Does Idaho Falls want Areva?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Everyone has probably heard by now that our Idaho Falls area is being considered for a multi-billion dollar uranium enrichment plant, to be built by the French company Areva. There are many important issues surrounding this potential deal, and it could dramatically affect Idaho Falls’ future. This is important for locals to discuss. Some Areva officials and Idaho officials will undoubtedly read this conversation, so let’s hear it out.
What are the essentials? French uranium company Areva says they are considering five states for a uranium enrichment plant. They are demanding huge, multiple tax breaks. Their plans are to build a $2 billion plant between the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and Idaho Falls. The plant is estimated to bring in 200 high-paying jobs directly, and many hundreds more jobs in resulting growth.
Southeast Idaho and Idaho Falls have always been receptive and accommodating to the nuclear industry, so local support is not in question. Sure we have some local opposition, but they are never much of a force. Who doesn’t want hundreds of jobs and billions of dollars invested in their city? The nuclear energy industry could easily take off soon and Idaho Falls could boom.
The location is a bit of a concern. I’ve read reports only specifying “somewhere between INL and Idaho Falls” as the location. Is it right in the middle, or closer to INL, or closer to Reed’s Dairy? Will it be close enough that we can see it from Reed’s Dairy? Is that too close for comfort? Is there an aesthetic quality we need to consider? (As in do we want to see a forest of burning smokestacks like Pocatello?) What do you think?
Speaking of proximity, exactly what kind of activities will Areva be conducting at this facility? Is there potential to harm our Snake River aquifer? What are the dangers, what are the risks?
Then there are the tax break issues. Areva is being clearly aggressive with demanding tax breaks from Idaho. They demand that their plant’s valuation be capped at $400 million (Micron was capped at $800 million a couple years ago), and they demand sales tax breaks. One of their chiefs Robert Poyser told the House Revenue and Taxation committee, “If you don’t pass this legislation, it makes it very difficult to be competitive.” Okay, there is a lot of investment at stake, so nobody can fault Areva for making these demands. The real question is if our net benefits will be significant enough to justify bending over backwards for Areva? Idahoans were recently burned by the Micron and Albertson’s tax breaks, how can we avoid getting burned again?
I think any tax deal should be strictly contingent on Areva shipping every ounce of their waste to facilities out of Idaho. There should be strict time limits for how long waste can be stored unused in Idaho, and escalating fines for violating those limits. This is not meant to discourage Areva, but to make it clear this is one important issue for Idaho and we will not tolerate shenanigans. Governor Batt did not deploy our state police to block incoming waste shipments at our borders for nothing.
Finally, who the heck is Areva? What kind of company are they? How long have they worked this industry, are they in good standing, etc? Searching via Google news, I see they are state-controlled (France, baby!), posted a 14.5% profit last year, they are the world’s biggest nuclear reactor builder, they are considering investing in other industries, and they are optimistic for growth in 2008 (of which Idaho Falls could enjoy). What else do we need to know about Areva?
Areva has said they will announce their decision at the end of March, just a few weeks away.
What’s our potential gain? What’s our potential loss? What do you think?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 The waste issue is the biggest reason I was anti-nuclear in the past (I’m on the fence, now). The radioactivity in the waste doesn’t go away in our lifetimes, and no one wants it stored in their backyards (so to speak).
So, anonymous is right, we can’t depend upon the kindness of idiots out there to take our waste…we have to find a way to dispose of it if we’re going to produce it.
Can we do both safely? Someone out there who has a clue, convince me it’s the right thing to do.
Vote:
0 0 Oh, yeah…the tax breaks. We almost always get burned when we give tax breaks out to attract business. That torques me something fierce.
But, it’s like the old graft…greasing the hand that feeds you is a fine capitalism constant. I don’t know that any new business really doesn’t try to get the absolute best deal from local governments, these days.
So whether I agree with it or not, it’s how business is done.
Vote:
0 0 Right now I’m generally inclined to support this deal, but I’m certainly keeping my mind open. I think/hope the net effect is a benefit to Idaho Falls. This could be the first of a few big deals like it, and then the net effect would be a huge benefit to us.
Right now the major issue for me is the waste disposal. I know it’s hypocritical NIMBY, but we provide a great environment for the nuclear industry to do their work. We just don’t want the waste, and Idaho already has a history of getting the waste out. Where and how Areva moves out their waste is their problem. Insisting on it getting out is about the only major concern for me.
