jump to navigation

Moving forward in Payette January 15, 2010

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Blue Castle Project, economic benefits, Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, Payette County.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

A little more than three years ago, I came to Idaho with a proposal to build a nuclear plant. After many  months and millions of dollars – much of it my own – Alternate Energy Holdings Inc. earned a significant success last night. The Payette County Planning and Zoning Commission voted 9 to 1 to recommend revising the county’s comprehensive plan to make way for our proposed nuclear plant; our next step is to apply to rezone the land. That’s pretty technical, but the bottom line is, we may now move forward with our plan to bring jobs, clean energy and prosperity to Payette County and beyond.

I congratulate the team, which has helped me over the years and remained loyal to this project through thick and thin. It has been a hard fight, but we have now established momentum. In the past couple of weeks, we have also successfully attained Over The Counter status in the stock exchange and I enjoyed a very productive period of negotiations with representatives of the Korean government to import reactors into the U.S.

As some of the Payette P and Z commissioners correctly noted, this is just the first step among many more to come and there will be plenty of initiatives ahead of us. In the coming months, we expect to hire dozens of people in Payette County to assist with initial site preparation, including electricians, earth movers, carpenters and laborers; we will keep people informed about this. Also, we will need to prepare incredibly detailed proposals about our plans, accounting or our impact on traffic, public services, revenue, jobs, air quality and many other issues.

Many eyes are on Payette and AEHI now. I predict our continued success will transform the utility and power plant development industries. I expect more small, purpose-built companies will form to develop power plants. Also, I think more utilities will seek to emulate this model to develop plants through their unregulated subsidiaries, to more efficiently provide power and fund new facilities with investor – not ratepayer – money. There are already two other investor companies looking at developing nuclear plants, in Utah and California, and I hope our success encourages them.


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: , , , , , , , , ,

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

Expanding opportunities August 6, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Elmore County, Energy policy, nuclear industry, Politics and nuclear.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

Anyone who knows me, knows I am not a complacent person. While our application in Elmore County remains in play as much as ever, it has been a year and we have no clear commitment from the county. Our duty to our stockholders, to our principles and to the people of Idaho requires us to move forward with consideration of other sites.


For 9:15 am

August 6, 2009

AEHI’s Idaho Nuclear Plant Offered Multiple Sites

Boise, Idaho, August 6, 2009 – Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (OTC: AEHI.PK): AEHI is pleased  to announce several Idaho counties and the state have recently offered lands for AEHI’s nuclear plant following delays in local approval at the current site in Elmore County.

AEHI CEO and president Don Gillispie said, “It is certainly exciting to have so many in Idaho recognize the tremendous benefits of a next generation, environmentally friendly nuclear plant including high paying jobs, great tax revenue; and abundant, low cost, clean power in a region that is critically short on base load energy options. Elmore County’s delay has created a friendly competition for our plant. We are now looking at two additional sites outside of the current county that may actually receive local approval before the existing site.”

AEHI’s site engineering contractor is completing their assessments so we can move forward in a timely manner on these new nuclear plant locations.

Also, the company has also been in contact with several non-nuclear utilities who are considering nuclear plants instead of continuing to invest in the rising cost of carbon plants going forward and need nuclear experienced partners.

“This is likely to be an increasing trend as primarily fossil based utilities realize nuclear is the only viable option for clean base load power today. While nuclear prices are affordable and stable, fossil-fuel prices continue to rise dramatically and fewer carbon base load plants negatively impacts reliability for their customers,” says Gillispie.

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 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.

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:



Snake River Alliance does Idaho no favors June 3, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Agriculture, anti-renewable energy, economic benefits, Greenfield nuclear development, Mountain Home News, renewable energy, Snake River Alliance.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

[We submitted this opinion to the Mountain Home news last month but space constraints kept it from being published.]

