jump to navigation

Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. CEO Provides Commentary on the State of Nuclear Power in the U.S. November 22, 2010

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in China, nuclear industry.
Tags: ,
add a comment

BOISE, Idaho, Nov 22, 2010 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) — Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc.’s (otcqb:AEHI) (www.aehipower.com) CEO today provided the following editorial regarding the state of nuclear power in the U.S.:

Wake Up America! We’re Falling Behind in Nuclear Power

By Don Gillispie, AEHI CEO

There’s a nuclear renaissance underway around the world. Twenty-three reactors are under construction in China, with 10 more expected to break ground within a few months. Russia is building 10 large reactors and South Korea is adding eight plants (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html). Even lightly populated Finland just approved construction of two new plants (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/business/global/02power.html). All told, 58 new nuclear power plants are under construction in 14 countries around the world, most of them in Asia.

But one nation is conspicuously absent from this list–the United States. There are no new plants under construction in the country that invented and exported commercial nuclear power to the world, and which continues to rely on the largest fleet in the world–104 reactors–for safe, reliable, clean and inexpensive electricity.

There are hopeful signs as U.S. utilities have submitted applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for combined construction and operating licenses for 22 new plants, and the U.S. Energy Department is offering billions of dollars in loan guarantees to build the first few plants, but most of those projects are stalled today.

So, much needs to be done, because despite the possibilities, the industry is still waiting for the first project to get underway. Vogtle Electric Generating Station is awaiting final Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval to construct the country’s first nuclear plant ordered since 1977. As of yet, the Department of Energy has offered one loan guarantee to Southern Company (a big Atlanta-based utility) for Vogtle. Most recently the Baltimore-based Constellation Energy Group, Inc. decided the government’s loan guarantee program came with too many terms to be workable which has now stopped their Calvert Cliffs new plant project. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704442404575542413155178010.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

So, as the rest of the world prepares to benefit from new nuclear power, it doesn’t take a nuclear physicist to see that the U.S. is falling behind–and that Americans will suffer as a result. We are missing out on the best source of energy for the future. Nuclear power is far cheaper than wind or solar–and it runs all the time, not just when the wind blows or the sun shines. It’s even cost competitive with new coal before pollution control requirements. And it’s far more certain than natural gas, which, though abundant currently, may cause contamination of aquifers when extracted, and prices are subject to international market forces as we have seen in the past. Build enough new nuclear plants and the U.S. could even wean itself from dependence on foreign oil, since cars and trucks could be powered largely by electricity instead of gasoline.

The U.S. must not fall behind in building new reactors or U.S. companies will lose out in a very competitive market to build thousands of high-value components used in nuclear plants. To take advantage of that market and have sufficient energy to fuel economic growth reliably and cleanly, America must have a viable nuclear market of its own now–not 10 years from now.

Starting to build new nuclear facilities right now will give the suffering American economy a huge boost. Take the plant that my company, Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc., plans to build in Payette County, Idaho. The construction of the dual-reactor plant would directly employ up to 5,000 workers at the peak of a five year period. And since nuclear plants need hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete, more than 30,000 tons of steel, and countless specialized parts from a giant chain of suppliers, the total number of jobs created by the plant could actually be more than 100,000. Just 10 projects like this one could create approximately a million jobs. Those jobs would be here in the U.S., not overseas.

But the nation must move forward. I’ve worked for 45 years in the U.S. nuclear industry building and operating reactors and it’s profoundly sad to me to see America lag further and further behind China, India, Korea, Japan and other countries. In fact, I started AEHI out of frustration that big U.S. utilities were being too slow and cautious. So I got together a group of industry veterans like me and went out to see if we could jumpstart the nuclear renaissance in this country.

This industry can make a profound and positive difference, but I often feel like a lone voice crying in the wilderness. Wake up America! Nuclear power is crucial to our future and we’ve got to get started on it now!

About Don Gillispie — A 45-year veteran of the nuclear industry, Don Gillispie was involved in the construction and operation of a number of nuclear reactors and helped start the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). He is now CEO of Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. in Eagle, Idaho.

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 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.

The Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. logo is available at http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/prs/?pkgid=8058

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.

This news release was distributed by GlobeNewswire, http://www.globenewswire.com


Best wishes to the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group January 4, 2010

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Agriculture, Areva, economic benefits, rural nuclear.
Tags: , , , , , ,

Our process for building a nuclear reactor is revolutionary – a small, purpose-designed company using investor money – but I am pleased to note others who are willing to try this way of doing it. Large utilities, I believe, are be too unwieldy and indecisive to build a greenfield nuclear plant, leaving smaller, dedicated, investor-funded companies to fill the void.

The Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, launched in December 2006, has recently partnered with Areva to examine the idea of building one or two 1,650 megawatt nuclear plants in Central California. We wish the Fresno group luck – and they will need it, as California state law has banned any new nuclear generation and the state government is a political and financial basket case. Our California counterparts have public opinion in their favor, as at least half of Californians support nuclear energy, according to a recent poll. California has some of the highest energy rates in the nation, which is hurting its economy, and the Fresno group knows that nuclear can provide abundant, reliable low-cost power to attract and keep industries. California currently gets 17 percent of its electricity from its nuclear plants and 55 percent from fossil, including coal and natural gas.

The Fresno group and Areva are taking a cue from our efforts by proposing to use the immense power of a nuclear plant to desalinate water and use it for agriculture, a concept we publicly announced in July 2008 in connection with our efforts in Mexico. We expect they will also propose to use the abundant excess heat from a nuclear reactor to underwrite biofuels production and other initiatives in California’s agriculturally rich Central Valley.

Letter to investors September 11, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, China, Chinese nuclear energy, economic benefits, Elmore County, international, Investment news, nuclear industry.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

I sent a letter to investors recently. Keeping people informed about our company, its goals and status is an important to us.

September 9, 2009

Dear AEHI Stockholder,

First, let me thank you so much for your investment in AEHI. The company has several nuclear projects underway including our lead site in Idaho, as well as Colorado, a desalination reactor in Mexico and a Tar Sands reactor in Canada to remove trapped oil.

We also formed Energy Neutral, Inc last year to install wind, solar and geothermal heat pumps on homes and offices to eliminate energy bills. Currently, we plan to build our first energy free model home starting the first of October to demonstrate we can construct buildings with no power bills at essentially the same price as those with energy bills. This will help launch our first energy neutral subdivision. The Energy Neutral Trade Mark name is pending as well.

The Idaho reactor, Idaho Energy Complex, is in the process of seeking local approval and we expect it by year’s end. After the Elmore County site approval was delayed due to process problems, we began looking at other sites and now have three additional Idaho counties who are extremely interested in having our plant. A little competition is always healthy. In addition, we are reviewing state lands for potential sites. After two years of educating Idaho citizens along with support from the national media and key state leaders, we have no doubt that an approved site will happen in Idaho soon and we will be adding staff locally to accommodate. We have a funding commitment from Source Capital for the site.

In July, we opened an office in Beijing, China with some investors as AEHI China to facilitate joint ventures for nuclear components among other things and large institutional investors. With the support of the Chinese government nuclear officials, we have several companies who are interested in working with us. I now travel to China every couple of months to facilitate these deals. Also, we are in the process of negotiating on the price to bring the Korean advanced reactor, APR 1400, to the US. This reactor will be lower than the cost of the other reactors currently in the US market making us more than competitive with any new source of electricity in the country. As a backup, we have begun to talk with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries about their advanced reactor as well. Further, we have a large energy trust that is willing to loan us up to $5 billion for the plant construction phase.

Lastly, in lieu of going on the London Plus Exchange as mentioned in my last letter, we are starting the process for our first public stock offering (IPO) for later this year and a move to the American Stock Exchange. This will open the stock up to institutional and more international investors by the first quarter of 2010 allowing us to leave the penny stock category.

As you can see there is plenty of positive news in the making, we will publicly announce this information as it unfolds. If you would like some more AEHI stock or have qualified investor friends, the price is at its lowest from the company at 5 cents per share with no broker fee or volume limit like in the market. This offer will end October 31 when we file for our public offering. We doubt this price will ever be available again. Also, if you have an unrestricted investment 401K or any IRA you can transfer funds to AEHI stock as well.

Just send an e-mail to invest@aehipower.com or call 208-939-9311for more information and PPM, or you can just mail a check to AEHI if an existing investor. If you are an investor you can add to your holdings for as little as $1000 or any amount above that minimum. New investors need to review the PPM.

Again, thanks for your support as we try to help the country with jobs and clean, low cost energy that will also assist us with energy independence.

Best regards,

Don Gillispie

We need a domestic supply of medical isotopes September 10, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, medical isotopes.
Tags: , ,

This is recent news release we sent out. Surprisingly, we have no domestic source for these lifesaving isotopes and our plant hopes to meet future demand.