Vote:
0 0 will they build electricity power plants or just process for frances power plants we need power plants here.
Vote:
0 0 Well I certainly don’t want it here, either. I’m the biggest NIMBY you’ll ever meet when it comes to nuclear waste. But on the other hand, I don’t know anyone else who wants it, either.
So do we have the right to produce it, and reap the benefits of it (profit for the workers, increased prosperity for the area) but not have the responsibility of locally dealing with the waste?
Vote:
0 0 Here’s the FAQ’s from the NRC’s web site on enrichment plants. It answers several questions I had about the whole thing. Depleted uranium is the major waste product. It’s considered a fairly low level type of waste but it’s still fairly dangerous (radioactively and chemically) and needs proper storage. And there is a LOT of the stuff already in storage around the country. Areva is going to have to answer a lot of questions before getting this thing pushed through.
And I’m not crazy about their big demands for special tax treatment. Idaho has a habit of getting screwed on these deals. Not to mention the workers (or should I say EX-workers) caught in the middle of it all when a company decides to abandon a city and takes its business to India or elsewhere.
Vote:
0 0 That’s a great point. I heard Idaho Falls usually gets 20 year commitments from call centers like Qwest or Edge.
Is it fair for us to insist on a 20, 40, or 60 year commitment from them in exchange for these huge tax breaks?
Vote:
0 0 I’d think 20 years should be an absolute minimum but I wouldn’t count on the governor invoking such requirements. He seems rather clueless about many things, like pulling funding for the CAES recently. At least he returned part of the request after he figured out what it actually was.
Vote:
0 0 The Areva project would be a great asset to Idaho Falls for several reasons: 1) Areva would bring high paying jobs to the area….more tax revenues would result, 2) Property Taxes would still be collected on their development–but there would be offsets….but tax coffers would get more money than they do now for empty land in the middle of no where, 3) Areva is a member of the GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership) that the INL is courting–if we get Areva, chances are that we could land the GNEP project which could bring billions of dollars of investment to the region, 4) The GNEP project is all about reprocessing spent fuel for use in nuclear reactors. This helps to decrease proliferation of nuclear waste that could be used in production of nuclear weapons, the technologies at work here are for increasing the fuel life cycle and getting more energy out of fuel while decreasing the radioactive elements of the fuel.
Here is a snipet from Wikipedia on Areva:
Three main subsidiaries form the core of Areva:
Areva NP (formerly Framatome ANP) - Nuclear Power: develops and builds nuclear reactors; Siemens has a 34% stake in Areva NP
Areva NC (formerly Cogema) - Nuclear Cycle: covers the whole nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to waste disposal. Owns Eurodif.
Areva T&D: Transmission and Distribution: power transmission and distribution. It was bought from Alstom on 9 January, 2004. [2]
The major partners of Areva include: Technicatome, Euriware, STMicroelectronics, Eramet, and SAFRAN.
Areva is part of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) alliance, along with the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), Washington Group International and BWX. GNEP is a plan initiated in 2006 to form an international partnership to reprocess spent nuclear fuel in a way that renders the plutonium in it usable for nuclear fuel but not for nuclear weapons.
This is a win/win situation for all involved. The existing waste will be reprocessed and sent out to existing nuclear facilities not even in our area.
Vote:
0 0 Mike, great information. I guess if the stuff we process here is naturally destined for other areas to do more things with it, then it’s not just a ‘we produce waste here, someone else has to deal with it’ kind of situation.
I’d be okay with that (in fact really really glad of it) since we’re just a step in the process.
Vote:
0 0 Idaho Falls is something of a long shot for Areva which already has a nuclear fuel site in the U.S. in Lynchburg, VA. The firm is also pitching Hobbs, NM, with the same intensity. I’ve written extensively about Areva’s plans on my nuclear energy blog. See the links below for my most recent coverage and an article I wrote last July about the market drivers for Areva’s uranium enrichment plant.
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/01/areva-reportedly-serious-about-idaho.html
Vote:
0 0 Interesting topic. I believe Areva would be good for SE Idaho & Idaho Falls in general, but I personally wouldn’t want to see them in SE Idaho. AND dealing with the waste is another issue. I do believe it should be our problem and not be shipped to somebody elses backyard.