Democracy gives people a lot of latitude in how to get something done, or to stop it from being done. The events over the last few weeks have been really useful in showing how we and the Snake River Alliance differ on those counts. Heat doesn’t substitute for light and even a group as prickly as the Snake River Alliance should know that a civil tone will help public discussion of important issues like energy.

Our efforts to prepare for the April 20 rezone hearing were aboveboard and successful. We launched a public information campaign to let people know about our table to collect resumes and letters of interest and around 500 showed up and wore stickers supporting AEHI. I spoke at clubs, groups, associations, business and anywhere else people would have me, and not all of these venues were friendly.

We collected 1,600 signatures through much hard work going door-to-door, going to food lines, going to workplaces, going to places the SRA wouldn’t bother going. We produced an informational video and mailed it to each household in Elmore County. We sent a letter to every resident of Hammett to address their specific concerns. We launched a traditional advertising campaign and used the new tools of social media to get the word out.

In contrast, the Snake River Alliance prepared for the rezone hearing with bizarre and unethical gimmicks. A week or so before the hearing, the SRA complained to the Glenns Ferry Police Department that I shoved SRA employee Liz Woodruff at a March 10 Glenns Ferry City Council meeting – in a room full of the public, city officials and police officers, no less! The authorities did their duty and, after interviewing me and other people, found the accusation without merit. Clearly, the SRA was fishing for an “October surprise” a week before the rezone hearing, hoping to smear my reputation and throw the meeting into disarray.

These shenanigans have no place in public policy. It probably didn’t help the SRA that Mrs. Woodruff on March 24 publicly apologized to the Glenns Ferry City Council for her childish behavior at that March 10 council meeting, where she sought to disrupt my presentation.

All this is relevant because it speaks to the SRA’s involvement in the public process. As hard as they try to keep a veneer of civility, they openly and behind-the-scenes do what they can do disrupt the local process. Apparently, they were able to restrain themselves more or less for the rezone hearing, but they and their supporters formed “groups” to get more speaking time. Then, individual members of the “groups” spoke, violating the principle the county established for recognizing groups .

Clearly, the SRA does best when surrounded by supporters and friends, but their thin-skinned nature leads them to do some strange things. For example, sometimes the SRA seems immune to common sense. To emphasize that nuclear plants are a good fit with rural areas, we showed pictures of cows grazing a stone’s throw from nuclear plants and Andrea Shipley’s response was to say “the property at issue is not grazed by cows” (actually, cows graze the only adjacent private land). As the SRA well knows, our plant would take up around 200 acres, with the remainder of the 1,300 acre parcel to remain farmland.

To say our plant would “upend surrounding ag uses” is preposterous. For the real story on how our plant would affect the area, see my open letter to the citizens of Hammett at http://www.cleanidahoenergy.wordpress.com. There are plenty of photos of nuclear plants surrounded by hayfields, wildlife habitat, estuaries and near small towns (yes, we’re well aware there are no estuaries in Elmore County).

In the face of our campaign, the SRA says the jobs will never materialize – but the SRA is working as hard as it can to stop the jobs from ever materializing. We’ve already put 100 Idahoans to work and as long as investors continue to fund us, that’s their concern, not the SRA’s. They say we haven’t finalized enough details about our plant, but you know if we had every detail plotted out they’d complain we were being presumptuous. At this stage, we are simply seeking to rezone the land, yet they chide us for not having each and every aspect of our plant finalized.

Speaking of our business, Ms. Shipley breathlessly states the obvious in quoting our SEC report, which says “AEHI has limited funds and such funds will not be adequate to carry out the business plan without borrowing significant funds. The ultimate success of AEHI may depend upon its ability to raise additional capital … and it could fail.” OK, so we openly admit don’t have enough money to build a nuclear reactor and need more investment to build it. So? Utilities, developers, companies and anyone else building anything must seek investment capital as well.

