jump to navigation

Nuclear Energy Will Help Meet Rising Electricity Demand, Create Jobs, Says AEHI CEO September 20, 2010

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, economic benefits, Greenfield nuclear development, Payette County.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

BOISE, Idaho, Sep 20, 2010 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) — “The acceleration of nuclear energy use in the U.S. can help meet the rising electricity demand with a clean-air energy source and at the same time spur the American economy as construction of new plants will lead to increasing demand for tens of thousands of skilled workers at all levels,” stated Don Gillispie, CEO of Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (www.aehipower.com).

AEHI, based in Eagle, ID, develops and markets innovative clean energy sources and is seeking to build new power plants in non-nuclear states. “The U.S. Department of Energy projects that U.S. electricity demands will rise 26 percent by 2035. Industry experts estimate our nation will need hundreds of new power plants to provide electricity in our homes and businesses, as well as a much needed boost to our economy,” Gillispie said. Some 17 companies and consortia are considering building more than 30 nuclear power plants. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is actively reviewing 13 combined license applications from 12 companies and consortia for 22 nuclear power plants, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)(www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/).

AEHI is among those companies that intend to apply to the NRC for a license for its proposed $10 billion commercial Idaho Energy Complex, which the company plans to construct on a 5,300-acre parcel in Payette County, Idaho. AEHI also secured a backup nuclear site on 6,000 acres adjacent to the primary site. The initial plant is expected to become operational in 2019.

According to a recent independent study, AEHI’s proposed plant about 60 miles northwest of Boise is expected to create around 5,000 jobs through the construction phase and more than 1,000 direct and 2,000 indirect jobs during operations. Pay levels for those jobs would average $60,000 and $80,000, respectively. Revenue for the county and state during the construction phase alone is projected to increase Idaho’s GDP by some $5.3 billion inclusive of $4.8 billion that would flow directly through Payette County.

NEI has reported there are considerable economic benefits for communities and states when they host new nuclear plants including hundreds of jobs and an expanded tax base. Over the past two years more than 15,000 new jobs have been created due to new nuclear plant activities and the number of U.S. suppliers of nuclear energy equipment certified by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers has jumped 22 percent since 2007.

Based on DOE forecasts for the U.S, maintaining nuclear energy’s current 20 percent share of generation would require building about one reactor per year, starting in 2016. Currently, the largest share of baseload power in the U.S. is provided by coal plants, which pump about 1800 pounds of pollution into the atmosphere per minute. The smallest share is provided by renewables like wind and solar, which are clean, but only work between 10 and 20 percent of the time with high costs.

“Nuclear power has zero carbon emissions and is the only energy we have today that can provide clean, low cost and reliable based-load electricity 24/7,” Gillispie said.

The expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. – or around the world in the foreseeable future – will not be limited by a shortage of uranium supplies, according to a major new interdisciplinary study produced under the auspices of the MIT Energy Initiative. The study challenges conventional assumptions about nuclear energy (http://web.mit.edu/press/2010/nuclear-report-release.html).

About Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (www.aehipower.com) — Alternate Energy Holdings develops and markets innovative clean energy sources. The company is the nation’s only independent nuclear power plant developer seeking to build new power plants in multiple non-nuclear states. Other projects include Energy Neutral(TM), which removes energy demands from homes and businesses (http://www.EnergyNeutralinc.com), Colorado Energy Park (nuclear and solar generation), and Green World Water(TM), which assists developing countries with nuclear reactors for power generation (http://www.GreenWorld-H2O.com), production of potable water and other suitable applications. AEHI China, headquartered in Beijing, develops joint ventures to produce nuclear plant components and consults on nuclear power.

Safe Harbor Statement: This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The words “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “project,” “target,” “optimistic,” “intend,” “aim,” “will” or similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements include, among others, those concerning our expected financial performance and strategic and operational plans, as well as all assumptions, expectations, predictions, intentions or beliefs about future events, including our ability to list on a national securities exchange. These statements are based on the beliefs of our management as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to us and reflect our current view concerning future events. As such, they are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause our results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, among many others: our significant operating losses; our limited operating history; uncertainty of capital resources; the speculative nature of our business; our ability to successfully implement new strategies; present and possible future governmental regulations; operating hazards; competition; the loss of key personnel; any of the factors in the “Risk Factors” section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the most recently completed fiscal year; and any statements of assumptions underlying any of the foregoing. You should also carefully review the reports that we file with the SEC. We assume no obligation, and do not intend, to update these forward-looking statements, except as required by law.

Advertisements

AEHI CEO Cites United Nations Data on Global Water Crisis and Urges Wider Use of Nuclear Desalination Reactors August 23, 2010

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, approval process, China, Chinese nuclear energy, desalination, Energy Neutral, Green World Water, Greenfield nuclear development, Hyperion Power Generators, Payette County.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

BOISE, Idaho, Aug. 23, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Don Gillispie, CEO of Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (OTCBB:AEHI) (www.aehipower.com), an Eagle-Idaho based developer of large-scale nuclear and green energy projects including nuclear power plants and nuclear desalination reactors, today stated, “United Nations (http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/) data now confirms that the world is in the midst of a water crisis with one in six people worldwide without sufficient amounts of fresh water. In my opinion, one solution to this problem should be nuclear desalination reactors that can produce large amounts of fresh clean water.”

According to Gillispie, “The worldwide fresh water crisis, which is expected to outstrip supply by 2025 per the UN, could be helped significantly by using desalination systems powered by commercial nuclear reactors. Seawater desalination as an alternate source of fresh water has been used primarily with fossil plants around the world, but until now there hasn’t been a pairing of large commercial nuclear reactors with desalination systems. Nuclear powered desalination not only provides more affordable fresh clean water, but also excess electricity and carbon credits.”