Here’s a little research I dug up:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Department of Energy Office of Civillian Radioactive Waste Managment require all nuclear power plants to place money for each kilowatt hour produced into a fund for nuclear waste disposal. The NRC uses the funds collected to develop waste disposal programs. There is no option currently available for the disposal of high level radioactive waste. The largest project currently under development is the Long Term Geological Storage site at Yucca Mountain.
Here is a link to the US Dept of Energy and their information regarding nuclear waste. http://www.ymp.gov/
So what type of waste will Areva produce? Will it be low level waste, or extremely high level? What does the INL currently do with their waste? Do they store it in our state, out in the desert somewhere? Or is it shipped out of state to be diposed of?
Personally I think the INL is enough for SE Idaho. One nuclear facility is more than enough in this area not to mention the potential hazards and risks associated with terrorist attacks on these facilities. Personally I think we should court other large businesses to bring into the area such as Boise did with Micron, etc. We’re already too close for comfort God forbid an accident were to happen at the INL. Idaho Falls would be wiped out. Having two nuclear facilities in this region would only make our odds much worse.
Just my 2 cents…
Vote:
0 0 So, NIMBY on the Nuke Plant due to terrorism….yet, not NIMBY on waste produced. Shouldn’t we shoulder the same responsibility to produce cleaner energy for the planet? (I know CR67 is not a global warming alarmist….)
But seriously, if INL is already targeted, why the problem with Areva coming here. If terrorists are going to hit the area anyway why the concern?
Do we stop nuclear facilities from going in because of terrorist threats? We don’t stop flying in airplanes as a result of 9/11. Do we continue buying oil from those autocratic/fascist sheiks in the Middle East? I would rather have more reliance on Nuclear and less reliance on Iran and Saudi Arabia….then we could just kick back and let them kill themselves….kind of like what we are doing in Darfur. Morally, not such a good thing….but then again, alot of Americans don’t care about morals and want us out of the Middle East. If that is the case, then what are we going to do unless we use nuclear to become more energy independent? (Please don’t tell me wind or hydro-power….not enough energy to feed the American appetite).
Vote:
0 0 I would also rather have more reliance on nuclear energy, and I hope we get to be part of making that transformation.
I’ve never heard anyone express concerns about terrorism at INL.
But yep I am a hypocritical NIMBY on the waste issue. It’s not like Idaho doesn’t have a history of getting our waste out though. As long as we have the history of exporting nuclear waste, let’s not “waste” that momentum.
Vote:
0 0 Ok Mike….you do have a good point. But do you honestly believe wind & solar energy isn’t a viable and/or compatible alternative? It’s certainly cleaner and more safe for us and the environment.
For arguements sake, as big of a topic as global warming is, why haven’t we been utilizing more wind, solar & hydroelectric power? Do you honestly believe these types of power aren’t enough to sustain our country. (at least the majority?) Sure it used to be very expensive to get these types of systems up and running, but not so much anymore.
What do you think?
Vote:
0 0 I think we haven’t given those alternative processes their due. We gave them lip service years ago when they weren’t well developed or researched, and dismissed them as unviable and only fit for tree huggers’ daydreams.
It’s the attraction of the renewable reusable resource (who will stop the wind, or the sun?) that makes these sources seem less of a problem to me, right now.
Vote:
0 0 I am not saying that alternative energy is not a good way to go. What I would note is that they are not the end all of the energy debate. There needs to be layers of energy acquisition. For example, what happens if it isn’t windy on a certain day? What happens at night? What happens when demand increases at certain times of the day? The storage facilities for accumulated power would be massive, as would the real estate necessary for windmills and solar panels. What happens when we use up valuable real estate for production and storage of these alternatives? These questions raise more questions than they answer. That is why we should not put all our eggs in one basket…kind of like we are doing right now with oil…we need to diversify to stay competitive in the world economy and meet growing demands. Nuclear is attractive because of it’s ability to produce 24/7 rain or shine, or windless. It is not the entire solution either, but it gives us the ability to stop funding terrorists and backward governments in the middle east.
Vote:
0 0 I agree with your concerns, Mike. Too bad we haven’t put money into this possibility so we’d be years ahead right now.
The same with nuclear. We know it’s a problem for waste, etc. Why aren’t we working on it, doing more research?
I don’t care if the oil in the middle east will last for millions of years, it seems very foolish to depend upon something not under our control. (No matter how many countries we choose to invade).