Ms. Shipley is either uneducated about start-up public companies, or she is seeking to misrepresent our funding picture. We are the only publicly owned company in the nation seeking to build an independent nuclear power plant; traditional utilities, for whatever reasons, haven’t constructed enough power plants and we are stepping up to meet the demand. Like any other start-up, we seek investment for what we propose. If we get it, we may succeed, and if we don’t, we fail. Anyone who has run a business, or who is not terribly out-of-touch with business, understands that.

The Snake River Alliance’s contempt for working people is evident in its own site, as well as those of supporters. Among the drawbacks of our plant, according to the SRA’s Jan. 9 news release, would be “thousands of construction workers” in Elmore County (http://tinyurl.com/qxgnm9). I guess if someone has a problem with construction workers, that would be a concern, but to people who are willing to work hard and get something built, it’s an insult. Or, this gem from http://tinyurl.com/p43rar, refers this way to people who came to our table: “To what degree will these curbside applicants feel like darned fools?”

If this is the best the Snake River Alliance can offer, it has grossly underestimated our tenacity, the depth of our support and the necessity of our enterprise.

Ms. Shipley claimed I am “obsessed with counting stickers” but that is the closest she comes to acknowledging the truth: People at the meeting were overwhelmingly supportive of the rezone and the SRA’s vaunted community organizing efforts didn’t produce much in that regard. The best Ms. Shipley can do is to discount our efforts to create jobs and say the jobs won’t come soon enough, or at all, or they won’t be for Elmore residents – while simultaneously doing all she can to stop the jobs from ever coming. Tactically, the SRA was out-hustled, but that in itself means nothing as the ultimate measure of success lies with the Elmore County Commission.

Most valuable are the resumes of hundreds of highly qualified, hardworking Idahoans we collected and hope to call on as soon as we can. They and thousands of other supporters hope we prevail over the SRA and its newfound allies.

Anti-nukes use another two-faced approach when they say nuclear power shouldn’t be pursued because we have no place to store or reprocess the waste, but then they work against storage and reprocessing solutions. It’s worth pointing out Areva is planning for reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in the US (http://tinyurl.com/pwfblo). The firm recently shared with bloggers its conceptual thinking about a 800 ton/year plant which it says is the answer to apparent end of the Yucca Mountain repository project.

Given the traditional antagonism between environmental groups like the SRA and agriculture, it is not surprising Ms. Shipley is out of touch with ag issues. News alert for Ms. Shipley: Farming in Idaho is largely constrained by the high cost of water, because pumping that water is becoming increasingly expensive. Irrigators currently pay close to 4 cents per kilowatt hour, but Idaho Power is asking for an 11.1 percent increase in that rate. Many farmers spend thousands of dollars a month on power costs. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, it costs 1.8 cents to produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity with nuclear power, and that power is produced more than 90 percent of the time (http://tinyurl.com/2pgc8k).

This kind of reliable low-cost power is exactly what high-lift irrigators and other farmers need to stay economically competitive. According to the American Wind Energy Association, wind costs around 5 cents per kilowatt hour (http://tinyurl.com/kyg8u) with federal subsidies – when it’s blowing, which is around 20 percent of the time on average. Ms. Shipley should know business can’t operate under those power terms; we only make it work by importing half our energy for out-of-state coal plants.

It strains belief that Ms. Shipley would claim “Idaho is not out of power … Idaho has ample electricity resources.” Perhaps she should tell that laughable claim to the two major employers who bypassed southern Idaho in 2007 because Idaho Power couldn’t provide electricity! Surely, she is just as disappointed as the rest of us about the loss of those jobs.

The fact that Idaho imports half its energy is proof enough that we need to develop our own dispatchable baseload resources in-state. It’s no secret that Idaho Power hasn’t developed a base-load power plant in Idaho in at least 30 years, choosing instead buying shares in out-of-state coal plants. I really can’t blame them; after getting a taste of the difficulty in developing a power plant, I can see why Idaho Power has evidently given up on new baseload power in Idaho.