Gillispie, whose AEHI subsidiary Green World Water™ (www.GreenWorld-h2o.com) plans to produce and market one of the world’s first large commercial nuclear desalination reactors, stated, “The World Health Organization (WHO) announced that 1.4 million children die every year from illness caused by unclean water and poor sanitation. WHO estimates that there are 4000 children dying every single day because of this fresh water crisis. Nuclear desalination reactors would give many of these children the fresh water to live.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a recent report stating that 2.3 billion people live in water-stressed regions. “Lack of fresh water greatly constrains a country’s development in all respects,” stated the IAEA report. “Nuclear desalination thus becomes a popular solution.”

Gillispie agrees, “Nuclear desalination reactors have the ability to produce clean, fresh water from the ocean, rivers, and even brackish sources. These reactors can also generate enough electricity to supply the energy needs of entire communities and pump water inland to drought stricken areas.”

About Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (http://www.AlternateEnergyHoldings.com) — Alternate Energy Holdings develops and markets innovative clean energy sources. The company is the nation’s only independent nuclear power plant developer seeking to build new power plants in multiple non-nuclear states. Other projects include Energy Neutral(TM), which removes energy demands from homes and businesses (http://www.EnergyNeutralinc.com) Colorado Energy Park (nuclear and solar generation), and Green World Water(TM), which assists developing countries with nuclear reactors for power generation (http://www.GreenWorld-H2O.com), production of potable water and other suitable applications. AEHI China, headquartered in Beijing, develops joint ventures to produce nuclear plant components and consults on nuclear power.

Safe Harbor Statement: This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The words “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “project,” “target,” “optimistic,” “intend,” “aim,” “will” or similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements include, among others, those concerning our expected financial performance and strategic and operational plans, as well as all assumptions, expectations, predictions, intentions or beliefs about future events, including our ability to list on a national securities exchange. These statements are based on the beliefs of our management as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to us and reflect our current view concerning future events. As such, they are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause our results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, among many others: our significant operating losses; our limited operating history; uncertainty of capital resources; the speculative nature of our business; our ability to successfully implement new strategies; present and possible future governmental regulations; operating hazards; competition; the loss of key personnel; any of the factors in the “Risk Factors” section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the most recently completed fiscal year; and any statements of assumptions underlying any of the foregoing. You should also carefully review the reports that we file with the SEC. We assume no obligation, and do not intend, to update these forward-looking statements, except as required by law.

AEHI Reaches Milestones in Nuclear Power Goals August 23, 2010

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Chinese nuclear energy, desalination, Energy Neutral, Green World Water, Greenfield nuclear development, Hyperion Power Generators, nuclear jobs, Payette County.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

PRESS RELEASE
August 19, 2010
For Immediate Release

AEHI Reports Progress Toward Local Approval of Nuclear Power Plant and Strong International Interest in Green World Water(TM) Nuclear Desalinization Reactor

BOISE, IDAHO – August 19, 2010 – Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (OTCQB:AEHI); http://www.aehipower.com), an independent developer of large-scale nuclear and green energy projects including nuclear power plants and nuclear desalination reactors, today provided an update on its key projects including growing international interest in its Green World Water™(GWW) (www.greenworld-h2o.com) nuclear desalinization reactors.

GWW systems are designed to satisfy U.S. safety design standards and intended initially for non-U.S. buyers around the world with a need for large volumes of affordable potable water and electricity.  AEHI has also made tremendous strides towards receiving final local approval in Payette, Idaho for its proposed nuclear power plant and is currently working on a build-out of an Energy Neutral™ (www.energyneutralinc.com) subdivision, with the goal of building homes that produce more power than they consume.

AEHI CEO, Don Gillispie stated, “We have reached a number of key milestones in just the last six months, which put us on track of attaining our corporate goals of building a nuclear power plant in Idaho and selling what we believe will be the world’s first commercially available nuclear desalination system.”

•    In May this year, Payette County Commissioners approved a key change to the county’s comprehensive plan, which allows for an industrial complex on a 5,000 acre parcel under the precondition that the industrial use involve a nuclear power plant.
•    In July, AEHI filed for final rezone approval and AEHI is confident the approval will come before the end of the year.
•    Application preparations are also underway for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in advance of the local approval process in Payette County Idaho.
•    Due to rapid progress and strong local support, AEHI dropped a secondary backup site in Elmore County, Idaho, and instead is focusing resources and efforts exclusively in Payette County, where AEHI has located both primary and secondary sites.
•    AEHI subsidiary Green World Water™ announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Tubestar Oil and Gas, on what will be the world’s first commercially available and competitively priced nuclear desalination reactor.  The GWW system can desalt large volumes of water, while producing electricity simultaneously.
•    AEHI expects several more signed GWW MOUs in the coming months and is confident one or more of these MOUs will progress to final contracts before year end.
•    AEHI’s build-out partner on the GWW desalination system is China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), which is the largest state-owned enterprise in China, with the experience and resources to rapidly bring these desalination reactors to market, providing AEHI with an unparalleled first-mover advantage.
•    In mid-June, AEHI signed an MOU with Hyperion Power Generation to license, build and market Hyperion’s refrigerator-sized modular nuclear reactors on a world-wide basis.  The reactor is expected to create international opportunities, while expanding the reach of Green World Water™.
•    In March, AEHI subsidiary, Energy Neutral™ finished building its first home that produces more power than it uses.  Until recently, the home operated as a model home and has now been placed on the market.  Energy Neutral™ is now moving forward on a subdivision in west Boise, Idaho.

Mr. Gillispie concluded, “We remain extremely excited about the outlook for AEHI.  Worldwide sentiment toward nuclear power has changed.  Nuclear has proven itself as the safest, most reliable, cost effective, and scalable form of clean baseload power generation.  Nuclear power has also been proven as an unbeatable method of economic development in the energy sector – an industry that can produce thousands of jobs with very high levels of pay.  As a result of these factors, we are very optimistic AEHI will achieve measurable financial milestones this year and we look forward to keeping our investors apprised of developments as the year progresses.”

About Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (http://www.aehipower.com) — Alternate Energy Holdings develops and markets innovative clean energy sources. The company is the nation’s only independent nuclear power plant developer seeking to build new power plants in multiple non-nuclear U.S. states. Other projects include Energy Neutral(TM), which removes energy demands from homes and businesses (http://www.EnergyNeutralinc.com), Colorado Energy Park (nuclear and solar generation), and Green World Water(TM), which assists developing countries with nuclear reactors for power generation (http://www.GreenWorld-H2O.com), production of potable water and other suitable applications.

Safe Harbor Statement: This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The words “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “project,” “target,” “optimistic,” “intend,” “aim,” “will” or similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements include, among others, those concerning our expected financial performance and strategic and operational plans, as well as all assumptions, expectations, predictions, intentions or beliefs about future events, including our ability to list on a national securities exchange. These statements are based on the beliefs of our management as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to us and reflect our current view concerning future events. As such, they are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause our results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, among many others: our significant operating losses; our limited operating history; uncertainty of capital resources; the speculative nature of our business; our ability to successfully implement new strategies; present and possible future governmental regulations; operating hazards; competition; the loss of key personnel; any of the factors in the “Risk Factors” section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the most recently completed fiscal year; and any statements of assumptions underlying any of the foregoing. You should also carefully review the reports that we file with the SEC. We assume no obligation, and do not intend to update these forward-looking statements, except as required by law.
###

New uses for power plant hot water December 9, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Agriculture, economic benefits, Greenfield nuclear development, nuclear jobs, Water policy.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Nuclear plants have advanced greatly in reactor design, safety systems, efficiency and reliability since my starting in the industry in the 1960s.

However, one area where nuclear plants – and thermal plants in general – haven’t changed much is dealing with excess heat. With a few exceptions, the approach today is much as it was 50 years ago: site the plant next to a plentiful water supply and use large amounts of water to cool the plant (with about 10-15% being  lost through those large cooling towers ). The industry’s view has been that nuclear plants are for creating large amounts of dependable, low-cost electricity – period – and that’s all baseload plants need to do.

Waste power plant heat has traditionally been viewed as nuisance, but having a plentiful supply of hot water is an incredibly useful thing. In our Idaho reactor, we will be using a hybrid cooling system, so that we’ll only lose to evaporation no more than a million gallons a day. There will be millions of gallons of heated water, however, that could sustain all kinds of industry – imagine a man-made source of geothermal water not quite hot enough to drive a power turbine, but plenty hot enough for dozens of practical uses.

Many industries spend huge amount of money heating water, usually with natural gas. Why not use a virtually free supply of hot water instead? Instead of just dissipating this hot water into the air, it could be useful  co-generation for almost any industrial process:

  • Food processing
  • Fertilizer production
  • Biofuels generation
  • Greenhouses
  • Facilities heating Crop application (where it could extend the growing season up to two weeks in each direction)
  • Recreation and wildlife habitat.

We have already had preliminary discussions with other industries interested in using this excess heat.

We have acquired existing water rights in the area and we have examined the concept of renting water from willing rights holders. Since we only need to rent water for cooling, we could return it to farmers after cooling and they could use it for whatever they were going to do in the first place.

We plan on installing cooling ponds next to our plant, useful for stepping down temperature as needed. Most American nuclear plants are located in farm or wildlife habitat areas so at the very least, the ponds will become incredible wildlife sanctuaries. But there is so much more potential.

Some reactors have used innovative approaches. Arizona’s Palo Verde plant, dating from the early 1970s, is one of the largest in the world and is the only reactor in the middle of a desert. How does it cool itself? It uses treated wastewater from Phoenix and other nearby urban areas. Of course, we aren’t proposing to use municipal wastewater to cool our plant. My point is that innovative approaches to plant cooling have been successfully tried and what we’re proposing is actually much less radical than cooling a reactor with sinks, showers and toilets. Hybrid cooling systems have been used successfully on fossil plants for years.

Of the nation’s 104 nuclear plants, only 4 are west of the Mississippi River. If nuclear plants are ever to become common in the arid West, they need to find new opportunities with cooling and heat disposal. We will take a progressive and pioneering approach with our proposed Payette reactor and use the excess reactor heat for many beneficial uses.

Snake River Alliance does Idaho no favors June 3, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Agriculture, anti-renewable energy, economic benefits, Greenfield nuclear development, Mountain Home News, renewable energy, Snake River Alliance.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 comments

[We submitted this opinion to the Mountain Home news last month but space constraints kept it from being published.]

Democracy gives people a lot of latitude in how to get something done, or to stop it from being done. The events over the last few weeks have been really useful in showing how we and the Snake River Alliance differ on those counts. Heat doesn’t substitute for light and even a group as prickly as the Snake River Alliance should know that a civil tone will help public discussion of important issues like energy.

Our efforts to prepare for the April 20 rezone hearing were aboveboard and successful. We launched a public information campaign to let people know about our table to collect resumes and letters of interest and around 500 showed up and wore stickers supporting AEHI. I spoke at clubs, groups, associations, business and anywhere else people would have me, and not all of these venues were friendly.

We collected 1,600 signatures through much hard work going door-to-door, going to food lines, going to workplaces, going to places the SRA wouldn’t bother going. We produced an informational video and mailed it to each household in Elmore County. We sent a letter to every resident of Hammett to address their specific concerns. We launched a traditional advertising campaign and used the new tools of social media to get the word out.

In contrast, the Snake River Alliance prepared for the rezone hearing with bizarre and unethical gimmicks. A week or so before the hearing, the SRA complained to the Glenns Ferry Police Department that I shoved SRA employee Liz Woodruff at a March 10 Glenns Ferry City Council meeting – in a room full of the public, city officials and police officers, no less! The authorities did their duty and, after interviewing me and other people, found the accusation without merit. Clearly, the SRA was fishing for an “October surprise” a week before the rezone hearing, hoping to smear my reputation and throw the meeting into disarray.

