Skip to main content

Proposal for New Nuclear Build in Idaho

In this case, a 1,500 MWe reactor near Bruneau. For the press release announcing the letter of intent, click here. For more on the company behind the proposal, click here.

UPDATE: The news has been picked up in Idaho by Red State Rebels, a progressive politics blog. As I've noted before, there's a surprising amount of support for new nuclear. Stop by and join the debate.

Technorati tags: , , . , , , Idaho


Anonymous said…
If the nations largest nuclear power plant, Palo Verde, can be located in the middle of a desert, I think Snake River will suffice.
Julie Fanselow said…
Hi. I write Red State Rebels, a Democratic blog in Idaho. We have a fairly lively discussion going on this story. As it shows, not all Western Dems are dead set against nuclear energy, though we do demand oversight and question this particular proposal's bona fides:
Anonymous said…
Any idea if this is a ESBWR? Usually the EPR is listed as 1600 MWe. The ESBWR is more in the 1500 MWe range.
Anonymous said…
Kirk, if there's not enough water for a nuclear plant, there's probably not enough for a fossil fuel plant either. Current-generation nukes do use more water than current-generation fossil fuel plants but the difference isn't huge.

Particularly as you'd be crazy to build any new fossil fuel plant without planning for a future installation of carbon capture and storage technologies, which will reduce the net output and thus markedly increase the water usage per unit output.

I do also wonder about the likelihood of a new company being able to gain financing and regulatory approval to operate a reactor so quickly. However, the fact that startup companies are forming to seek opportunities in the sector should say something about the prospects for the future.
Anonymous said…
This company's web site says, "AEHI will be the first nuclear generating company in the U.S. and will easily outperform large nuclear and fossil type utilities with their inherent bureaucracy." Their stock currently trades at $2. Thus they look a bit flakey. It's good to see the discussion that this story has produced, but this does not look like a company with the capability to actually license, build and operate a nuclear plant.
Rod Adams said…
If you go to the Alternative Energy Holdings, Inc. web site and click on the link for Managers and Directors you will find list of people with amazingly strong credentials in the nuclear world.

The list includes people who have held senior positions at the NRC, INPO, and NEI. It looks like there is at least one former plant manager and a past president of two utility nuclear business units.

I am impressed and hopeful that these people have seen an opportunity to excel for themselves and their investors.

I am also intrigued by their R&D page comment about "Urban Mini-Reactors". Whoever heard of the idea of a nuclear power plant that is minimal in size, needs little cooling water, and is inherently safe. (Tongue planted firmly in cheek since I have been working on and writing about just such a system for at least a dozen years.)
Sounds kind of like Amarillo Power.

I wouldn't be too optimistic.
Rod Adams said…

Are you implying that there is a problem with Amarillo Power's plans?

It seems to me that they have simply put their head down and are working hard to overcome any barriers for their success. The lack of vocal news should not be construed as lack of progress.

I personally have no inside information, but have enough experience with people that know how to get things done to realize that they often do a whole lot of work without anyone hearing much about it.

Do you seriously think that a company like Amarillo Power (or AEHI, for that matter) is going to build a nuclear power plant in the current political climate? Personally, I don't think they have enough experience to know what the true costs are. They might start a project, get heavily in debt due to NRC dilly-dallying, and cancel it. But I'm more inclined to think they're good businesspeople and won't even try once they start seeing $5-6 billion as the low end.

Don't get me wrong; I wish them the best, but I really don't think the business case is there.
David Bradish said…
I kind of have to go with Rod on this. What did we do when we first started building nukes? No one had all the experience and yet we still went ahead. And there were a lot of different companies building only one or two reactors. Only in the last 5-10 years did much of the consolidation take place.

As well, if a company gets in debt it won't be due to the NRC. By the time the reactor starts construction, all the paperwork and licensing will be done. And if the company builds what it is licensed to build, then the NRC has no reason to delay the reactor.
>>What did we do when we first started building nukes? No one had all the experience and yet we still went ahead.

That wasn't a terribly successful time in the industry's history. Plus, the political climate is much different today.

>>As well, if a company gets in debt it won't be due to the NRC. By the time the reactor starts construction, all the paperwork and licensing will be done.

Will they be in debt by the time that happens (remember all the plants that were canceled in 1982-83 that were ordered in the mid-70s and still didn't have CPs)? And certainly, there must be some paperwork during construction. With 30-odd proposals coming in between 4Q 2007 and 2011, what would lead you to believe that there wouldn't be a late-70s-style logjam? If the economy tanks and/or the price of oil or natural gas comes back down, or something like fusion comes out of the blue, I would think that less-well-backed proposals such as this would be canceled first.
Anonymous said…
You make some good points but the comment about fusion is just a little out of place. The ITER test plant in France is just getting going so at best we will see something in the next 20 to 30 years.

Popular posts from this blog

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Why Ex-Im Bank Board Nominations Will Turn the Page on a Dysfunctional Chapter in Washington

In our present era of political discord, could Washington agree to support an agency that creates thousands of American jobs by enabling U.S. companies of all sizes to compete in foreign markets? What if that agency generated nearly billions of dollars more in revenue than the cost of its operations and returned that money – $7 billion over the past two decades – to U.S. taxpayers? In fact, that agency, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), was reauthorized by a large majority of Congress in 2015. To be sure, the matter was not without controversy. A bipartisan House coalition resorted to a rarely-used parliamentary maneuver in order to force a vote. But when Congress voted, Ex-Im Bank won a supermajority in the House and a large majority in the Senate. For almost two years, however, Ex-Im Bank has been unable to function fully because a single Senate committee chairman prevented the confirmation of nominees to its Board of Directors. Without a quorum

NEI Praises Connecticut Action in Support of Nuclear Energy

Earlier this week, Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed SB-1501 into law, legislation that puts nuclear energy on an equal footing with other non-emitting sources of energy in the state’s electricity marketplace. “Gov. Malloy and the state legislature deserve praise for their decision to support Dominion’s Millstone Power Station and the 1,500 Connecticut residents who work there," said NEI President and CEO Maria Korsnick. "By opening the door to Millstone having equal access to auctions open to other non-emitting sources of electricity, the state will help preserve $1.5 billion in economic activity, grid resiliency and reliability, and clean air that all residents of the state can enjoy," Korsnick said. Millstone Power Station Korsnick continued, "Connecticut is the third state to re-balance its electricity marketplace, joining New York and Illinois, which took their own legislative paths to preserving nuclear power plants in 2016. Now attention should