-
1 of 10
-
2 of 10
-
3 of 10
-
4 of 10
-
5 of 10
-
6 of 10
-
7 of 10
-
8 of 10
-
9 of 10
-
10 of 10
Will Boise become the new Springfield?
Archive
Comments
Story
The Idaho Energy Complex, a nuclear reactor, is planning to start construction as soon as 2011. While having many opponents to nuclear energy as a reliable, safe energy source, the plant could supply huge amounts of money into Idaho’s economy and contribute a large amount of power to our very energy-reliant state. In addition, many of the stigmas surrounding nuclear power plants are based on myth and misinformation.
The Idaho Energy Complex will be a 1,600-megawatt, $4.5 billion advanced nuclear reactor located about 65 miles southeast of Boise, in Owyhee County. This could be a huge boon to Idaho; the state ranks 12th in the country with 15,510 kWh per capita according to the California Energy Commission. Idaho only plans on producing 337 more megawatts of energy per year by 2011, the lowest of the 11 western states, cites the United States Energy Information Agency. As Idaho imports half of its total energy use from the surrounding states, this could potentially be an economic drain. However, nuclear energy is the second cheapest source of power (behind hydro-electric) at only 1.7 cents a kilowatt.
The IEC issued a press release, which stated that one reactor at the Idaho Energy Complex would add $2.6 billion to Idaho’s economy, and would increase it by nearly 6 percent, according to an economic study released Nov. 28, 2007. The operation will generate $74 million in state tax revenues a year, once the 1,600-megawatt reactor reaches full production.
“During the four years of construction the first reactor, the IEC will be one of the largest private employers in Idaho,” Don Gillispie, president and CEO of the IEC said. “In the decades after that, the IEC will remain a mainstay of Idaho’s economy – you can be sure we won’t offshore to Asia. We will be
here to stay.”
Many opponents to the use of nuclear power fear reactor meltdown and deadly radioactivity escaping into the surrounding environment. However, Brad Arendt, current General Manager of the Arbiter and previously a Nuclear Electrician for the Navy for 6 years believes nuclear power may be a safe option. “I wouldn’t say I’m an advocate, the problem is people arguing that nuclear power isn’t safe. The U.S. Navy [has] been operating [nuclear] power plants safely from the 50s,” Arendt said. “The odds of a power plant blowing up if you look at history are really slim.” In fact Arendt states that most infamous nuclear reactor occurrences are misunderstood. “Hanford was never designed to generate nuclear power. Hanford was designed to make [the fuel] for nuclear bombs. The Three-Mile Island incident happened on the other side of the reactor from the reactor compartment.” The most nefarious nuclear reactor accident in history was due to poor reactor design. “Chernobyl was a different kind of plant . than the water-cooled ones over here. Chernobyl, instead of using water, used liquid metal.” Radioactive emissions are minimal from a reactor due to the housing design. “I would receive more radiation in a day working in a brick building than working in a reactor,” Arendt recalls.
Arendt says people are asking the wrong questions. “If people are going to talk about nuclear power and if they want it in Idaho, being safe is a waste of discussion.” Arendt believes debate should focus on what the power is going to be used for and how cheap it will be to the consumer. “Are we producing energy for people in California?” Arendt asked. He also believes it is very important that the waste is
handled properly.
Accidental contamination due to inappropriate handling and disposal of waste materials is a valid concern. The IEC addresses this fear on its Website, “New processing technologies under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership will allow the U.S. to reprocess spent fuel rods into a form that can be reused in a reactor (commonly done in other countries). The fuel rods still have 95 percent of the potential energy after the first cycle, and within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from a reactor. In effect, nuclear power can have no ‘waste’ at all.”
Having this power plant in Idaho will bring additional economic and environmental effects to the state. The IEC plans on building a biofuels plant next to the nuclear facility. It plans on using excess heat to help create alternate energy sources such as ethanol. This would eliminate the use of much of the fossil fuel energy put into the processing of ethanol, thus lowering the environmental impact associated with production and nearly negating the negative benefits of the renewable energy source. Local farmers would gain another market to sell crops and stubble to this plant.
While nuclear power has many public opponents, most facts lead to the fact that it is a cheap, clean, efficient source of energy. Idaho, far behind most states in its energy usage-to-production ratio, could potentially benefit greatly from the production of this plant.
For more information about nuclear power and the IEC, check out its Website at idahoenergycomplex.com.
MATT ALMEIDA
BizTech Writer