These shenanigans have no place in public policy. It probably didn’t help the SRA that Mrs. Woodruff on March 24 publicly apologized to the Glenns Ferry City Council for her childish behavior at that March 10 council meeting, where she sought to disrupt my presentation.

All this is relevant because it speaks to the SRA’s involvement in the public process. As hard as they try to keep a veneer of civility, they openly and behind-the-scenes do what they can do disrupt the local process. Apparently, they were able to restrain themselves more or less for the rezone hearing, but they and their supporters formed “groups” to get more speaking time. Then, individual members of the “groups” spoke, violating the principle the county established for recognizing groups .

Clearly, the SRA does best when surrounded by supporters and friends, but their thin-skinned nature leads them to do some strange things. For example, sometimes the SRA seems immune to common sense. To emphasize that nuclear plants are a good fit with rural areas, we showed pictures of cows grazing a stone’s throw from nuclear plants and Andrea Shipley’s response was to say “the property at issue is not grazed by cows” (actually, cows graze the only adjacent private land). As the SRA well knows, our plant would take up around 200 acres, with the remainder of the 1,300 acre parcel to remain farmland.

To say our plant would “upend surrounding ag uses” is preposterous. For the real story on how our plant would affect the area, see my open letter to the citizens of Hammett at http://www.cleanidahoenergy.wordpress.com. There are plenty of photos of nuclear plants surrounded by hayfields, wildlife habitat, estuaries and near small towns (yes, we’re well aware there are no estuaries in Elmore County).

In the face of our campaign, the SRA says the jobs will never materialize – but the SRA is working as hard as it can to stop the jobs from ever materializing. We’ve already put 100 Idahoans to work and as long as investors continue to fund us, that’s their concern, not the SRA’s. They say we haven’t finalized enough details about our plant, but you know if we had every detail plotted out they’d complain we were being presumptuous. At this stage, we are simply seeking to rezone the land, yet they chide us for not having each and every aspect of our plant finalized.

Speaking of our business, Ms. Shipley breathlessly states the obvious in quoting our SEC report, which says “AEHI has limited funds and such funds will not be adequate to carry out the business plan without borrowing significant funds. The ultimate success of AEHI may depend upon its ability to raise additional capital … and it could fail.” OK, so we openly admit don’t have enough money to build a nuclear reactor and need more investment to build it. So? Utilities, developers, companies and anyone else building anything must seek investment capital as well.

Ms. Shipley is either uneducated about start-up public companies, or she is seeking to misrepresent our funding picture. We are the only publicly owned company in the nation seeking to build an independent nuclear power plant; traditional utilities, for whatever reasons, haven’t constructed enough power plants and we are stepping up to meet the demand. Like any other start-up, we seek investment for what we propose. If we get it, we may succeed, and if we don’t, we fail. Anyone who has run a business, or who is not terribly out-of-touch with business, understands that.

The Snake River Alliance’s contempt for working people is evident in its own site, as well as those of supporters. Among the drawbacks of our plant, according to the SRA’s Jan. 9 news release, would be “thousands of construction workers” in Elmore County (http://tinyurl.com/qxgnm9). I guess if someone has a problem with construction workers, that would be a concern, but to people who are willing to work hard and get something built, it’s an insult. Or, this gem from http://tinyurl.com/p43rar, refers this way to people who came to our table: “To what degree will these curbside applicants feel like darned fools?”

If this is the best the Snake River Alliance can offer, it has grossly underestimated our tenacity, the depth of our support and the necessity of our enterprise.

Ms. Shipley claimed I am “obsessed with counting stickers” but that is the closest she comes to acknowledging the truth: People at the meeting were overwhelmingly supportive of the rezone and the SRA’s vaunted community organizing efforts didn’t produce much in that regard. The best Ms. Shipley can do is to discount our efforts to create jobs and say the jobs won’t come soon enough, or at all, or they won’t be for Elmore residents – while simultaneously doing all she can to stop the jobs from ever coming. Tactically, the SRA was out-hustled, but that in itself means nothing as the ultimate measure of success lies with the Elmore County Commission.

Most valuable are the resumes of hundreds of highly qualified, hardworking Idahoans we collected and hope to call on as soon as we can. They and thousands of other supporters hope we prevail over the SRA and its newfound allies.

Anti-nukes use another two-faced approach when they say nuclear power shouldn’t be pursued because we have no place to store or reprocess the waste, but then they work against storage and reprocessing solutions. It’s worth pointing out Areva is planning for reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in the US (http://tinyurl.com/pwfblo). The firm recently shared with bloggers its conceptual thinking about a 800 ton/year plant which it says is the answer to apparent end of the Yucca Mountain repository project.

Given the traditional antagonism between environmental groups like the SRA and agriculture, it is not surprising Ms. Shipley is out of touch with ag issues. News alert for Ms. Shipley: Farming in Idaho is largely constrained by the high cost of water, because pumping that water is becoming increasingly expensive. Irrigators currently pay close to 4 cents per kilowatt hour, but Idaho Power is asking for an 11.1 percent increase in that rate. Many farmers spend thousands of dollars a month on power costs. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, it costs 1.8 cents to produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity with nuclear power, and that power is produced more than 90 percent of the time (http://tinyurl.com/2pgc8k).

This kind of reliable low-cost power is exactly what high-lift irrigators and other farmers need to stay economically competitive. According to the American Wind Energy Association, wind costs around 5 cents per kilowatt hour (http://tinyurl.com/kyg8u) with federal subsidies – when it’s blowing, which is around 20 percent of the time on average. Ms. Shipley should know business can’t operate under those power terms; we only make it work by importing half our energy for out-of-state coal plants.