Idaho nuclear plant would help meet demand for medical isotopes
Current shortage highlights need for domestic source of nuclear medical materials

September 8, 2009
For more information, contact:
Don Gillispie, 208-939-9311
Martin Johncox, 208-658-9100

Facebook http://companies.to/nuclear
Blog: www.cleanidahoenergy.wordpress.com

Twitter: @aehi

A critical worldwide shortage of nuclear materials has forced some doctors to forgo lifesaving imaging tests for cancer – underscoring the need for more nuclear reactors, according to a company proposing to build a nuclear power plant in Idaho.

“Nuclear power is known as the safest, cleanest form of emission-free baseload energy, but nuclear plants also produce isotopes used in medical procedures,” said Don Gillispie, president and CEO of Alternate Energy Holdings Inc. “The shortage of isotopes – like the shortage of energy – shows we have taken nuclear power for granted for too long.”

According to Reuters, “The Society of Nuclear Medicine said 91 percent of 375 members including doctors and nuclear medicine technicians at hospitals across the nation reported … they had been affected by the shortage, with 60 percent postponing procedures and 31 percent canceling some.” (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154059.php)

Five aging reactors in Belgium, Canada, France, the Netherlands and South Africa produce molybdenum 99, which decays to technetium 99m, which is used in about 80 percent of nuclear medical scans. A nuclear reactor in Ontario, Canada shut down in late 2007 and will remain shut down until late 2009. The reactor produces about 40 percent of the world’s molybdenum 99. The one-month summer maintenance closing of the Netherlands reactor was expected to make matters worse. Molybdenum 99 has a half-life of 67 hours, so it cannot be stockpiled.

Dr. Peter Conti at the University of Southern California said “a prolonged shortage could threaten clinical trials for cancer drugs because patients may not be able to get needed scans on schedule, forcing them to drop out.” He also said doctors at USC are performing only the most urgent tests, typically for heart scans, that tests to check if cancer has spread to bones “have gone by the wayside” and that some cancer patients will be switched to more expensive positron emission tomography scans, known as PET scans, although Medicare doesn’t cover PET scans.

Gillispie said his proposed reactor would install the specialized equipment needed to extract medical isotopes.

“The U.S. has 104 reactors and it is surprising we do not have our own domestic source of lifesaving nuclear isotopes,” Gillispie said. “Our proposed reactor is too far off to help the current emergency, but with only a handful of aging reactors producing these isotopes, the problem will only continue to grow.”

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. (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 home and business technology (www.energyneutralinc.com), Colorado Energy Park 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:



Progress internationally July 23, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, China, Chinese nuclear energy, economic benefits.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

While our rezone application moves through the Elmore County process, we are pleased at our progress on the international front. Below is a story in Nuclear Street based on a recent news release we sent out.

AEHI’s CEO Meets Vice Minister of China’s NEA; Support Given For Strategic Nuclear Power Partnerships

Don Gillispie, during a recent trip to Beijing to open AEHI China’s new office in the Fortune Plaza, met with Sun Qin, Vice Minister of China’s National Energy Administration

– By Abby Gessner –
Alternate Energy Holdings Inc. (AEHI) CEO, Don Gillispie, during a recent trip to Beijing to open AEHI China’s new office in the Fortune Plaza, met with Sun Qin, Vice Minister of China’s National Energy Administration (China’s NEA equates to US Department of Energy). Mr. Sun openly supports AEHI joint ventures, strategic partnerships, and investments in the company’s projects as part of cooperation with the US-China agreement to work together on clean energy sources per US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu’s visit to China last week.

AEHI is working to get China producing internationally qualified products for use in nuclear plants to help lower the high cost of these components.

Don Gillispie said, “In addition we have been warmly received by nuclear component suppliers and operating companies such as China Shipbuilding Industry Company and Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Company.”

The company has been given an MOU from Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Company, a division of China Shipbuilding, to work together to produce components such as nuclear containment liners, stainless steel piping, and desalination units.

Also, AEHI will work with Chinese companies to produce a new advanced nuclear reactor for international markets to improve competition and lower costs.

Gillispie told Nuclear street that “It was a great honor meeting with Sun Qin, Vice Minister of China’s National Energy Administration . He openly supports AEHI joint ventures, strategic partnerships, and investments in our project as part of cooperation with the US-China agreement to work together on clean energy sources per Secretary Energy Chu’s visit this week. We hope to get China producing ASME and N stamp products for use in nuclear plants to help lower the high cost of these products. We have been warmly received by suppliers and nuclear companies here as well. We will work with China to produce a generation 3 reactor for international markets to counteract the current high capital costs.”

aehichina01http://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 (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.