That brings me to my next point, which is that energy developers of all kinds are facing a harder time getting anything built, and no advocacy groups are stepping forward to support them. As you read this, dozens of rural landowners want to “curb enthusiasm for” and ultimately kill plans to plant wind turbines and string a green-field power line segment across the northern Laramie Range in Wyoming (http://tinyurl.com/polydc). The Northern Laramie Range Alliance is fighting wind energy, which the Snake River Alliance points to as the future of energy generation.

Something tells me the Snake River Alliance and its allies won’t be showing up to help these wind power developers – or anyone who’s trying to build a power plant.

Idaho ranks near bottom of Western states preparing to add generation capacity May 26, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in approval process, economic benefits, Greenfield nuclear development, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

We sent out this news release this morning. As the only company proposing to build a baseload power plant in Idaho, we understand the urgency for more power generation.

Idaho ranks near bottom of Western states preparing to add generation capacity

Study of federal statistics shows Idaho will add just 412 megawatts by 2011, well below numbers for other states

May 26, 2009

For more information, contact
Martin Johncox, 208-658-9100
Jennie Ransom, 208-939-9311
Web: www.alternateenergyholdings.com
Facebook: http://groups.to/nuclear
Blog: www.cleanidahoenergy.wordpress.com

Idaho is ill-prepared to face its future energy needs, according to a study of proposed power plants compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Agency (USEIA).

Between 2008 and 2012, Idaho is scheduled to bring on line 412 megawatts of energy, mostly from natural gas, putting it third from the bottom among the 11 Western states. Idaho’s doing a bit better, however: last year, Idaho ranked dead last among the Western states. This year, some proposed natural gas facilities pushed Idaho’s ranking beyond that of Utah and Montana, which have seen some projects cancelled.

California is the most energy-ambitious state, with 10,416 MW of power proposed to be developed by 2012, followed by Colorado at 2,289 MW. Already, Idaho imports half its electricity, mostly from coal-burning plants in Wyoming and Nevada.

Don Gillispie, president and CEO of Alternate Energy Holdings Inc., praised the state’s efforts to put a higher priority on energy generation. AEHI is seeking to build an advanced nuclear reactor in Elmore County These. Gillispie pointed to the Idaho Department of Commerce hiring a person to work full-time on promoting energy generation in the state and Gov. Otter establishing an Office of Energy Policy directly under him as signs that Idaho leaders take energy development seriously.

Nevertheless, Gillispie said the low ranking shows Idaho needs to start planning seriously for its energy future. Gillispie noted his plant is the only large base-load plant currently proposed for Idaho. At the same time, the USEIA forecasts energy demand in the U.S. will grow by 42 percent by 2030. In late 2007, two major employers announced they were bypassing southern Idaho because utilities couldn’t provide them with enough electricity and Hoku Materials has been having trouble finding sufficient energy for its polysilicon facility near Pocatello.

“Idaho has about 1,100 megawatts of in-state generating capacity and it took us nearly a century to build it up,” Gillispie said. “If we’re going to provide for our future energy needs, we’ve really got to get on the ball and start adding capacity.”

The AEHI reactor, proposed for Elmore County, isn’t included in USEIA listings because it’s still in the preliminary stages and the plant will start generating electricity in 2016 at the soonest. Gillispie has notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of his intent to build a reactor.

Gillispie also said much of the power expected to be produced in Idaho in the USEIA report could be sold out-of-state. For example, the Goshen II wind farm, recently approved for construction in Bonneville County, has already agreed to sell its wind to Southern California utilities for the next 20 years. Gillispie has consistently pledged to offer electricity from his proposed plant to Idaho utilities. Gillispie also said his proposed plant, the Idaho Energy Complex, could power all the homes in Idaho three times over, meaning there will be plenty of electricity to meet in-state needs and also to sell to neighboring states.

