reverse merger is
when a private company goes public by simply buying another company that has
already completed the process. Many members of AEHI’s board have nuclear
experience.

What is an economic simplified boiling water reactor?

The ESBWR is a “Generation III+” reactor designed by General Electric. GE says
the design was “officially docketed” with the NRC on December 1, 2005, and
formal design certification may come in 2009. AEHI estimates it will take as much
as $2 billion to construct an ESBWR, which the company has yet to raise.

Why now?

No new nuclear reactor has been proposed, licensed, constructed, and operated
in the US since the early 1970s. So, in an effort to revive the stagnant nuclear
power industry, the federal government has streamlined reactor licensing by
combining construction permits and conditional operating licenses. NRC issues
generic design certificates like the one GE is seeking now. It is trying to change
the review required by the National Environmental Policy Act from an
environmental impact statement to an environmental assessment, which is more
limited in scope and requires less public participation. Further, the government
heavily underwrites nuclear power, and AEHI says the Energy Policy Act of 2005
creates an “ideal market atmosphere for the development of new plants.” Indeed.
For the first six new reactors built, the 2005 act authorizes $2 billion in “risk
insurance” against delays caused by the NRC or litigation.

For those same reactors, there are unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for up to 80 per
cent. These could cost taxpayers $6 billion, assuming a construction cost of $2.5
billion per reactor and a 50 per cent default rate as the US Congressional Budget
Office estimates.

Why here?

AEHI asserts that the Raft River Co-op wants a nuclear plant near Bruneau.
Bruneau currently gets its electricity from Idaho Power. AEHI has also
announced it is also considering using heat from a reactor to produce ethanol
from locally grown grain. The AEHI president said, “Small towns love these
things.”

Why NOT here?

When the Snake River Alliance first revealed the AEHI proposal to area
residents, we heard fairly widespread consternation. Dick Reynolds, an Owyhee
County commissioner, said, “I don’t know this for a fact, but most people are not
enthused about being in an area where there’s a nuclear plant.” In addition to
skeptical potential neighbors and a $2 billion budget gap, AEHI has neither the
1,000 acres of land in southwest Idaho nor the water rights it will need. A retired
farmer and inventor in Salt Lake City is charged with finding those resources.
Water, not surprisingly, is the larger hurdle. The Alliance is still researching the
specifics of the ESBWR, but all nuclear reactors require significant water whether
they are “once-through” or “recirculating” systems. “Once-through” systems use
much more water but also return much more of it than “recirculating” systems.
Either way, it is millions upon millions of gallons a day. In a region of water
scarcity, it’s worth noting that some of the water nuclear reactors need simply
cannot be withheld, since cooling water keeps the reactor from meltdown.

What’s next?

AEHI has boasted that it expects to begin “plant construction” in early 2008, but
this surely doesn’t include the reactor, since NRC might take until the end of
2010 to certify the generic design for an economic simplified boiling water
reactor. The NRC acknowledges that “site-specific design information and
environmental impacts associated with building and operating the plant at a
particular location could be litigated” even after the standard design is certified.
The NRC must issue a combined construction permit and conditional operating
license and conduct at least an environmental assessment. On the state level,
AEHI would have to apply to the Department of Environmental Quality for a
wastewater application permit and a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
permit that would cover both producing and storing hazardous waste. The
Department of Water Resources would have to approve the sale or transfer of
water rights. Owyhee County would be responsible for issuing a conditional use
permit."

Meanwhile as certain Elmore County Commissioners are attempting to alter their county's zoning laws to make room for a new nuclear plant on the Snake River, the community is being given the usual dosage of deception from the pro-nuclear advocates about jobs, energy shortfalls and other myths designed by nuclear industry promoters;

Snake River Alliance rebuttal to Don Gillispie;

"Don Gillispie's April 29 letter to the editor was breathtaking in its inaccuracies, misstatements, and flat out lies. If this is the best the chief executive officer of the company that hopes to jam a nuclear reactor in the heart of Elmore County farmland can offer, then the opponents of Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc., have grossly overestimated its challenge in fighting the reactor.