World increasingly supports nuclear March 12, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in approval process, balanced approach, Chinese nuclear energy, Energy policy, environmentalists, nuclear Europe.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Due to the rigorous approval process, the United States lags in its implementation of building nuclear power plants. However, countries worldwide are preparing for the next generation of nuclear power, spurred by concerns about global warming and the need to remain economically competitive.

Environmentalists, too, are increasingly supporting nuclear. Recently, three prominent Greenpeace officials announced their support for nuclear, joining Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. Unfortunately, Greenpeace is preparing to excommunicate these representatives, showing the limits of open-mindedness and tolerance.

Countries such as Germany, Great Britain and Italy, which had planned to decommission their reactors, are now moving forward on plans for their own Saudi Arabia, China, South Korea and other technically advanced nations are planning to build nuclear plants because they see the importance ofalways-on, carbon-free, safe and affordable base load power, and nuclear is the only source that can deliver. Given that the annual spent fuel from atypical nuclear plant can fit under a desk, it’s a very low-waste way of generating energy.

Signaling an increasing preference for nuclear energy in Europe, the European Parliament has voted to approve a nenergy report that favors nuclear power as a tool for meeting greenhouse gas emission targets. The report recommends a “specific road map for nuclear investments” and rejected an amendment that favored phasing out nuclear energy in the EU.

Nuclear-generated electricity from 146 reactors made upabout 37% of the EU’s total in 2008 – all of it carbon free. The EU Parliament also stressed that nuclear energy is to be used “at the highest technologically possible level of safety.” Other recommendations made in thereport are mandatory emergency action plans in case of gas supply shortages.

According to a 2006 poll by Eurobarometer, 48 percent of EU citizens would like to maintain or increase level of nuclear power, while 39 percent would prefer to reduce the share of nuclear energy in the overall energy mix.

Obama signals pro-nuke stance in Steven Chu pick January 20, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in balanced approach, Barack Obama, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, international, nuclear industry, Politics and nuclear, President Obama, reprocessing, Steven Chu.
Tags: , , , , , ,

I welcome President Obama to the leadership of the United States. While Obama has always been a supporter of nuclear power, his pick for Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, is especially encouraging.

On Jan. 13, Chu sat before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and confirmed the Obama administration’s strong desire to push our country “towards energy independence, ” including a “continued commitment to nuclear power.”

Chu affirmed he was “supportive of the fact that the nuclear energy industry is, and should have to be, a part of our energy mix in this century.” Alluding to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Chu said he’s “confident that the Department of Energy, perhaps in collaboration with other countries, can get a solution to the nuclear waste problem” and that reprocessing of used nuclear fuel “can be a part of that solution … certainly recycling is an option that we will be looking at very closely.”

Chu also told Senators that he supports the loan guarantee program to use $18.5 billion as security to encourage lending for low-carbon generation technology.

“Nuclear power, as I said before, is going to be an important part of our energy mix. It’s 20 percent of our electricity generation today, but it’s 70 percent of the carbon-free portion of electricity today and it is base-load. So I think it’s very important we push ahead.”

As I blogged previously, Obama also made a good pick in his National Security Advisor, James Jones, a retired Marine general and former president and CEO of the Institue for 21st Century Energy, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Jones advocates a comprehensive overhaul to U.S. energy policy in the name of national defense.

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.

Idaho Statesman publishes our response December 24, 2008

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Agriculture, economic benefits, Elmore County, Energy policy, Greenfield nuclear development, Idaho Statesman, nuclear industry, Politics and nuclear, reactor types, reprocessing, rural nuclear, Snake River Alliance, Water policy.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

For the past 30 years, the nuclear industry has kept a low profile, producing more energy with fewer reactors and with the best safety record imaginable. The industry is now making an effort to better publicize itself and that includes responding to misinformation.

The Idaho Statesman was kind enough to print this response to a recent Sierra Club column. You can see the online version at The Statesman’s site as well as the ensuing discussion.

Jennie Ransom: Nuclear power is very much a part of our green energy future

Edition Date: 12/23/08

jennifer-ransomJessica Ruehrwein’s Nov. 12 Reader’s View repeats many of the same myths about nuclear power and we must present the truth. (While we disagree with Ruehrwein, her tone is a welcome change from the trademark incivility of the Snake River Alliance.)