“Our opponents are concerned our power may be sold out-of-state but looking at the current trend, it’s much more likely we will be forced to import even more of our power, paying increased transmission and production costs to out-of-state utilities,” Gillispie said. “More than ever, we need the reliable, non-polluting, high-volume energy that nuclear produces.”

According to the USEIA figures, the 11 Western states are scheduled to bring on line nearly 22,000 MW of power between 2008 and 2012, up from 20,000 MW between 2007 and 2011; most of the energy will come from natural gas. A megawatt is enough energy to power about 850 homes (fewer in times of high demand and more in times of lower demand), not counting agriculture, industry or commerce.

Idaho imports half its energy, while California imports just 22 percent of its energy. Much of Idaho’s imported energy comes from coal plants in Wyoming and Nevada owned by Idaho Power. Idaho gets about 1 percent of its electricity from the nuclear Hanford Generating Station in Washington.

Idaho looks a little better on a per-capita basis, adding about 294 watts per person between 2008 and 2012, based on a current population of 1.4 million. By comparison, California will be adding about 274 watts per person during that time, based on a current population of 38 million.

Idahoans use more electricity, however. On a per-capita basis, Idahoans in 2003 used 15,510 kilowatt-hours (12th highest in the nation and second among Western states), compared to 6,732 kWh per person in California (lowest in the nation); see www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/us_percapita_electricity_2003.html. Idaho has a high concentration of agriculture and computer hardware manufacturing, which demand large amounts of electricity.

Gillispie and other analysts said the power supply operates on a regional basis. The more regional supply increases relative to demand, the more downward pressure there will be on prices. So, even if an energy plant exports electricity across state lines, that will increase regional supply and help keep prices lower.

ABOUT THE IDAHO ENERGY COMPLEX: The Idaho Energy Complex (www.alternateenergyholdings.com) will be a large advanced nuclear reactor with low cooling water requirements located about 65 miles southeast of Boise, in Elmore County. The Elmore County Commission is expected to decide in June or July on an application from the company to rezone land for the reactor

Current table: Megawatts of electrical generation planned by year for each Western state,2008-2012























































New Mexico




























Previous table: Megawatts of electrical generation planned by year for each Western state, 2007-2011


































New Mexico

















































Source: United States Energy Information Agency table at www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/planned_capacity_state.xls released Jan. 29, 2009

Open letter to the people of Hammett April 15, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Agriculture, approval process, economic benefits, Elmore County, Greenfield nuclear development, rural nuclear, Water policy.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

We recently sent this letter to the people of Hammett, as they are the closest town to our power plant.

April 7, 2009

Dear Hammett resident,

As you know, my company, Alternate Energy Holdings Inc., is proposing to build a nuclear power plant near your town. If the Elmore County Commission approves our rezone request April 22, it will mean some changes for all of Elmore County and Hammett. There has been some concern about how a nuclear plant will affect the rural lifestyle of Elmore County so I want to explain some things to you in this letter about my company’s intentions and goals.

Nuclear plants may seem large, but they produce lots of power in a relatively small area. To generate the same amount of power, for example, a wind farm would need to cover about 100 times the area of a nuclear plant with 40-story-tall turbines and thousands of miles of access roads (and only produce electricity less than 20 percent of the time, compared to 92 for nuclear). Our plant will emit no odors, dust or noise, be well-landscaped and have a low profile, with none of those large cooling towers.

I know people are concerned about water. Any water our plant uses will have to come from existing water rights, whose holders willingly provide us with water, with fair compensation. Old-style nuclear plants consume up to 30 million of gallons a day, but our plant will use a hybrid cooling system, using heat sinks and fans to cool water. When water is scarce, a hybrid plant can throttle back its consumption greatly, spending an extra one-half to 1.5 percent of its power output to cool itself. If nuclear plants are to be possible in dry places, new approaches will have to be used.