Vote:
0 0 Part of the problem is that we have gutted our nuclear infrastructure. After the Carter Administrations miserable PR campaign to deal with 3 mile island, many Americans were turned off to nuclear. It hasn’t improved. Clinton gutted several proposed reactors for research at the Idaho National Lab and shut down EBR-2.
The prospects haven’t improved much during the Bush Administration either. No one seems to be willing to take the steps to lead the country away from oil….
Vote:
0 0 Research is being done in spades on disposal and reduction of nuclear waste. We just don’t hear much about it, or what we do hear is about how Yucca Mountain “might” be unsafe, breached, etc. Me thinks it’s ‘bad news makes better headlines than good news’ kinda situation.
Solar, wind and hydro are all enviro friendly for the most part, except for birds that get killed by wind turbines and fish the die because they cannot swim through reservoirs and dams. Plus all the real estate they take up as has already been mentioned. The power generating capacities of all the nations wind farms is 6,374 megawatts of electricity, less than 1 percent of the nation’s power. PPL Corporation’s Susquehanna nuclear power plant in northeastern Pennsylvania for example generates 11,000 megawatts alone, and one reactor was shut down yesterday to increase it’s output by another 205 megawatts. By comparison, our little wind farm east of I.F. produces 64 megawatts at peak output.
New technologies being developed on the horizon, such as ITER are really exciting too.
Vote:
0 0 I’m not the expert on this, but I know a lot of folks who are. Two of the major sources of nuclear research at INL are GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership) and NGNP (Next Generation Nuclear Plant). Both include targets for greatly reducing the waste generated by the next generation of nuclear plants. INL has a great track record of handling waste, much of which has not been its own. INL is targeted by the DoE as THE nuclear energy research lab in the United States. If we want Idaho Falls to prosper, a good bet would be to embrace nuclear power.
Oh, and by the way, if the test reactor at the site were to go critical (and it wouldn’t), people in Idaho Falls wouldn’t even hear a bang. I’d be more worried about the Simplot plants exploding (much more real scenario).
Vote:
0 0 Of course we wouldn’t here a bang….we’re 50+ miles away. It’s not the “bang” we’re worried about, it’s the fallout from a meltdown. And you quote “which it wouldn’t” (happen….I assume you mean)…. I don’t think you can honestly say that. Accidents can and do happen all the time. It’s not a matter if “if”, but a matter of “when”. The nuclear waste they deal with is highly corrosive, so it’s just a matter time. What’s the average lifespan for a nuclear facility? 30-40 years? 50-60?
Like I said….it’s merely a matter of “when” it’ll happen. And the threat of terrorist activity against it is very real. Do think for a second that other countries don’t know where each and everyone of our nuclear reactors are located throughout the US. There will be a time (maybe not in OUR lifetimes) in history where the US will no longer be the number 1 superpower. That’s just fact.
So, while hydroeclectic, wind and solar energy isn’t produced in as large a quAntity, it’s still safer, cleaner and more responsible.
But again….that’s just MY opinion.
Vote:
0 0 It’s just the folks in Jackson Hole that need to be worried about fallout. 
Seriously, in order for a meltdown to occur, several safety systems and protocols would have to be breached, plus their attending backups. While you can never say never, my odds of winning the lottery are a 1,000 time better than there ever being single atom escaping.
Here’s a cool wiki article on meltdowns:
Vote:
0 0 idaho will make more money building more hydroelectric dams and selling the excess electricity than bringing in this french company and cleaning up the toxic mess they create and giving them tax breaks to do it.
eastern idaho has a high rate of people under 40 dying of strange and bizarre cancers and blood disorders. is there water involved in uranium enrichment and where will the water come from, mud late, the snake river?
idaho mistakenly thinks it needs all sorts of companies and industries to “progress” when actually it seens like a good place to visit or live and tourism and selling off extra hydroelectric in addition to farming should be the focus of its economic development.
Vote:
0 0 I was always anti nuke, but my father in law (who was a technical editor at Argonne years and years go) was pro nuke and I always respected his opinion (but disagreed).
Now, seems as I’m about to pass on and leave my spot on this planet to my grandchildren, I’m less anti-nuke than before. (Why? Is it because I perceive I won’t be around to endure the possibilities? I’m not sure why…)
I will concede we probably have been doing research but it hasn’t produced any sexy results, whereas bad news is alway sexy to the masses and therefore gets reported.