Anti-nuclear activists are becoming increasingly isolated. Indeed, Scott Howson, one of Ruehrwein’s colleagues and chairman of the Rappahannock Group of the Sierra Club, said, “I see a solution ultimately in nuclear energy. It’s non-polluting, and that’s what we’re all looking for.”

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Wildlife Habitat Council, African-American Environmentalist Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Environmental Defense are also willing to consider nuclear as part of a solution to global warming. In this past election, both Barack Obama and John McCain supported nuclear, as did all Idaho Republican and Democrat congressional candidates. A record 74 percent of Americans favor nuclear energy, according to a September 2008 Bisconti survey.

Like many people, I used to be opposed to nuclear power, until I did my homework. There is no other source of carbon-free power that can provide the reliable, low-cost energy our nation needs to remain secure and prosperous.

Alternate Energy Holdings is proposing the Idaho Energy Complex (www.idahoenergycomplex.com), the first base-load power plant in Idaho in 30 years. In contrast to first-generation reactors that need 30 million gallons of water daily, we’ll consume as few as 100,000, thanks to a hybrid cooling design. Water will move through the facility for cooling and go to farmers, a biofuels facility and greenhouses. Our opponents know this, yet they continue repeating misinformation (see our blog at cleanidahoenergy.wordpress.com).

It is true nuclear plants have high capital costs. The trade-off is that nuclear fuel is very inexpensive. A pound of uranium sells for about $45, yet a fuel pellet the size of your fingertip produces as much energy as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas or 1,780 pounds of coal.

Despite the supportive rhetoric, environmentalists routinely oppose wind farms because of their potential to decimate bird and bat populations and the large amounts of land they consume. In contrast, nuclear plants take up relatively little land, fit both urban and rural areas and the land around them typically becomes habitat. Ruehrwein also omits mention of the subsidies that all forms of energy require, including renewables.

The spent fuel from American reactors over the past 50 years could cover a football field about 15 feet deep. That’s not much when you consider nuclear provides 20 percent of our nation’s energy and 80 percent of its carbon-free energy. All this spent fuel can be reprocessed into more fuel, as in other countries, but we don’t reprocess because of environmentalist opposition.

Our opponents conveniently forget to mention the merchant wind farms and geothermal producers that are already exporting Idaho power. They join the merchant farmers, food processors and computer chip makers who bring money and provide jobs in Idaho. The IEC would generate more energy than we could consume in the current market and help capture some of the $2 billion that Idahoans send out of state for power annually.

Oddly, critics seem to have no problem with merchant renewables. And neither do we. In truth, we have much in common with opponents in our support of renewable energy. However, we – and most Americans and political leaders – know national economic and security interests demand a mainstream, inclusive approach that recognizes renewable, nuclear, natural gas and other clean and low-carbon approaches.

Given nuclear power’s contributions and stellar safety record, we believe it is extremist and closed-minded to exclude any form of energy from our nation’s future.

Jennie Ransom is vice-president of administration of Alternate Energy Holdings Inc.

Thanks to the Mountain Home news December 16, 2008

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Agriculture, approval process, balanced approach, Elmore County, Energy policy, Greenfield nuclear development, Mountain Home News, nuclear industry, Politics and nuclear, reactor types, renewable energy, Snake River Alliance, Water policy.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

As our application in Elmore County moves forward, there is understandably some debate on the issue. Recently, the Mountain Home News published a letter by Leonard Hutterman. The paper was kind enough to provide us space to respond to Mr. Hutterman and our response is reprinted below:

Gillispie says nation will depend on nuclear power

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Dear editor:
Leonard Hutterman’s recent letter in the Mountain Home News is thought-provoking and will surely increase discussion of our region’s and nation’s energy future.

While we agree with many of Mr. Hutterman’s statements about the need for a balanced energy portfolio in Elmore County, we should clarify some of his assertions about nuclear and renewable energies.

We agree that renewable, nuclear and clean fossil generation all have a place in our energy portfolio. That’s a stark departure from the Snake River Alliance, which claims to favor an unbalanced approach of renewables only (curiously, they cannot bring themselves to show up at public hearings and testify in support of embattled wind farm developers; I personally think they don’t have the stomach to face a roomful of angry citizens, but that’s another story).

Our economy and security depends on a diverse energy portfolio and base-load electricity — power that is affordable, stable and absolutely reliable.

Mr. Hutterman ranked his preferences for power, quoted below in italics. We’d like to add some information to his ranking so people can make more fully informed decisions.

