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?
Popularity: 45%
Related posts:
It WAS all he had to say about it!
:@:)
Loading ...
{ 96 comments… read them below or add one }
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.
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.
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.
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.
will they build electricity power plants or just process for frances power plants we need power plants here.
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?
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.
http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/faq.html
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
http://djysrv.googlepages.com/UraniumEnrichmentFCW237.pdf
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…
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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….
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
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).
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.
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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
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!
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?
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.
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.
Local news 8 tried to get info on Areva they hit a dead end ,anyone know what is up?
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:
http://www.us.areva-nc.com/
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!
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
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.
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?
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.”
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.
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.
**************BOP Alert from IdahoHiker****************
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.
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!
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!
Oil is not just used for gasoline House, last I checked, there was a large heating oil dependency in this country……back down to 2 cents….
lol….whats GuestHouse at now, negative 6 cents?
j/k house!
I’m not a big fan of nuclear energy either, but Areva coming to town will definetely help SE Idaho grow big time. I do think we need a better means of disposing of nuclear waste….I liked that link Slats put in the chatbox this morning. slats: perhaps you can put that link in this post for everyone to see?
Tell your buddies in Congress to get off their duff and open up ANWR, the shelf off California and the shelf off Florida for drilling. Read my article on Energy Independence about the so called Energy Independence Act of 2007 that reduces the ability of the United States to purchase Canadian oil and Tar Sands for refinement….even with all these sources of oil in place we would not be able to meet daily domestic demand for oil. Goto factcheck.org and note that US Daily Domestic Oil Production from refineries is only about 8 million barrels. If I recall correctly the US uses more than 7-10 times that PER day. Even opening up more drilling will not get us away from oil (domestic or OPEC). Thus, it is great to diversify with numerous sources of energy. I don’t hang my hat on nuclear as the cure all anymore than I would hang it on oil, or solar, wind, geothermal, or hydopower.
We agree on much in the debate about getting away from OPEC and the need for renewable and sustainable energy sources. Nuclear is part of the equation. France has proven nuclear power has worked well for them. They get close to a quarter of their energy needs from nuclear.
I fail to see the relevance of the comparison with uranium to a caprice classic automobile. No one suggested a nuclear powered vehicle. What was suggested is that Areva will be a benefit to REDUCING Nuclear Proliferation of weapons grade material because it will be reprocessed to commercial grade (non-weapons material) for peaceful purposes. It will also allow for an extension of the life of spent nuclear fuel that would be slated for burial and instead, can be reprocessed for extended life and use in reactors. How anyone can be against using the atom for peaceful purposes, keeping weapons grade uranium out of terrorists hands, and moving us closer to energy independence is beyond me.
BTW-Call me something else besides a professor. Most professors I know would agree with you because they are liberal stiffs that are hell bent on cumbya energy sources like solar and wind that won’t meet energy demands unless we go back to a way of life in the late 1800’s. Realistic energy policy is what is needed here—not a desire to be politically correct and buy into the argument that nuclear energy is the big bad villian here—there is risk, but there is also great reward for society. Besides, can you name one occasion where a US Nuclear Plant had a major accident and released radiation onto the population? You won’t find one.
PS-PS:
Here is the weblink for factcheck.org on the energy issue:
Have fun reading this one Guest Professor:
http://www.factcheck.org/gas_price_fixes_that_wont.html
But seriously now, send me some feedback on what you think. This little gem forced me to rethink my position on just opening up more drilling in Alaska and other domestic sources. While it is part of the answer, it will not save us from our dependency on oil anymore than if we turned totally green and put solar panels on every home in the US tomorrow.
The nuclear accidents commented upon earlier had teams from INL (whatever the initials were at the time). I didn’t know until much later that a close relative of mine had been taken to those sites to help with the clean up. The teams weren’t allowed to tell their families, at that time.
INL experts are consulted throughout the world regarding clean up and how to dispose of the waste material. Considered the experts in the U.S., I’m told. But, perhaps others know more.
What I don’t really understand about the comments today is the decision has been made. I never thought Gov. Otter would get on board. The entire Idaho House, Senate and “Lobbyists,” (if you will) for Otter were involved. This decision was not ours to make.
I do understand some are uncomfortable with the decision and I’d encourage those people to read the references cited above, visit INL and learn more about the facts of engineering for all types of man-made or natural disasters.
Guest House, one of my favorite parts of your post #38 is when you state Areva knows what they are doing. I believe you are correct. That is why they are building new plants in France, negotiating for at least one in Canada and have another in the U.S. I do believe they know how to hire those with experience to design plants to withstand natural occurances.
I also like your reference to the state of things at INL. What better way to get the U.S. Gov’t to invest in INL than to have the French in the area?
From other information I’ve read elsewhere, the fact Areva has chosen Idaho Falls, all sorts of other businesses related to INL work, or Areva work, or those closely connected will look at the area now. It’s sort of the Research Triangle Park idea that made NC blossom with high tech businesses, of many kinds. Once the word is out, many investigate.
Think of the increased use of our local airport. I wonder if McNeil tonight is putting on the brakes for TCOR Marriott Resident Inn wondering if they should add more floors? Think of the support businesses needed.
Earlier comments in the chatbox and elsewhere have all pointed to how positive CAES has been and the growth far beyond what was anticipated. What was is one of the missions of CAES? To train students throughout the world. If I recall correctly, that is where GNEP fits in too (but, if I am confused, please someone with more knowledge than I please correct me).
And, while I thought Sen. Craig’s “difficulties” had negated his ability to help influence whether Idaho may get the one part of GNEP, that remains to be seen. Aren’t the various components of GNEP to be announced in June? At least that was the original date.