What does a power plant mean for Hammett residents? There will be growing pains as the plant is built, but it will last 60 or more years, providing high paying job opportunities for young people to remain in the community. If you earn your living in the local economy, the plant will bring business opportunities. If your livelihood is tied to the regional or national economies, you will see expanded opportunities from low power costs. For example, Idaho farmers can’t compete without low cost electricity.

We are looking to acquire rights up to 10 million gallons a day but our hybrid cooling system will keep our net consumption of water between 100,000 and 1 million gallons a day (about as much as 140 acres of irrigated land). We are looking at the possibility of renting water – since we won’t actually have to consume much water, we can use it for cooling and return it to farmers. The warmer water could potentially extend the growing season up to two weeks each direction and give farmers another source of income. Winter greenhouses would be another beneficiary of abundant hot water.

Low-cost power built on coal and hydro sustains Idaho’s agricultural industry, but coal is on the way out and hydro is maxed out. To maintain current farming, and to bring more idle ground into production, we need low-cost power. Now only nuclear can provide that same low cost power. As a public company, Idahoans hold the majority of our stock. We are literally vested in Idaho and we want to be good neighbors.

Several people have asked me how I would feel if a nuclear power plant was proposed next to my home. If I were someone who had devoted their life to a place, living and working and raising a family there, I would understandably be concerned at the changes the plant would bring to a place I had known all my life. I might even oppose the plant if it were close enough to be prominently seen as an industrial facility or was noisy or emitted an odor, but this plant won’t do any of that. At the very least, I would want to know what the developer would do to ensure the plant would be a good neighbor, pay its fair share and give back to the community. Any large construction project will create some inconvenience on a community and any good developer will fairly compensate the people who live there, and then some.

We are proposing the following if our plant is built. These are standard things that good companies should do during construction, and to give back to the community:

  • A committee to oversee service needs. This committee would be a partnership of local officials, neighbors and plant representatives. It would examine demands that construction would place on fire, schools, housing, roads, administration, etc., and make recommendations for meeting those needs, including what compensation the plant would need to make to keep services well-funded.
  • Direct infrastructure funding. Nuclear plants typically pay for fire stations, vehicles, equipment, road improvements, etc., necessary to serve the plant and benefit the community.
  • Payment of local property taxes. This could involve paying money directly to the county to reduce the bill for all taxpayers, or focusing tax relief on the neighbors most closely affected. Building the plant will put thousands to work but will also burden residents somewhat in the short-run. These payments would be intended to compensate people for any potential disruption to their lives.
  • Local scholarships. Elmore County would receive scholarships to study sciences at colleges of their choice. We hope these promising young people would come back to Elmore County and maybe even work at our plant. But our main incentive would be to fulfill the responsibility of technology industries to help the next generation of engineers and scientists.
  • Job training. Most jobs at a nuclear plant don’t require a college degree, but they require specialized training. We propose to pay the full costs of Elmore County residents who earn training certification, or college degrees, and who commit to work at our plant.
  • A community center. County residents would need to discuss where this could be constructed. I think Hammett could be a good location if people there want it. This would be a place for neighborhood meetings, youth programs, training and local government meetings. For security reasons, access to nuclear plants is highly restricted, so this could be a place where neighbors could meet with plant representatives to discuss problems and opportunities.

America currently has 104 nuclear reactors, most of them in rural areas, where they are quiet, clean and compact. American nuclear plants bring jobs, greater prosperity and preserve the rural way of life. For example, In 2005 – after nearly 50 years of commercial nuclear power – a Bisconti poll found 83 percent living close to nuclear plants favor nuclear energy. The survey only questioned residents within 10 miles of an operating nuclear plant also found that 85 percent give the nearest nuclear power plant a “high” safety rating, and that 88 percent are confident that the company operating the power plant can do so safely.

Thank you for your time and please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, 939-9311 or info@aehipower.com. We look forward to seeing you at the County Commission meeting on Wednesday, April 22, at 6 p.m. in the Mountain Home Junior High School auditorium. If any of you are interested in learning more about jobs at the plant, we will be taking letters of interest and resumes. You can also see our site at http://www.alternateenergyholdings.com or http://www.cleanidahoenergy.wordpress.com.