1. “Wind requires no water and uses little productive space and take[s] advantage of wind, of which we have plenty.” In reality, except for a few locations, Idaho only has mediocre wind potential suitable for large power production, according to www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.as…; wind cannot fill the power demands of Idaho, let alone the region. Also, wind farms require large amounts of land and roads, can kill many birds and bats, create annoying low-frequency sounds and throw dangerous ice from turbine blades. To produce as much electricity as our proposed nuclear plant, a wind farm would require about 100 times as much area (and only produce energy 17 percent of the time, compared to 92 percent for nuclear).

2. “Solar requires little or no water, uses a lot of space, and needs more sun then we have.” A new generation of thermal solar installations use sunlight to heat water to drive turbines. This improves reliability over photovoltaic solar, but does require water. So far, solar has been only 25 percent reliable.

3. “Geothermal is available in the county but the technology is not yet available to recover it efficiently.” True. Most geothermal in Idaho is marginal for electrical generation. Its best use is for heating homes and greenhouses.

4. “Natural gas based power has been developed and will likely continue to be developed in the county but it has a high cost and so many things can be made from it that using it for more than back-up power is a waste, and we are only converting it to electric not producing.” True. Natural gas is most efficiently used for heating water and buildings. While it is expensive for generating electricity, it is good for meeting summer peaking power demands, because natural gas can be brought online quickly. It emits half the carbon dioxide of coal, contributing to global warming.

5. “Nuclear based power uses water, the design determines the amount and it can be held to reasonable amounts. The public perception of the safety is out of line with reality but it is nonetheless their reality.” True. Dam collapses killed 8,000 people in the 20th century, coal pollution tens of thousands, and there are zero radiation deaths from Western commercial nuclear power. You’d have to live next to a nuclear plant for several thousand years to get as much radiation as a typical X-ray. Yet thanks to environmentalist hysteria and bad science fiction, some people still cling to the belief that nuclear power is dangerous. But, as I’ll explain in a bit, public opinion now solidly supports nuclear.

6. “Coal-based power and the clean coal technologies is an improvement over the old coal power plants but it still has a way to go.” Ironically, extreme environmentalists have contributed to global warming through their maniacal opposition to nuclear. Without nuclear, coal is the only suitable base-load source and environmentalists for decades have been content to let America meet half its power needs through coal.

It’s true that nuclear power requires water. In fact, any form of thermal power (boiling water to drive turbines) requires water for generation and cooling. Old-style nuclear reactors, with their oddly-shaped cooling towers, are notorious for consuming 30 million gallons a day, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

We will be using a hybrid cooling system, commonly used on fossil thermal plants in dry areas. Instead of the large cooling towers, we will cool our plant by circulating water through a system of fans, heat sinks and ponds. While we will need to run fewer than 10 million gallons of water a day through our plant, we will only consume 100,000 gallons. The rest of the warm water will be returned to productive agricultural use through farming, greenhouses and a biofuels plant. We will have to obtain existing water rights, since new water rights are not obtainable for the Snake River. The rumors that we will suck the Snake River dry are simply false.

For more than a year now, we’ve made these facts very clear, yet our opponents continue to insist our plant will use 30 million gallons a day. Every time we present this information to them, they do the equivalent of staring at us, blinking hard, then turning around and repeating the misinformation in an even louder voice.

Regarding public opinion, a record 74 percent of Americans favor nuclear energy, according to a September 2008 Bisconti survey. The survey also found only 11 percent of Americans strongly oppose new nuclear plants. Both presidential candidates and all Republican and Democrat candidates for federal office in Idaho supported nuclear.

It was unusual to read Mr. Hutterman’s comment that we should publish more information about our company. We have two Web sites, www.idahoenergycomplex.com and www.alternateenergyholdings.com, and a blog at www.cleanidahoenergy.wordpress.com, and we have had many news stories written about our company, technology, intentions and financing. The extensive information about our endeavors and personal histories on each of these sites should answer many questions and I invite anyone to email us questions at info@aehipower.com.

Also on my blog, I address the economic impact of our plant, how nuclear power plants are very compatible with rural areas, the out-of-state selling of Idaho’s wind and geothermal energy, and many other matters, so I won’t repeat them here. Suffice to say I answer many of the very valid questions Mr. Hutterman and others pose.

I look forward to working with Mr. Hutterman and other progressive-minded Elmore County residents on the county’s and the nation’s nuclear future.

Don Gillispie

president and CEO

Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc.