Idaho's impending power and water crisis: a nuclear plant in our future? (Boise: environment)

[Anchorless]

I'm sure most Idahoans know the story of how Sempra tried to get a coal-burning power plant built in Southern Idaho, and strong public opinion sent them packing.

The news is that Idaho is at the forefront of developing nuclear power plants, (of all things) primarily to sell the energy to neighboring states.

Boise Guardian: Idaho Nukes For California Consumers?

(read the comments as well)

These comments from Dr. Peter Rickard were particularly compelling:

...But please let me share part of my technical comments submitted for the recent EIS on the plan to do all the deadly reprocessing of the world's spent nuclear fuel, right here in Idaho.
Moderator cut: do not repost copyrighted material.

Coal?

Aside from Sempra, there is supposedly plans for three more coal-fired plants. I'm looking for more information to post.

Water?

Anyone been following the recent water litigation case, and the articles in the Statesman about the plight of the Boise River?

11:43 a.m. -- Judge says he could order dams to drain more water to help fish | Eyepiece | Idaho Statesman (broken link)

Boise River: Water for fish or for farms? | Environment | Idaho Statesman

Water hearing will affect users statewide | News Updates | Idaho Statesman

-------

I think this is a very precarious time for Idaho. The increased growth means increased demand upon our resources and increased demand for power. Obviously our current infrastructure cannot handle this, and the current plans seem to be completely shortsighted and ridiculous.

Something has to change, and it has to be now!

I urge you all to become more versed in these issues. If you have information or commentary of interest regarding the power and water crisis our state is or will face, or information regarding renewable energy please post it here.

And start writing your congressman, mayors, or the Governor - do whatever you can to keep Idaho free of nuclear and coal-fired power plants, and to keep our water clean and flowing free.

Thanks.

[jufrbo]

I am all for nuclear power. It's clean, safe, and it can be used to sell, at a time while power is at a premium. Peoples fears of nuclear power are unfounded. This is not the USSR and our plants will not be chernobyl. For years much of Western Europe has gotten its power from nuclear with no reprocussions. The media has played on the understandable fears of the public. The powers that be demand clean energy, well here it is. Go nuclear.

[SergeantL]

I would like to make a few comments on this topic. First, the burial of nuclear waste, such as spent uranium rods or plutonium is slated for Nevada, well, if the endless numbers of alphabet regulatory government agencies ever agree; otherwise, nuclear waste will continue to rest in insecure open pools around the nation. This has already created a problem in California, where Pacific Gas and Electric can’t find some rods that should have been in one of their pools. No, radioactive waste is slated for burial in Idaho.

Next, Idaho could in fact become a state where nuclear waste is reprocessed. Given the current technology, I am reasonably certain this poses little risk to the population or environment. It is certainly less dangerous than what we are now doing, which is nothing, by several orders of magnitude.

Geothermal is in fact a potential energy source, but I can provide proof that the scientist are incorrect in their statements it can provide all the power this country needs. Geothermal is not an inexhaustible energy source. As an example: In Sonoma County, California, Cal Pine energy controls the Geysers Geothermal Energy Project. The steam produced by the project has steadily declined over the years. The City of Santa Rosa now must pump highly treated wastewater to the Geysers Project to replenish the steam fields. The cost of this project is significant, it is unknown how even highly treated wastewater in the substrate will affect the environment, and there has been a measurable increase in seismic activity since water injection began.

Geothermal does produce greenhouse gasses. Any claims it does not are ridiculous. Two of the most common greenhouse gasses produced by geysers are sulfur dioxide SO2 and carbon dioxide CO2, and no amount of scrubbing can eliminate them. Also understand, in times of drought when ground water levels will decrease, Idaho or any state could not be guaranteed sufficient steam pressure to generate the needed electricity.

States could begin mandating solar panels on all new construction. Of course, this would increase the cost of housing, but it would be offset over time through energy savings. In states such as Idaho where northern latitude light angles and snow would reduce solar efficiency, solar would still need supplemental sources.

[jufrbo]

I think that building houses with personal solar would be a great idea. Even if it only means not paying a power bill. I don't know how practical it is though because of the cost.

[DESERTRYDER]

nuclear power in Idaho sounds great.
Affordable power supply and Great paying High tech jobs for a state that could use some.

If California had half a brain they would be building a new nuclear plant in Fresno right now and keeping the money spent on out of state electricity right there in it's own pocket.

[zedd]

I agree that nuclear power is an option our nation (and Idaho) must consider. We bemoan our nation's dependence on foreign oil, look at our own depleting oil and natural gas reserves, avoid coal because it's dirty - what's left to power this place? I don't think its feasible right now to power this entire country with hydro, solar, wind, and geothermal power.

Nuclear power is definitely a flawed technology at best; the waste problem and the small chance for a catastrophic accident being the most obvious flaws. But I think this country needs to get over its nuclear-phobia. 25 years ago this country abandoned nuclear and decided to import more and more oil. That isn't an option anymore; world oil production is stagnating. If we have any hope of maintaining our standard of living, we must consider all alternatives, including nuclear power. Thus I support the proposed nuclear plants and hope they become a reality.

The water crisis is another topic. The gist of the supplied article seems to be involve fish as a proxy for political wrangling Idaho (upstream) and Oregon/Washington (downstream). I feel that situation must be managed with the best interests of all in mind, but I don't know whether that judge is attempting to do that with his threats.

I find it interesting that the original poster used the phrase "keep our water clean and flowing free". To me that suggests advocacy of dam breaching and avoidance of hydroelectric power. I understand the appeal of this from a fishery perspective, but unless we want to roll back the clock to 1800, the power has to come from somewhere.

[CafeDelSol]

Nuclear is the only realistic option for producing the enormous power required without polluting the entire planet. Solar and wind are great as a supplement but there is no realistic way they can provide all our energy needs. Nuclear plants can also provide the high temperatures needed for large scale hydrogen production. We WILL be converting to a hydrogen economy eventually and nuclear is the only way it's going to happen. A nuclear plant produces only a tiny fraction of the waste products of a comparably size coal plant. The waste can be easily dealt with using current technologies.
And a little fact the fossil fuel advocates don't like to advertise - people living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to much HIGHER radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations! In fact the effective dose equivalent from a coal plant is about 100 times that from a nuclear plant. The main sources of radiation released from coal combustion include uranium, thorium and the daughter products produced by the decay of these isotopes, such as radium, radon, polonium, bismuth, and lead. This is in addition to all the greenhouse gases, sludge and ash that must be dealt with in a coal plant. And don't forget all the thousands of people who have died and more that will die in the mining process.

As for geothermal, there are two types. One is using hot springs as a heat source. This obviously can't be used on a wide scale since there aren't enough hot springs in convenient locations. The second and most common is the ground source heat pump which utilizes coils of tubing buried in the ground well below the frost line to circulate liquid through a heat exchanger. This type wouldn't generally be used for power production. It's an efficient heating and cooling system which uses free heat from the ground. This type can be used anywhere and is great for both residential systems or large buildings. The cost savings for heating and cooling is tremendous. The payback time is about 10 -15 years for a typical home system.

There are lots of things we can do go get off our reliance on foreign oil. We need to use all the above clean methods together NOW. We need to get busy and start building nuclear plants now so they will be online by the time this country is in crisis mode.

[Plains10]

I agree with the above posts. We need to examine nuclear power once again. The days of cheap oil and natural gas are over. I know FIRST HAND how dirty coal plants are because I live in eastern Kansas. Within a 100 mile radius near the Kansas City metro area and points west we have at least 5-6 coal plants. The older plants are especially polluting.

[SergeantL]

Originally Posted by DESERTRYDER

If California had half a brain they would be building a new nuclear plant in Fresno right now and keeping the money spent on out of state electricity right there in it's own pocket.

The operative words in your post are "half a brain." As a former California resident, let me give you the proper California mantra. Nuclear is evil; smog is of the devil; oil drilling of the coast is blasphemy; whales have rights; unborn humans are disposable; A Lexus, Mercedes, Ferrari, Hummer, and Chevy 1 ton dully in every garage is of God. Oh, yeah, I forgot; blonde is genetically superior.

[Anchorless]

http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsup...ry/237066.html

Idaho Power didn't have enough power to sell to two companies looking to set up shop in Idaho. So they skipped out.