Mr. Gillispie seems obsessed with stickers, having devoted much of his op-ed to who was wearing what kinds of stickers. It is well known in this community that Mr. Gillispie's green AEHI stickers were doled out to those who handed his company resumes or letters asking for jobs and being told to go inside to speak out in favor of the reactor in return. It is also well known in this community that the jobs they are seeking are illusory. Even in Mr. Gillispie's most fantastic imagination, no dirt will turn on the site for another seven to 10 years. Given the time it will take to identify a legitimate U.S. --certified reactor (he has none) and then to submit and process a power plant application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), there simply is no way it could happen sooner. The fact AEHI was trolling for job applications on April 22 before the County Commission hearing on the rezone application is the height of cynicism. If a generic department store were to come to Mountain Home and seek applications for a job at a store that would open in 2017, it would be laughed out of the county. The fact it's a nuclear reactor means it's no laughing matter.

Mr. Gillispie claims opponents ignored information presented by his consultant that showed cows grazing happily "just a stone's throw from reactor buildings" -- as if that means anything in Elmore County. The property at issue is not grazed by cows, and Mr. Gillispie's claim that cows and nukes co-existing shows "nuclear plants are very compatible with surrounding ag land uses" is preposterous. His plant would clearly upend surrounding ag uses, and would also put Elmore County in the position of approving a toxic nuclear waste storage site on the brink of the very river that Elmore County relies on for its very survival. The question is not whether reactors exist on agricultural land (they do and many, like the Prairie Island Reactor in Minnesota, have experienced serious design and safety issues and have just extended the moratorium on new reactors), rather the question should be whether a reactor belongs in this location, using an excess of water (which AEHI is unable to dispute or substantiate in any of their claims).

Mr. Gillispie then says, "We made it clear that many acres of good land could be farmed but aren't due to the high cost of water." His Virginian slip is showing: Farming on Idaho land is not constrained by the "high cost of water," but by the simple fact that Idaho doesn't have enough water. The Snake River system is tapped out, and if Mr. Gillispie doesn't know that then he is getting poor advice. Residents have proved a nuclear power reactor would threaten an already over allocated waterway. The cost of the water is not the issue. The amount of available water is. And Mr. Gillispie's bizarre plans to "rent" water from Elmore County farmers have no basis in fact. In fact, in his proclamations since arriving first in Owyhee County in 2007 and then in Elmore County last year, Mr. Gillispie has exhibited a fundamental misunderstanding of how Idaho agriculture works, and also how Idaho's energy system works.

Mr. Gillispie says, "We made it clear jobs would start soon after the rezone and Conditional Use Permit approval and remap up to several thousand during the construction phase." Back up: If the county sticks with its requirements that he cannot receive a CUP until he receives all required state and federal permits, that won't happen until well after 2015. Given that Mr. Gillispie has no money to build his plant, and given NRC approval is a decade away, job applicants' best not build their household budgets around jobs associated with this reactor.

Mr. Gillispie claims Idaho agriculture is suffering because "many acres cannot be irrigated due to the lack of low-cost power for irrigation pumps." And he's right. Problem is his power will only increase the cost to run those pumps. Ever since arriving in Idaho, Mr. Gillispie has tried to sell his scheme on cheap power. Nothing could be further from the truth. If nuclear power was so cheap, why haven't our utilities invested in it? Because it's not cheap; nuclear power will never be cheap. Despite AEHI's claims that its nuclear energy will cost 1.7 cents a kilowatt hour, it will in fact cost perhaps 10 times that amount. It will be among the most expensive sources of power available, and Idaho utilities will not buy it. Maybe he plans to sell it to markets in California or elsewhere that will, but it won't be sold here. Mr. Gillispie has said he believes he can force Idaho Power to purchase his energy, and that shows he really DID just fall off the turnip wagon: The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) would never force a utility to buy ultra-expensive power from an uncertain source. In fact, Idaho law requires the PUC to protect Idahoans FROM having to buy power from the likes of AEHI."

full text found @;
http://www.mountainhomenews.com/story/1536919.html