It strains belief that Ms. Shipley would claim “Idaho is not out of power … Idaho has ample electricity resources.” Perhaps she should tell that laughable claim to the two major employers who bypassed southern Idaho in 2007 because Idaho Power couldn’t provide electricity! Surely, she is just as disappointed as the rest of us about the loss of those jobs.

The fact that Idaho imports half its energy is proof enough that we need to develop our own dispatchable baseload resources in-state. It’s no secret that Idaho Power hasn’t developed a base-load power plant in Idaho in at least 30 years, choosing instead buying shares in out-of-state coal plants. I really can’t blame them; after getting a taste of the difficulty in developing a power plant, I can see why Idaho Power has evidently given up on new baseload power in Idaho.

That brings me to my next point, which is that energy developers of all kinds are facing a harder time getting anything built, and no advocacy groups are stepping forward to support them. As you read this, dozens of rural landowners want to “curb enthusiasm for” and ultimately kill plans to plant wind turbines and string a green-field power line segment across the northern Laramie Range in Wyoming (http://tinyurl.com/polydc). The Northern Laramie Range Alliance is fighting wind energy, which the Snake River Alliance points to as the future of energy generation.

Something tells me the Snake River Alliance and its allies won’t be showing up to help these wind power developers – or anyone who’s trying to build a power plant.

Idaho ranks near bottom of Western states preparing to add generation capacity May 26, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in approval process, economic benefits, Greenfield nuclear development, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

We sent out this news release this morning. As the only company proposing to build a baseload power plant in Idaho, we understand the urgency for more power generation.

Idaho ranks near bottom of Western states preparing to add generation capacity

Study of federal statistics shows Idaho will add just 412 megawatts by 2011, well below numbers for other states

May 26, 2009

For more information, contact
Martin Johncox, 208-658-9100
Jennie Ransom, 208-939-9311
Web: www.alternateenergyholdings.com
Facebook: http://groups.to/nuclear
Blog: www.cleanidahoenergy.wordpress.com

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 2008 and 2012, Idaho is scheduled to bring on line 412 megawatts of energy, mostly from natural gas, putting it third from the bottom among the 11 Western states. Idaho’s doing a bit better, however: last year, Idaho ranked dead last among the Western states. This year, some proposed natural gas facilities pushed Idaho’s ranking beyond that of Utah and Montana, which have seen some projects cancelled.

California is the most energy-ambitious state, with 10,416 MW of power proposed to be developed by 2012, followed by Colorado at 2,289 MW. Already, Idaho imports half its electricity, mostly from coal-burning plants in Wyoming and Nevada.

Don Gillispie, president and CEO of Alternate Energy Holdings Inc., praised the state’s efforts to put a higher priority on energy generation. AEHI is seeking to build an advanced nuclear reactor in Elmore County These. Gillispie pointed to the Idaho Department of Commerce hiring a person to work full-time on promoting energy generation in the state and Gov. Otter establishing an Office of Energy Policy directly under him as signs that Idaho leaders take energy development seriously.

Nevertheless, Gillispie said the low ranking shows Idaho needs to start planning seriously for its energy future. Gillispie noted his plant is the only large base-load plant currently proposed for Idaho. At the same time, the USEIA forecasts energy demand in the U.S. will grow by 42 percent by 2030. In late 2007, two major employers announced they were bypassing southern Idaho because utilities couldn’t provide them with enough electricity and Hoku Materials has been having trouble finding sufficient energy for its polysilicon facility near Pocatello.

“Idaho has about 1,100 megawatts of in-state generating capacity and it took us nearly a century to build it up,” Gillispie said. “If we’re going to provide for our future energy needs, we’ve really got to get on the ball and start adding capacity.”

The AEHI reactor, proposed for Elmore County, isn’t included in USEIA listings because it’s still in the preliminary stages and the plant will start generating electricity in 2016 at the soonest. Gillispie has notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of his intent to build a reactor.

Gillispie also said much of the power expected to be produced in Idaho in the USEIA report could be sold out-of-state. For example, the Goshen II wind farm, recently approved for construction in Bonneville County, has already agreed to sell its wind to Southern California utilities for the next 20 years. Gillispie has consistently pledged to offer electricity from his proposed plant to Idaho utilities. Gillispie also said his proposed plant, the Idaho Energy Complex, could power all the homes in Idaho three times over, meaning there will be plenty of electricity to meet in-state needs and also to sell to neighboring states.

“Our opponents are concerned our power may be sold out-of-state but looking at the current trend, it’s much more likely we will be forced to import even more of our power, paying increased transmission and production costs to out-of-state utilities,” Gillispie said. “More than ever, we need the reliable, non-polluting, high-volume energy that nuclear produces.”

According to the USEIA figures, the 11 Western states are scheduled to bring on line nearly 22,000 MW of power between 2008 and 2012, up from 20,000 MW between 2007 and 2011; most of the energy will come from natural gas. A megawatt is enough energy to power about 850 homes (fewer in times of high demand and more in times of lower demand), not counting agriculture, industry or commerce.

Idaho imports half its energy, while California imports just 22 percent of its energy. Much of Idaho’s imported energy comes from coal plants in Wyoming and Nevada owned by Idaho Power. Idaho gets about 1 percent of its electricity from the nuclear Hanford Generating Station in Washington.

Idaho looks a little better on a per-capita basis, adding about 294 watts per person between 2008 and 2012, based on a current population of 1.4 million. By comparison, California will be adding about 274 watts per person during that time, based on a current population of 38 million.

Idahoans use more electricity, however. On a per-capita basis, Idahoans in 2003 used 15,510 kilowatt-hours (12th highest in the nation and second among Western states), compared to 6,732 kWh per person in California (lowest in the nation); see www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/us_percapita_electricity_2003.html. Idaho has a high concentration of agriculture and computer hardware manufacturing, which demand large amounts of electricity.

Gillispie and other analysts said the power supply operates on a regional basis. The more regional supply increases relative to demand, the more downward pressure there will be on prices. So, even if an energy plant exports electricity across state lines, that will increase regional supply and help keep prices lower.