So with that said, I’m even more distressed that we don’t have any really good news to report, to counteract the points that I used to make (that 007 currently makes).
Seems to me if we’ve been addressing these issues, why haven’t we resolved them?
Vote:
0 0 Fallout? The only fully operational nuclear reactor on the site is the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR). It operates at temperatures around 100 C. It doesn’t have a containment dome because nothing would go anywhere if it melted down; there just aren’t those kinds of pressures present in the system. If it melted down, the nuclear material would melt its case and fall to the bottom of the underground concrete cylinder in which it’s housed. There is some low level nuclear material in casks buried out there, and who knows what the Navy has at NRF. Here’s ATR’s website: http://nuclear.inl.gov/atr/
The next generation of nuclear plants employ passive cooling systems. That means that loss of coolant equals loss of reaction. These things can’t melt down. Westinghouse and GE have designs ready to go.
Vote:
0 0 If this makes it through, it’s a link to an excel file listing all the nuclear reactors in the USA. 100.3 GigaWatts, that’s a lot of power! I don’t think I’m mistaken when I say none of these have ever experienced a meltdown event. 103 reactors online for an average of 30 years each… that’s 27.07 million hours without meltdown. Good job, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/usreactors2006.xls
Vote:
0 0 Areva may have tipped its hands for Richland, WA.
Full details at the Idaho Falls nuclear energy blog
IDAHO SAMIZDAT
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-areva-tipping-its-hand-for-richland.html
Vote:
0 0 There are now five sites that have been confirmed in the news media that Areva is considering for its uranium enrichment plant. In addition to a location west of Idaho Falls, Areva is considering a site in Richland, WA, next to a nuclear fuel fabrication plant. In New Mexico the site is reported to be in Hobbs and right across the border there is a reported site in Andrews County, TX. The two towns are reported to be working together to land the plant.
The fifth and final site is reported to be Piketon, OH, where citizens groups who opposed the GNEP facility there last year have reorganized to stop Areva from siting its uranium enrichment plant in Piketon.
Areva appears to be waiting for the Idaho Senate to vote on tax incentives which passed in the House and which were voted out of Senate committee earlier this week. There is still the question of whether the governor will sign the measure. Critics of the bill in the Senate said it was too good a deal and would result in Micron coming to legislature asking to sweeten the tax breaks it got last year.
Even if the governor signs the tax incentive bill, Areva might still choose one of the other sites. Of the five Piketon seems the least likely because of high political noise level associated with the Piketon site. Areva has said it will not go where it is not wanted.
Andrews, TX, is a long shot and shares that quality with Hobbs. The reason is there already is a uranium enrichment plant being built in Eunice, NM, by Louisiana Energy Services. The National Enrichment Facility is about the same size as the plant Areva is reported to want to build. The available resources to support a second uranium enrichment plant at that location might be hard to come by.
Idaho Falls has a favorable political climate and a favorable tax climate assuming the Senate passes the pending legislation and the governor signs off. That’s an interesting questions because this governor seems to live in the 19th century and from everything I’ve read has no interest in technology based economic development. He appears to think that farming, mining, timber, and tourism are what Idaho is about. There are lots of people who like that idea, but there’s not much room in that world view for for 21st century nuclear energy facilities. Of course he could surprise us.
Richland, WA, is on paper the leading candidate for the plant. Washington has the types of tax incentives Areva wants, a strong, if unionized workforce, a favorable political climate in the Tri-Cities area, if not elsewhere. Most importantly, the reported site is within spitting distance, metaphorically speaking, to a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, which is the next step in the value chain for this industry.
I expect we’ll know more after the Idaho Senate acts next week. If the Senate votes down the incentives, Areva will likely take Idaho off its list. If you want the plant, and the economic benefits of 200 high paying permanent jobs, contact your state senator. Contact information at the URL below.
http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/senate/senate.htm
Prior coverage on Idaho Samizdat Nuke Notes blog at these URLS.
