21 companies can't be wrong:
Nuclear plants remain profitable
for those committed to success
The Arbiter (Boise, Idaho, State University
Guest Opinion
Feb. 19, 2008
We hear a lot about global warming and greenhouse gasses from fossil power plants. You can thank extreme environmentalists for that, since their rabid opposition to nuclear left us no other choice to provide reliable, affordable electricity. Yet coal's days are numbered and even natural gas emits about half the CO2 of coal and drives up the cost of heating. What are we to do?
The U.S. Energy Information Agency predicts demand for energy will grow 40 percent by 2030. Wind farms, when they aren't killing birds, work 17 percent of the time, solar works 25 percent, hydro 30 percent and all take huge tracts of land and face stiff opposition when proposed. Idaho's Raft River geothermal plant was recently approved to sell electricity for 61 cents a kilowatt hour, more than 10 times Idaho Power's average residential rate.
Nuclear power, on the other hand, needs little area to produce massive amounts of energy and does it with 90 percent reliability, zero greenhouse gasses, very little waste (all of it low-level and recyclable) and all for about three cents per kilowatt hour. The American nuclear industry's stellar safety record over 50 years is one of the reasons why, according to a recent poll, 70 percent of Americans and an increasing number of mainstream environmentalists are supporting it.
It is no surprise that companies are lining up to build nuclear plants. Since 2005, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received applications for at least 21 reactors, representing some $60 billion to $80 billion in value (that's not counting the Idaho Energy Complex, proposed for Owyhee County). While renewables still receive the heaviest government subsidies (but return the fewest kilowatts), recent changes to federal energy policy are leveling the field.
Oddly, some people claim the recent decision by MidAmerican to end plans for a nuclear plant in Payette County really means the entire industry is doomed. Warren Buffet ultimately made the decision and who are mere mortals to question his business savvy?
While nuclear plants are quite profitable when operating, the overwhelming commitment to build one is not for the skittish or those wanting immediate investment rewards. I think Buffet, a newcomer to the nuclear energy field, realized he was in for a long haul and left to look for easier profits. I know I am right because there more than 21 other companies eagerly building plants.
Also, we know our site is the perfect place for a reactor. Preliminary studies show our site has stable geology and we have more than enough water rights for our dry-type reactors. Mountain Home Air Force Base is nearby, making it quite secure.
Due to the extraordinary technical and regulatory factors involved in nuclear power, a development team with considerable experience is necessary for success. The board of Alternate Energy Holdings, the parent company of the IEC, has nearly 200 years of combined experience in the development, operation and regulation of nuclear power plants. Buffet is a great investor, but nuclear industry experience is earned, not bought.
Also, it's duplicitous for nuclear opponents - a few of whom hold official positions - to do all they can to drive up the cost of nuclear plants, then turn around and claim nuclear power is too expensive. It's also duplicitous for them to label nuclear energy developers as greedy merchants, then claim their plants can never be profitable. Which is it?
The American nuclear power industry has a strong record of safety and efficiency and a bright future. We are doing our part and remain committed to meeting the energy needs of Idaho, the west and nation.
Don Gillispie is president and CEO of Alternate Energy Holdings Inc., which is seeking the build the Idaho Energy Complex, a 1,600-megawatt advanced nuclear reactor near Bruneau (
www.idahoenergycomplex.com).