ABOUT THE IDAHO ENERGY COMPLEX: The Idaho Energy Complex (www.alternateenergyholdings.com) will be a large advanced nuclear reactor with low cooling water requirements located about 65 miles southeast of Boise, in Elmore County. The Elmore County Commission is expected to decide in June or July on an application from the company to rezone land for the reactor

Current table: Megawatts of electrical generation planned by year for each Western state,2008-2012

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

TOTAL
California

1,250

2,275

1,681

1,737

3,473

10,416

Nevada

1,626

0

28

635

0

2,289

Washington

1,140

539

54

0

0

1,733

Arizona

249

495

0

615

280

1,639

Colorado

294

1,108

0

0

0

1,402

Wyoming

573

1

90

390

320

1,374

Oregon

385

102

0

584

0

1,071

New Mexico

860

110

0

0

0

970

Idaho

262

128

4

18

0

412

Montana

0

121

150

70

0

341

Utah

54

0

20

0

0

74

Previous table: Megawatts of electrical generation planned by year for each Western state, 2007-2011

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

TOTAL
California

1,533

358

1,724

1,350

1,377

6,342

Colorado

1,189

271

1,459

0

0

2,919

Nevada

135

1,571

0

28

658

2,392

Washington

448

862

0

310

339

1,949

New Mexico

110

1,356

0

0

0

1,466

Oregon

836

584

0

0

0

1,420

Wyoming

90

0

0

440

710

1,240

Arizona

0

249

630

0

0

879

Utah

579

30

0

120

0

729

Montana

2

500

91

0

0

593

Idaho

146

191

0

0

0

337

Source: United States Energy Information Agency table at www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/planned_capacity_state.xls released Jan. 29, 2009

Thanks to the hundreds who came to support jobs, agriculture and clean energy last night April 24, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Agriculture, approval process, economic benefits, Elmore County, Greenfield nuclear development, rural nuclear, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

To the hundreds of people who came out to support us at the Elmore County Commission hearing, thank you all so much. The commissioners have a difficult task but you helped them understand that our proposed rezone will allow Idaho to have a dependable jobs and power for farms, industry, homes and commerce. Below is a news release we have distributed about it.

Elmore County Commission to decide on nuclear plant rezone
Hundreds turn out to support proposal to rezone 1,300 acres for nuclear plant that would create thousands of jobs

April 23, 2009
For more information, contact:
Jennie Ransom, AEHI spokeswoman 208-939-9311
Martin Johncox, 208-658-9100

Hundreds of people packed a hearing room Wednesday night to show their support of a proposal to rezone 1,300 acres of land for a power plant. The Elmore County Commission will discuss and decide the rezone at a future hearing, which hasn’t yet been announced.

The commission heard four hours of testimony from than 36 supporters and 32 opponents of the rezone. Alternate Energy Holdings Inc., which is proposing to build a nuclear plant at the site, submitted an additional 240 signatures in support of the rezone Wednesday night, bringing total signatures in support to 1,600, about half of them from Elmore County.

The meeting was held at the Mountain Home Junior High School and more than 400 people showed up to an AEHI-sponsored table on the sidewalk by the school to submit resumes and letters of interest about jobs; most of these people also went to the county commission hearing to emphasize the need for economic development. AEHI is committed to hiring locally and wanted to collect worker information now due to the need to phase in workers over a number of years. Company officials have said the high number of former and current military personnel in Elmore County make it an ideal place for finding prospective employees, who must have clean backgrounds.

Supporters said the rezone is a private property and jobs issue, while opponents said the landowner shouldn’t be entitled to rezone his land. Opponents, including several farmers who live next to the property, repeatedly referred to the property as “our farm land” said they would like to farm it themselves (although they did not buy it when it was for sale recently), which couldn’t happen if it were rezoned. Gillispie pointed out the nuclear plant would have a footprint of only 200 acres, leaving most of the remaining 1,100 acres for farming.

The company’s 2007 economic study, based on other American nuclear plants, calculated AEHI’s proposed plant would grow employment in Elmore and Owyhee counties by 25 percent and generate 4,230 jobs statewide during construction, including a total annual payroll impact of $839 million. It would also generate 1,004 annual jobs statewide during operation during its 60-year lifespan, with an annual statewide payroll impact of $57 million. Average annual wages would be $80,000 for plant employees and $33,536 in industries indirectly affected. Total annual labor income impacts in Owyhee and Elmore counties during operation would be $52.3 million. Opponents also said the company’s claims about job creation were part of a “marketing plan” but did not provide any evidence to refute the company’s job analysis. Some opponents discounted the depth of the economic crisis facing the nation and state and the need for additional non-agricultural jobs in Elmore County.

Supporters noted the nuclear plant would emit no odor, smoke, dust or noise. Gillisipie’s PowerPoint showed photos of nuclear plants with cows and farm fields next to them, but opponents avoided mention of these photos. Supporter also noted the Boise area has had to turn away major employers because of lack of energy, arguing that rezoning the land would be in the county’s interest.

The Idaho Energy Complex (www.idahoenergycomplex.com) will be a large advanced nuclear reactor with low cooling water requirements located about 65 miles southeast of Boise, in Elmore County. Company officials plan to submit a Combined Operating License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2010. The approval process is expected to take three years and cost $80 million. Construction could begin as soon as late 2012 and finish with power generation beginning in late 2016.

Information: http://www.energyforelmore.com and http://www.cleanidahoenergy.wordpress.com

Open letter to the people of Hammett April 15, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Agriculture, approval process, economic benefits, Elmore County, Greenfield nuclear development, rural nuclear, Water policy.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

We recently sent this letter to the people of Hammett, as they are the closest town to our power plant.

