Start-up company pursues plan for nuke plant near Bruneau (Idaho)

[IDemo]

But Alternative Energy Holdings' proposal faces some big hurdles, including money, permits, public concerns

By Ken Dey - Idaho Statesman
Edition Date: 05/02/07

http://www.idahostatesman.com/103/story/82004.html

On a rainy day, Don Gillispie looks over a remote hay field southwest of Mountain Home.

He has a grand plan for this field. Gillispie hopes that by 2015 (or by 2025 ?), this farmland, with its sweeping vistas of the Owyhee Mountains, will be home to the nation's largest nuclear power plant.

It's an ambitious plan for the president and CEO of Virginia-based Alternative Energy Holdings, a 7-month old company with little money and stock that trades for about the cost of a candy bar.

Gillispie estimates it would take $3 billion to complete the 1,600-megawatt plant — money the company doesn't have. Gillispie said the market capitalization of his company is about $15 million, and it has $20 million in assets — the value of the 4,000 acres of Owyhee County land.

After nearly three decades without a single new permit for a nuclear power plant, the U.S. now has a cluster of companies bidding to get the industry moving again. Ahead of Gillispie are 15 bigger companies — well-known companies like Duke Energy, Unistar and Entergy — proposing to build plants. All have much stronger balance sheets than Gillispie's little start-up.

some of the competition -> New Nuclear Plant Status (PDF)

[jkshaw]

1. How do you feel about this, IDem?

Will it be close to you? I'm trying to think where Mountain Home is located. I know we've gone past a turnoff for it on one of our drives north. Our place is about 5 miles south of the Idaho border (in Utah). If it takes as long as projected to get started, I'll probably be long gone. The only thing I remember is that disaster up there at Arco. (I think it was Arco.)

I don't know how I feel about having a nuclear power plant so close. Just wondered if I'll start worrying needlessly. A wind farm, now, I'd applaud, although they have problems, too, ecologically, since they're reported to interfere with migrating birds. (I read this in the Financial Times.)

[IDemo]

2. That disaster was nearly 50 years ago, and due to human error

when a control rod was removed incorrectly leading to core meltdown and explosion . Three died, and one poor unfortunate was pinned to the wall with the control rod.

I've actually done a 180 on nuclear power the past couple of years. Most of what I had heard about nuclear issues was from the Snake River Alliance, the watchdog group that was founded in the 70's because of problems with cleanup of waste that was carelessly buried in the desert. The biggest concern then was that there could be some contamination of the Snake River aquifer, but I think that has since been shown to be non-existent (I could be wrong).

I'm convinced we will need nuclear energy more, not less, but it unfortunately must overcome four decades of bad public sentiment. This project looks as if it has a few stepping stones yet, and I would be very surprised to see anything generating power by 2015. In the meantime there is a lot of activity with alternative energy elsewhere in the state.

Mountain Home is about 50 miles southeast of Boise, and C.J. Strike Reservoir further south on the Snake River.

[jkshaw]

7. Thanks IDem

(I just got back to the computer). I read about Arco via your link. That was a horror of an accident, wasn't it. I was still in New Jersey when that happened, five years before moving to Cache Valley, and the thing that most haunts me is that poor guy pinned to the wall.

I didn't know anything about the skull-crushing vibrations from the wind farms though! Thanks for your links about that, jpak. I imagine something could be done by way of careful situating to ease the danger to birds. However, I wouldn't want to live next to a wind farm, either! Far chance here, anyway. We're in a tight little valley. We pass a big windfarm in Wyoming on the way to visit our children and grandchildren in Fort Collins. Very impressive. Many of them are still, though, which always puzzles me. And those that are moving aren't moving very fast.

[CabalPowered]

9. On the aquifer

It's been confirmed that the sedimentation in front of the lower snake dams does in fact have a high level of contamination. I haven't seen that data on the web but I know UO and OSU scientists conducted some studies in the 90's with the Army Engineers. Contamination of downstream wells has not borne out like some thought it would. But with that said, in the past month, I've learned of 4 cases of Uterine cancer here in TF. Including two girls I went to school with and are 28 and 31 respectively. An older lady that used to work for us just had a softball sized growth removed. The lady that held her position before here was diagnosed and treated for the same about 5 years ago. Add that to the numerous other types of cancer that I hear about, it's the general consensus that there's a cluster here. There's even talk of putting a Cancer center next to the new hospital. But I'm hesitant to put blame on INEL considering the amount of agricultural activity around here.

It's the level of water in the aquifer and the Snake that would have me concerned about a nuke plant. They had to lower all of TF's wells another 50 feet last summer. And given the lackluster snowpack of the last decade, I sincerely doubt we're ever going to get to a point where we can charge the aquifer. Even with senior water rights, I would pay close attention to the hydrological studies that would have to be done.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Poorly-designed wind plants are acoustic nightmares

The infrasonic noise pollution can be skull-crushing. And not just skulls; it has been implicated, at least in theory, in a number of wind plant failures. Further study will be required; I'm sure there will be a PhD thesis or two in this.

This isn't to say we should not pursue wind energy. But there will be a learning curve with it, and the cost will be higher than many advocates want to admit to.

--p!

[jpak]

4. Link! link! and names of the crushed skull victims of those nasty wind farms

bring out the dead...

:evilgrin:

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Why should I?

You automatically ridicule anything that isn't Happy Green News.

If you are really interested in the deleterious effects of poorly-built wind technology, you could, as Keith Olbermann says, "use the Google".

--p!

[jpak]

6. I did, I did use "the Google"

a search using "skull crushing infrasound wind farms" got me this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=93266&mesg_id=93360

There is no "skull crushing infrasound" emitted from wind farms - it doesn't exist.

http://www.bwea.com/ref/lowfrequencynoise.html

http://www.res-ltd.com/wind-power/faqs.htm

Tens of thousands of utility-scale wind turbines have been installed in dozens of countries over the last 20 years - total global wind turbine capacity is currently 74,000 MW and growing by multi-GW per year..

No skull crushing has been reported.

No adverse health effects have been reported.

what else is there to say?????

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Skull-Crushing

Here's what else there is to say:

Skull-Crushing

Skull-Crushing Is Bad

The use of metaphor is common to all human communication and valued for the ability to convey implicit, emotive, and metalinguistic content.

Since you are either incapable of understanding figurative and metaphorical speech or just prefer not to, I will clarify my concern.

Poorly-designed or built wind plants can generate very powerful infrasound. Since infrasound is less subject to attenuation than sonic or ultrasonic sound, it is felt as vibration over longer distances. This has caused a number of people living near these plants to develop distress and illness.

Notice that here and in my earlier post, I am talking about a very specific risk of wind plants that poor engineering design and/or construction can cause. This risk appears to be well-known. There are other risks to wind plants, too. The benefit, of course, is energy.

My concern is simple and often misunderstood. I accept that all forms of technology have benefits and risks -- but not political opinions. In a politically-charged forum dealing with energy issues, there tends to be a number of foolish misperceptions: namely that certain favored technologies (e.g., wind and solar power) are all good, and that others in disfavor (e.g., nuclear fission) are all bad. It is my opinion that the nature of the energy and climate crises is so severe that we can not afford to overlook any risk or benefit, even if it challenges our political tendencies.

If you want to know more about the risks of wind power, you have several keywords you can start with. If you are incapable of understanding metaphor, that's quite sad. But if you are being sarcastic by being dramatically literal, bear in mind that it stops being cute at about age ten.

--p!