Don Gillispie


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.

Idaho’s leading business organization endorses Elmore County nuclear plant December 17, 2008

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, approval process, Elmore County, Politics and nuclear, rural nuclear, Snake River Alliance, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , ,
1 comment so far

The Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, representing 300 businesses and employers in Idaho, has endorsed the Idaho Energy Complex and urged local officials in Elmore County to approve our request to rezone land for the 1,600-megawatt nuclear plant.

“Elmore County and the State of Idaho must focus on a diverse mix of resources in our energy infrastructure,” states the letter. “Nuclear energy should be a part of that equation, as it bring a safe and clean alternative to Idaho’s base load along with significant economic opportunities for Idahoans to secure high-paying jobs.”

Needless to say, I am pleased at the endorsement. IACI is the voice of business in Idaho and has consistently taken positions that advance the economic interests of Idahoans and the businesses that employ them. We look forward to becoming one of Idaho’s major employers and furthering our relationship with IACI as we develop our plant.

The endorsement contributes to the increasing marginalization of opponents such as the Snake River Alliance. Both presidential candidates, Idaho’s governor, most legislators, the entire Congressional delegation and but one Idaho congressional candidate (Pro-Life) support nuclear energy.

Anti-nuke groups are finding themselves more and more on the fringe economically, politically and scientifically. Our opponents suggest we should put all our eggs in the renewable basket, but extremist policy and over-the-top rhetoric aren’t going to provide the jobs and energy Idaho and our nation desperately need. Until the Snake River Alliance comes up with a plan to put people to work, they should heed IACI’s advice.

Mark your calendars for Wednesday, Oct. 8 October 3, 2008

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, approval process, Elmore County, Politics and nuclear, Snake River Alliance.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

On Wednesday, Oct. 8, our project to build a 1,600-megawatt nuclear power plant in Idaho takes its first significant step toward approval. We will begin a series of four public hearings before the Elmore County Planning and Zoning Commission. We have requested Elmore County rezone 1,280 acres of land from agricultural to industrial, to allow the eventual submission of a Conditional Use Permit application. The P and Z commission will make a recommendation to the Elmore County Board of County Commissioners, which will have final say.

I am very sorry that I won’t be able to attend this meeting. Some months ago I scheduled travel on important business related to AEHI, based on hearings happening in September. Land use decisions can be complex and the county has needed to change its meeting dates to accommodate public comment, so I find I cannot attend. But our application will be in good hands with Mark Pecchenino, and Idaho land use consultant who is spearheading our presentation, and company spokesman Martin Johncox, who will be available to answer general questions.

Hearings on the rezone are all on Wednesdays, Oct. 8, 22, 29 and Nov. 5. All meetings will begin at 6:30 p.m. in the Mountain Home Junior High School Gymnasium, 1600 E 6th South. If you are able to, I urge you to attend these meetings, particularly the Oct. 8 meeting, and voice your support. It should pointed out this meeting is limited in scope, only to address the issues surrounding rezoning the property. When we get to the CUP application, we will be expected to submit detailed information on our reactor type, environmental impacts and a great many other things.

The Oct. 15 and 21 meetings are set aside specifically for opposition and we expect to hear lots of it. Unfortunately, when people support something, they’re usually complacent, but when they oppose something, they get riled up enough to come to a public hearing. I think that dynamic is one of the reasons why our country has fallen so far behind on energy generation, transmission lines, infrastructure and economic prosperity. I believe the silent majority supports us, but in terms of the planning and zoning commission, they must also consider what they hear from people who are motivated enough, for whatever reasons, to show up or submit a letter.

So, if you support our proposal for a power plant in Elmore County, please come to the Oct. 8 meeting and let your voice be heard.