April 7, 2009

Dear Hammett resident,

As you know, my company, Alternate Energy Holdings Inc., is proposing to build a nuclear power plant near your town. If the Elmore County Commission approves our rezone request April 22, it will mean some changes for all of Elmore County and Hammett. There has been some concern about how a nuclear plant will affect the rural lifestyle of Elmore County so I want to explain some things to you in this letter about my company’s intentions and goals.

Nuclear plants may seem large, but they produce lots of power in a relatively small area. To generate the same amount of power, for example, a wind farm would need to cover about 100 times the area of a nuclear plant with 40-story-tall turbines and thousands of miles of access roads (and only produce electricity less than 20 percent of the time, compared to 92 for nuclear). Our plant will emit no odors, dust or noise, be well-landscaped and have a low profile, with none of those large cooling towers.

I know people are concerned about water. Any water our plant uses will have to come from existing water rights, whose holders willingly provide us with water, with fair compensation. Old-style nuclear plants consume up to 30 million of gallons a day, but our plant will use a hybrid cooling system, using heat sinks and fans to cool water. When water is scarce, a hybrid plant can throttle back its consumption greatly, spending an extra one-half to 1.5 percent of its power output to cool itself. If nuclear plants are to be possible in dry places, new approaches will have to be used.

What does a power plant mean for Hammett residents? There will be growing pains as the plant is built, but it will last 60 or more years, providing high paying job opportunities for young people to remain in the community. If you earn your living in the local economy, the plant will bring business opportunities. If your livelihood is tied to the regional or national economies, you will see expanded opportunities from low power costs. For example, Idaho farmers can’t compete without low cost electricity.

We are looking to acquire rights up to 10 million gallons a day but our hybrid cooling system will keep our net consumption of water between 100,000 and 1 million gallons a day (about as much as 140 acres of irrigated land). We are looking at the possibility of renting water – since we won’t actually have to consume much water, we can use it for cooling and return it to farmers. The warmer water could potentially extend the growing season up to two weeks each direction and give farmers another source of income. Winter greenhouses would be another beneficiary of abundant hot water.

Low-cost power built on coal and hydro sustains Idaho’s agricultural industry, but coal is on the way out and hydro is maxed out. To maintain current farming, and to bring more idle ground into production, we need low-cost power. Now only nuclear can provide that same low cost power. As a public company, Idahoans hold the majority of our stock. We are literally vested in Idaho and we want to be good neighbors.

Several people have asked me how I would feel if a nuclear power plant was proposed next to my home. If I were someone who had devoted their life to a place, living and working and raising a family there, I would understandably be concerned at the changes the plant would bring to a place I had known all my life. I might even oppose the plant if it were close enough to be prominently seen as an industrial facility or was noisy or emitted an odor, but this plant won’t do any of that. At the very least, I would want to know what the developer would do to ensure the plant would be a good neighbor, pay its fair share and give back to the community. Any large construction project will create some inconvenience on a community and any good developer will fairly compensate the people who live there, and then some.

We are proposing the following if our plant is built. These are standard things that good companies should do during construction, and to give back to the community:

  • A committee to oversee service needs. This committee would be a partnership of local officials, neighbors and plant representatives. It would examine demands that construction would place on fire, schools, housing, roads, administration, etc., and make recommendations for meeting those needs, including what compensation the plant would need to make to keep services well-funded.
  • Direct infrastructure funding. Nuclear plants typically pay for fire stations, vehicles, equipment, road improvements, etc., necessary to serve the plant and benefit the community.
  • Payment of local property taxes. This could involve paying money directly to the county to reduce the bill for all taxpayers, or focusing tax relief on the neighbors most closely affected. Building the plant will put thousands to work but will also burden residents somewhat in the short-run. These payments would be intended to compensate people for any potential disruption to their lives.
  • Local scholarships. Elmore County would receive scholarships to study sciences at colleges of their choice. We hope these promising young people would come back to Elmore County and maybe even work at our plant. But our main incentive would be to fulfill the responsibility of technology industries to help the next generation of engineers and scientists.
  • Job training. Most jobs at a nuclear plant don’t require a college degree, but they require specialized training. We propose to pay the full costs of Elmore County residents who earn training certification, or college degrees, and who commit to work at our plant.
  • A community center. County residents would need to discuss where this could be constructed. I think Hammett could be a good location if people there want it. This would be a place for neighborhood meetings, youth programs, training and local government meetings. For security reasons, access to nuclear plants is highly restricted, so this could be a place where neighbors could meet with plant representatives to discuss problems and opportunities.

America currently has 104 nuclear reactors, most of them in rural areas, where they are quiet, clean and compact. American nuclear plants bring jobs, greater prosperity and preserve the rural way of life. For example, In 2005 – after nearly 50 years of commercial nuclear power – a Bisconti poll found 83 percent living close to nuclear plants favor nuclear energy. The survey only questioned residents within 10 miles of an operating nuclear plant also found that 85 percent give the nearest nuclear power plant a “high” safety rating, and that 88 percent are confident that the company operating the power plant can do so safely.

Thank you for your time and please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, 939-9311 or info@aehipower.com. We look forward to seeing you at the County Commission meeting on Wednesday, April 22, at 6 p.m. in the Mountain Home Junior High School auditorium. If any of you are interested in learning more about jobs at the plant, we will be taking letters of interest and resumes. You can also see our site at http://www.alternateenergyholdings.com or http://www.cleanidahoenergy.wordpress.com.

Don Gillispie

CEO

Hope in a bad economy February 13, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Agriculture, approval process, economic benefits, Elmore County, Energy policy, Greenfield nuclear development, Mountain Home News, Politics and nuclear, rural nuclear.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

The news in last week’s Mountain Home News was unsettling. Unemployment in the county has reached 7 percent in Elmore County – not a devastating figure, but high for a place with a normally robust economy, and slightly ahead of the state figure of 6.6 percent. Loss of jobs at Micron, the closing of a potato processing plant, a poor Christmas season and fewer car sales are behind much of the job unemployment.