& & &
Idaho Samizdat Nuke Notes blog coverage of Areva uranium enrichment plant since Janaury 2008
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/03/piketon-oh-is-potential-site-for-areva.html
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/03/idaho-senate-committee-approves-areva.html
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-areva-tipping-its-hand-for-richland.html
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/03/texas-site-for-areva-plant-revealed.html
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/03/areva-puts-richland-in-running.html
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/03/lynchburg-out-of-running-for-areva.html
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/02/areva-still-seeking-site-for-us.html
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/01/areva-reportedly-serious-about-idaho.html
Vote:
0 0 Wow, excellent information and perspective! It’s nice when some of our discussions attract individuals who are very involved with the topic (as you see if you visit Dan’s blog).
So it sounds like we may still have a 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 chance? I read on Dan’s blog about the Washington site may be more likely since Areva already has facilities there, but southeast Idaho could still provide a more favorable overall package.
Let’s hope our legislature comes through for us next week. I don’t think anyone’s too concerned about Micron begging for a better deal, they can beg but are unlikely to get one after they burned us immediately after the last sweetheart deal we gave them. I think Micron would have to bring a LOT more jobs back before they get any more breaks.
And then our governor Otter, truly the most random wildcard in this deal. Hopefully he does sign the bill. I think if he does not sign he can pack his things because he won’t get southeast Idaho’s vote next election. He already burned us on recharging our aquifers so Boise residents could save a penny on electricity.
Thanks for the update Dan!
Vote:
0 0 The proposed Idaho Areva site is west of Idaho Falls, also west of Twin Falls, and south of Mountain Home. Post #30 seems to lead the reader to believe the proposed site is near Idaho Falls.
The topic of this Post is “Does Idaho Falls want Areva? The article falsely states “Idaho Falls area is being considered for a multi-billion dollar uranium enrichment plant, to be built by the French company Areva.” I know the site Areva is looking at is near Bruneau, Idaho. A pretty good distance from Idaho Falls. Am I mising something or is Idaho Falls also in the running?
Vote:
0 0 Please disregard my previous comment I was thinking of the Nuclear Plant billionaire Warren Buffet wanted to build in Owyhee County near Bruneau, about 65 miles southeast of Boise.
Vote:
0 0 I asked that question originally, where exactly would it be located? I read somewhere it would be about 15 miles west of Idaho Falls.
Hopefully it won’t be on top of and close up the infamous 17-Mile Cave. Anyone been in there, or seen the end of it? I went once in high school.
Vote:
0 0 Local news 8 tried to get info on Areva they hit a dead end ,anyone know what is up?
Vote:
0 0 AREVA picks Idaho for uranium enrichment facility
IDAHO FALLS, May 6, 2008 – AREVA Inc. announced today that it has selected the state of Idaho for its new U.S. uranium enrichment facility. The site is located in Bonneville County, 18 miles west of Idaho Falls, close to the Idaho National Laboratory site.
The selection was made after an extensive technical, environmental, and socio-economical analysis of several potential sites throughout the United States. With its decision, AREVA will move forward to seek all necessary approvals from federal, state and local agencies, including a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct and operate the facility.
“The United States needs more clean energy to support its economic growth. To enable us to meet those needs we have to expand our domestic nuclear infrastructure, secure our supply of enrichment services, and reduce our reliance on foreign imports. This new enrichment plant is a critical part of this process,” said Michael McMurphy, President of AREVA Inc. He added, “While we had several attractive sites to choose from, we opted for Idaho Falls, which has strong ties to nuclear energy, and which welcomed AREVA and its proposed enrichment facility to become a new member of its community. We look forward to a productive and long-term partnership that will deliver diversity and strength to the regional economy.”
The new state-of-the-art facility represents a multi-billion dollar investment that would create hundreds of high-skilled jobs during the construction and operation phases.
The Idaho Falls plant will provide enrichment services to U.S. nuclear plant operators using advanced proven centrifuge technology developed by the Enrichment Technology Company, Ltd. (ETC), an AREVA subsidiary, and world leader in enrichment services technology. This centrifuge technology has been successfully deployed in Europe for more than thirty years, using 50 times less electricity than the gaseous diffusion process.
AREVA is a major supplier of enrichment services. It owns and operates the Georges Besse enrichment plant in France, which has safely operated for nearly three decades. AREVA is currently constructing a new gas centrifuge enrichment facility in France – Georges Besse II – which is expected to become operational in 2009.
To find out more, explore AREVA’s Uranium Enrichment Web site at:
Vote:
0 0 Cool Bloop.
I just got the noticed via the Houston Chronicle:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/5757031.html
This is huge news for our area! Congratulations to all who made this come together!
