Posted on 10/21/2009 6:44:01 AM PDT by Willie Green
The developers behind a proposed Elmore County nuclear plant have now applied for another site in western Idaho.
Alternate Energy Holdings Inc., which shifted its proposed plant from Owyhee County to a site near Hammett in early 2008, has asked for a comprehensive-plan amendment for a remote, 5,100-acre site in northern Payette County.
Company officials said in August that delays in the Elmore County process led them to consider other options, though spokesman Martin Johncox said Tuesday that AEHI is not leaving Elmore County.
"If we indeed want to build a nuclear power plant, we have to press forward, and that's what we're doing," Johncox said.
Nuclear developers have already looked at Payette County once recently. Billionaire investor Warren Buffett's MidAmerican Nuclear Energy abandoned a proposal at a different Payette County site in early 2008, saying it did not make economic sense.
County officials now face the same challenge Elmore and Owyhee officials did: Buffett's proposal was on state land, and this will be the first nuclear-plant application Payette has handled directly, said Payette County Planning and Zoning Administrator Mary Mejia. The plan amendment will require two public hearings, she said. AEHI officials would then need to submit a conceptual plan and go through more hearings to actually rezone the site.
The Elmore County application reached county commissioners this spring, but was remanded back to that county's P&Z. An extensive comprehensive-plan analysis and staff report is currently being reviewed by county staff and various attorneys, said Growth and Development Director Alan Christy. He also said he's offering advice to Payette County after officials contacted him with questions on Monday.
Johncox said AEHI is confident Payette County will work for them. But the Snake River Alliance, long a critic of the company, questioned right away why Gillispie thinks he can build a plant in the county where Buffett couldn't.
"Mr. Buffett had three things Mr. Gillispie lacks: Money, a proven energy track record and credibility among local residents," said Ken Miller, the group's energy program director, in a statement.
This is why the power companies so seldom build nuke plans. The obstacles are just overwhelming.
Which kind of plant do they want to build? GE, or Westinghouse?
Which kind of plant do they want to build? GE, or Westinghouse?
I'm not really sure.
But I waded through some links on their website, and finally came up with some information here:
Promising signs from Korea
I am currently travelling in Colorado but I wanted to update followers on some initiatives we have going. Alternate Energy Holdings Inc. is nearing a deal to bring the first Korean advanced reactor to the US for the Idaho nuclear project. This is an excellent design based on Combustion Engineering and Westinghouse designs first developed in the US. Also, the Koreans are some of best reactor operators in the world. This reactor will allow AEHI to produce the lowest cost power of any proposed US power plant including combined cycle gas, wind, solar, geothermal and clean coal. It will also stimulate investment money from Korea into our Idaho nuclear project. The MOU will be publicly announced in the near future.
Korea is all PWRs (I think they mught have had a Canadian Heavy Water Reactor back in the early days, but their big plants are all PWRs. They had licensing agreements with both Westinghouse and CE so whatever their design is now would be very similar to those. The never had any BWRs (the GE design).
Forgot to include a link.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf
The map is slightly dated. Check the link in post #8.
The had previously notified the NRC with the intent to use EPR design.
AEHI’s primary initiative is construction of the proposed Idaho Energy Complex (IEC). This dual-generation nuclear/biofuel facility will be unique to the energy industry, and more can be learned at IEC’s website: www.idahoenergycomplex.com. The recent Nuclear Provisions H.R. 6 Energy Policy Act of 2005 has created an ideal market atmosphere for the development of new plants. AEHI will be at the forefront of this opportunity as the first nuclear generating company in the U.S. and will easily outperform large nuclear and fossil type utilities with their inherent bureaucracy.
I found this little blurb at the AEHI website.
I've never heard of a "dual-generation nuclear/biofuel facility" before.
I suppose it could be a legit proposal, but something about it is making my tinfoil tingle.
Perhaps it's some kind of anti-nuke hijack and diversion project...
similar to many of the bogus high-speed rail and maglev projects I see being floated to sidetrack and derail the good ones.
Also see:
http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/doccontent.dll?library=PU_ADAMS^PBNTAD01&ID=092370181
Page 44, figure 24 for schedule
Page 45 for planning Application
Map on 46 still shows TBA
I’ve been poking around, and from the looks of it, this EPR design doesn’t seem to be significantly different from current Westinghouse reactors.
Is there more to it than I’ve found so far?
Sorry, I don’t know enough to describe the differences. I have not researched the EPR Design.
I did find this:
The EPR is the direct descendant of the well proven N4 and KONVOI reactors operated in France and Germany.
http://www.areva-np.com/scripts/info/publigen/content/templates/show.asp?P=863&L=US
The EPR is a descendant of the French N4 and German Konvoi nuclear reactors, both models currently In service. From the N4, the new reactor derives its designs for containment and the primary system, its instrumentation and control system, and its control room. The EPR’sin-core measurement system and four-train architecture are taken fromthe Konvoi.
http://www.memagazine.org/supparch/mepower/reactor/reactor.html
EPR still relies on active safety systems (pumps, motors, emergency diesels for AC power etc,) and relatively conventional construction practices while the AP1000 utilizes mostly passive systems -— gravity, pressure, convection etc and is a ‘modular design’ in that most of the plant systems will be factory built modules shipped by rail or barge and then assembled on site.
I found this.
http://www.areva-np.com/common/liblocal/docs/Brochure/EPR_US_%20May%202005.pdf
A quick look at it confirms my suspicions. There’s a lot of similarities to Westinghouse reactors. That’s not surprising considering the things you posted. After all, the French reactors were just knockoffs of the Westinghouse reactors. But the French couldn’t admit that anything American was better than theirs.
When I have more time, I’ll read this brochure closer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.