According to the story, people are taking lower-paying jobs to get through but “… in general, if you’re looking for high-paying jobs, you’re not going to find it in Elmore County. You’re probably going to have to move. There just aren’t any jobs like that here,” said Albert Clement, who runs the local Idaho Department of Labor office. Unemployment benefits are essential, Clement said, because “this is outside money coming and outside money tends to roll over several times” before it leaves the local economy.

The bright spots in the economy are construction at the air base, the Marathon Cheese factory and Wal-Mart.

These are uncertain times for the state and national economies. With a new administration, Mountain Home Air Force Base may once again be at risk of shrinkage or closure. At a time like this, it is worth revisiting our 2007 economic study by Johnson Gardner of Portland, Ore.

Nuclear plants generate energy that is second only to hydro in low cost, because uranium is a cheap and potent fuel, but nuclear plants are capital intensive. That’s good news for communities that develop nuclear plants, as they will enjoy plentiful construction jobs for several years and later reap the benefits of jobs that pay an average of $80,000 a year. Our reactor will remain a mainstay of Idaho’s economy – you can be sure we won’t offshore to Asia. We will be here to stay.

Our 2007 economic study found our plant will (amounts are in 2006 dollars):

·             Create a total commercial impact of $2.6 billion during construction – a boost of nearly 6 percent to the State’s economy.

·             Generate 4,230 jobs statewide during construction, including a total annual payroll impact of $839 million – nearly 2 percent of the payroll in Idaho.

·             Generate ripple economic effects of $237 million during construction in Ada, Canyon, and Bonneville counties.

·             Create a total commercial impact of $155 million a year during operation.

·             Generate 1,004 annual jobs statewide during operation (estimated 60 years or more) with an annual statewide payroll impact of $57 million.

·             Pay average annual wages of $80,000 to plant employees (267 percent of Idaho average) and pay would be $33,536 (112 percent of Idaho average) in industries indirectly affected.

·             Produce annual state tax revenues of $74 million during operation.

·             Grow employment in Elmore and Owyhee counties by 25 percent.

·             Produce total annual labor income impacts in Owyhee and Elmore counties of $52.3 million during operation.

·             Permanent IEC operation would single-handedly boost State General Fund revenues by 3.3 percent annually.

The report estimated there are enough Idaho workers to fill most of the construction jobs. Whenever possible, we will use workers, engineers, consultants and businesses from Owyhee County, Idaho and the Northwest region.

Oddly, while our opponents criticize us for possibly selling power out of state (as wind farms and geothermal plants already do), the other side of the coin is that our plant will greatly benefit Elmore County’s economy because it will, in fact, bring in money from out of state!

Even with no new plants under construction, the development process is putting people to work. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, “nuclear energy is one of the few bright spots in the US economy – expanding rather than contracting.”

The NEI report says the prospect of new plant construction in has already stimulated considerable investment and job creation among companies that supply the nuclear industry: “over the last several years, the nuclear industry has invested over $4 billion in new nuclear plant development, and plans to invest approximately $8 billion in the next several years to be in a position to start construction in 2011-2012.”

In the course of this, NEI said, “private investment in new nuclear power plants has created an estimated 14,000-15,000 jobs.” The number of new jobs “will expand dramatically after 2011 when the first wave of these new nuclear projects starts construction.”

The Simco Road designated industrial zone recommended by Elmore P&Z cannot accommodate nuclear plant January 16, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, approval process, economic benefits, Elmore County, Energy policy, Greenfield nuclear development, rural nuclear, Water policy.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

On Jan. 12, I was invited to make a presentation before the Mountain Home City Council on our efforts to develop a large advanced nuclear reactor in Elmore County.

In November, the Elmore County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended against rezoning approximately 1,400 acres of land to accommodate our plant, saying heavy industrial development should be located in a zone near Simco Road, even as wind, solar and natural gas power are permitted elsewhere in the county.

In response to a Mountain Home City Council member’s question regarding siting of the plant in the Simco Road area, the following is my reply:

After some research we have concluded the Simco Road site does not qualify for a nuclear plant and even if it did, there does not appear to be any property available. The following are some of the reasons.

The Simco Road site has no water supply so a dedicated water line of more than 20 miles would need to be constructed. A large safety-related pipeline would add hundreds of millions in expense and create security and right-of-way concerns; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would disapprove the Simco Road site for the water supply security issue alone. Our current site is one mile from the Snake River, an ideal location for water access without a security issue.

Elmore County's proposed Simco Road industrial site is closer to Boise development than it is to Mountain Home

Elmore County's proposed Simco Road industrial site is closer to Boise development than it is to Mountain Home

The Simco Road location has geologic issues that could make qualification expensive, if it is possible at all, on account of strict NRC requirements regarding geologic stability. Preliminary geologic testing confirms our existing site has no such potential issues.

Key parcels along the Simco Road site are under option by other parties,

Our proposed location will ensure many economic benefits stay concentrated in Elmore County

Our proposed location will ensure many economic benefits stay concentrated in Elmore County

making it unavailable for a nuclear plant site. Our current proposed site is optioned and ready for the development process.

The Simco Road area is 7 miles from Boise’s industrial area and 21 miles from Mountain Home, along the Ada-Elmore county border. Elmore County would lose much of the employment revenue as employees would likely live in Boise, as suggested by our economic study. Elmore County would lose in housing starts and commercial and other economically beneficial opportunities. Our existing site is 12 miles from Mountain Home, thus in a better position of supporting economic development in Elmore County.

Elmore County’s comprehensive plan is well-intentioned, but it did not foresee the development of such a major economic benefactor like our proposed plant and the associated regulatory requirements. We look forward to our presentation before the Elmore County Commission in April for the final word on if our plant – and the economic benefits it will bring – will become possible in Elmore County.

We aren’t the only ones with this belief. One of our critics agrees the Simco Road site is lacking for our kind of development.