Vote:
0 0 This area needs Areve like it needs a hole in the head. I’m completely against more nuclear plants, whether it’s considered “uranium enrichement” or full blown Nuclear facility. The fact of the matter is, nuclear energy is not the way to go. Sure it’s clean energy and will create jobs, but at what expense? Where will all the nuclear waste go? You can’t just dispose of nuclear waste in a landfill and expect it to disentegrate over time. Nuclear waste will be around for thousands of years after we’re all dead. What about a nuclear accident? Just because there hasn’t been an accident since Chernobyl, doesnt mean it isn’t possible. We live in an area full of sisemic activity and according to many geologists, are due for a major earthquake sometime in the very near future. What steps will Areva take against this? (not to mention the INL) Something happens at the INL, everybody in SE Idaho and the surrounding states, will be obliterated from the fall out. Nobody seems to be thinking about the future here, only the here and now and what will benefit those in the short term. I just can’t believe so many people are backing this. People from my day and age would have been protesting this from the very beginning, but all you people seem to care about is the jobs that it will bring to the area. You have no idea the negative impact it’s going to have on SE Idaho. Why do you think Areeva choose SE Idaho over all the other beautiful locations it could have gone? Because we’re in the desert and if an accident were to happen, it would have much less of an impact on a much small population. Their no idiots, they know what their doing. Seems many here need to wake up and realize the dangers of this company setting up shop in this area. (although it’s a little late for that now) You say “yea”….I say “NAY!”.
my 3 cents worth
Vote:
0 0 The same predictions of an earthquake, epicenter at YNP, destroys Denver within 1-2 days.
I respectfully disgaree that some of us haven’t “woken up.” Did those killed by tornadoes in AR know they would be killed? There are weather and geographical instabilities in every area of the U.S.
Vote:
0 0 I notice people in this area enjoy “stocking up” on food, but there are no real fall out shelters around here. What is the reasoning behind stocking up on canned goods? I don’t want to cross any “religious boundaries” here, but isn’t it a certain local religion here that practices this? If we have a nuclear disaster, all the food in the world isn’t going to keep you alive without a solid fallout shelter. And what other natural disasters do we have here? They say earthquakes are possible, but when is the last time we really had a major one in this area? Compared to much of the country, Idaho is much less suseptible to natural disasters than many other states in the country. If what O4N says is true regarding the earthquake or perhaps a volcano eruption, none of that “stored food” is going to do anybody any good.
Can any “LDS” member explain the reasoning behind this without crossing any site guidelines?
Vote:
0 0 I won’t disagree that nuclear power produces waste, long-lasting waste. But your doomsday scenario is just that — a doomsday scenario. What happened at Chernobyl was a terrible accident that should not have happened — due to poor design and conflicts among the reactor crew. But to say no to nuclear power because of Chernobyl is like saying no to jet aircraft because of what happened at Tenerife back in the 1970s, when two jumbo jets collided, killing nearly 600 airline passengers. One horrific accident makes the news. That planes fly daily without incident does not. That one nuclear power plant has a horrific accident makes the news. That plants all over the world operate without a glitch does not.
I’m all for alternative energy that does not pollute. It makes me happy to see those turbines spinning on the foothills when I come home from work every day. I’m proud to live near a city that generates nearly half of the electricity it needs from running water. Research and development will continue in making wind and solar more efficient, but until that happens, we need to seek out alternative means to produce the electricity we need. Is the solution to build more coal- and gas/oil-fired plants, figuring that technology and carbon credits will help sweep that long-term pollution under the rug? Let me know when that starts working.
Truth be told, every energy source has its detractors. We’ve seen local opposition to another wind power farm in Wolverine Canyon in Bingham County. There was opposition (which I happen to agree with) to build hydropower plants at Upper and Lower Mesa Falls in Fremont County, as recently as the 1980s. (The land at both falls was privately-owned up until 1985.) Shouting about doomsday scenarios isn’t the way to “wake people up.”
Vote:
0 0 I will try to answer comment #40 by CR67. LDS people have always been counseled to store enough food to last your family with some of the more staple products for a year. Any recent “stockpiling” you might have observed I don’t have a comment on. I know nationally and globally certain staples such as rice is being stockpiled.
It’s just not the nuclear “fallout” or natural disasters that people store supplies. Although if the Palisades Dam were to fail, I think we would be in trouble in this area. The Teton Dam failure would be a small flood compared to Palisades Dam. There are also other things like power failures (we had one a few years ago that lasted a couple of days or more), bad storms that limit my ability to go to the store.
If I were to become unemployed for a certain length of time, I could rely on this storage to stretch my savings. I’m not storing this food waiting for the sky to fall, It’s more a matter of being prepared. I have followed this counsel all my life and have had many circumstances where the food I have stored came in very handy personally, and to help others, including family members who have lost jobs.
We rotate the more perishable items so that we are generally stocked with fresh items, sometimes when times are lean the storage goes down as we use it, and other times we can replenish and are able to help others.
I hope this help explain at least why I have a food storage.
Vote:
0 0 let me get this straight……everyone here seems to be against something….love lived isotopes, windmills killing raptors, fear of faiths which might be different than yours……
quick….name this country.
. richest in the world
. largest military force
. center of world business and finance
. strongest education system
. world center of innovation and invention
. currency the world standard
. highest standard of living
.
.
.
.
.
England in 1900
shift happens.
Vote:
0 0 **************BOP Alert from IdahoHiker****************
Vote:
0 0 Guest House can take his three cents and go buy some sense. (Pun intended)
Areva will be a benefit locally and nationally. Uranium enrichment of spent nuclear fuels will allow us to keep these fuels in use over a longer period of time (instead of worrying about burying them). It also will help eliminate proliferation of nuclear weapons allowing for dismantling of these weapons and putting their fuels to peaceful uses in commercial reactors….all the while the nuclear energy industry will help us overcome the need to fight and die for oil in the Middle East–let alone fund nasty dictatorships and terrorists in that area of the world. We have Jimmy Carter to thank for not explaining the Three Mile Island incident better and educating the public on the benefits of nuclear energy. Carter single handedly destroyed confidence in the nuclear industry through his inaction and lack of a spine.
It has taken us nearly three decades to begin to have confidence in the benefits of nuclear energy again. This has in large part taken place right in our own backyard and the environment hasn’t suffered here in the least as the Jackson Hole liberal crowd has fear mongered us into believing. If Guest House has a better suggestion besides throw nuclear energy under the bus (like Carter) let’s hear it….but please don’t say solar and wind power. That won’t cut it for an industrialized nation and it’s economy to stay competitive and vibrant. We also need to be concerned about the national security implications for the United States if we become more energy independent from rogue nations that continue to economically strangle us. Areva is yet another step in the right direction for the United States on many fronts.
Vote:
0 0 Do tell us professor Mike, HOW uranium enrichment will help curb our dependancy on foreign oil? Last I heard, GM didn’t have a plan in the works for a nuclear powered Caprice Classic. What we need to do is stop with the nuclear business as our “cure all” for this country’s energy woes and start drilling for more oil in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico. We have more than enough oil in this country to sustain ourselves until a suitable, economical form or transportation comes on the market. I’m sick of paying out the keister for OPECs oil, when we’ve got more than enough of our own to take care of our own. The problem is, we’ve got too many politicians “in bed” with the oil producing Arab countries. The fact is professor, it won’t matter if we built 30 more “Areva’s” in this country, we’re still going to be saying “good night honey”, while we turn off the light to lay our heads down each night with Mr Arab and his oil reserves.
We DO need to invest more in solar, wind and hydro power because it’s an unlimited untapped resource. Everything in the beginning is expensive. Once we begin mass producing solar panels and wind turbines, and everybody has a solar panel roof on their house, we’ll be alot better off. And for you to tell people it can’t happen is just irresponsible. Its much more logical than sitting on top of thousands of tons of nuclear waste as it seeps into our drinking water.
there’s a nickel’s worth for ya!
Vote:
0 0 I had to side with Mr Green House….uh, I mean Guest House on this one! We do need to put more stock into wind, solar & hydro power. Nuclear is not considered “clean alternative energy”. Nuclear waste is a huge problem and it seems some would just rather “sweep it under the rug” and let the next 3000 generations deal with it. Typical conservative thinking. Idaho could live off of wind power alone, let alone the sun!
No….Areeva can go elsewhere for all I care!
Vote:
I just want to comment on the part about shipping waste elsewhere. I understand it from the perspective that we don’t want it near us but what right do we have to ship it to someone else’s area? Its our waste! We benefit from the industry that created it so we should be responsible for the waste.