We know recently INL hosted their second conference to teach other countires about their Cyberspace Work. Australia, New Zealand (I believe), England, Canada and I think one other attended. Do you think Idaho Falls technology and staff are noticed elsewhere in the world not only for nuclear work, but the other science missions INL has?
While not the least of the benefits, I anticipate this annoucement will force one of the Idaho universities to start building some real facilities for a major college campus in Idaho Falls. Failure to do so will leave the area open to private universities who want to train students for certain professions. It would sure be nice to have more basic English and Algebra etc. classes in Idaho Falls. I think it will happen, as the companies with similiar business interests will want better educational facilities locally.
Maybe EITC will not only become a Junior College, but more. Regardless of who does it, there are many spin off areas for companies to move to Idaho Falls and create obs serving many markets.
Companies will demand potential employees have the ability for local education beyond what University Place currently offers. Look at Micron – why did BSU and others get so upset that Micron gave Utah State University a $1 Million dollar grant? Are the Boise-area facilities meeting Micron’s needs?
CR67, I think most people who think about the issue of availability of food, medicine and other items realize it could be truckers caught in severe storms that are bringing medicines from the east coast, not just food.
As a little bit different take on the storage issue and what is stored, I remember when a certain Pharmaceutical Company had their plant in Puerto Rico vanish with a Hurricane (another risk for parts of the U.S.to be immediately destroyed, like New Orleans, parts of MS and parts of FL with other hurricanes). Their entire line of about 2-3 drugs had to get moved elsewhere ASAP, but until they were, NONE of those drugs were available to patients throughout the world. Think of all the goods/products we get shipped to our area from one coast or another.
What if the California wildfires/earthquakes in Tahoo etc. cut off importing certain items from the CA coast? Would people be ready to do without and live with what they have?
Finally, much earlier, I believe it was Mike or others who raised the issue about INL receiving threats to the physical facilities, let alone the data. At one point INL wrote a fair amount about it. The way I see it, is we know INL is a potential terrorist threat, so constant training occurs.
I found it slightly amusing that Boise was ranked the WORST city in the west to be prepared for a terrorist threat, published on MSNBC withint the last 4-6 weeks.
From my POV, it is better to know the threat exists so plans to deal with those threats are already in place vs. being Boise wondering why they rank last. I can’t really say what specialty agency someone who moved to the area last year belongs to, as I honestly don’t know. However, I can say this man’s wife was very clear with me that his agency did certain types of security work that was never discussed.
Finally, in reading the Reuters release from Europe, I learned something new about Areva. Currently, they have a contract in place with Russia to do similar work at a plant that use to make weapons grade. However, that contract expires in 2013, one year before the new Areva plant should be up and running. A French chose to invest in the U.S. instead of Russia. I’d prefer to see France invest in and align with the U.S. instead of Russia.
In my mind, that is a very good sign of the ongoing work the State Dept. and others have continued to do with France and Germany. One has to search to read those stories, but they are there. We just don’t hear how often Dr. Andrea Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, is in the U.S. meeting with Pres. Bush and topics of those discussions haven’t exactly been placed for spinin the 72 hour news cycle. The new president of France seems to be following Merkel’s lead, from what I can tell.
OK4now-
You are correct and insightful on #52. Fellow Nuke Engineer perhaps?
ISU/UI Alumni,
Thanks for the compliment. No, I don’t work in nuclear or engineering. However, I have a close family member who did for many years.
I’m just a geek researcher who reads, and can add 2+2 = 6 when putting the pieces together on this one.
Ok4Now
Mike you make some valid points and try as I may, I just haven’t been able to come up with a decent rebuttal. I do appreciate the link though. I’ve been doing alot of research since my last post and I’m coming up short. As for me calling you “professor” (as I’ve seen others mention it in the past) it’s mentioned in jest only as I consider you to be one of the more intelligent posters on this site, but I do get your point regarding college professors these days so for that I apologize.
What other ideas do we have to reduce our dependancy on foreign oil? I don’t see people driving less, even when fuel costs hits the 6+ dollar mark. People love their cars way too much and will cut back in other areas of spending before they cut back on driving. What’s amusing is our HR department put up a “carpool-sign-up sheet” in our breakroom, in the warehouse and in the offices. They’ve been hanging there for weeks now and not one single person has signed up to carpool with anyone else in the company. Nobody is willing to give up their freedom and be “stuck” riding with somebody else. Not yet at least.
So what about getting rid of the internal combustion engine? I find it interesting that auto manufacturers haven’t been able to improve on this technology since the late 1800’s, let alone improve gas mileage. Why is that? I’ll tell you why. It’s because their in cahoots with big oil and doing that would loose them money. They don’t want to make a vehicle that gets great gas mileage, or lasts for 10+ years, they would go out of business.
So then, what about hydrogen power? Iceland has been running all of their city buses on Hydrogen power for a few years now with great results. Sure the price is an issue, but its an issue with any new technology. 70 percent of Icelands energy needs are already met by geothermal and/or hydroelectric power. The only thing using gas/oil in that country are the existing vehicles already on the road.
So I ask you, when do we stop talking about it and actually start doing something about it? When fuel prices have reached 10-15 dollars a gallon, like Mr.Eagle suggested? Alternative are out there, but so are a dozen excuses to go along with each alternative. So round and round we’ll go. Our country is famous for doing that.
I remember learning about an automotive engine that was designed with ceramics. The ceramics allowed it to operate at even higher temperatures than current engines can. The ceramics were tough enough to withstand most shocks and jolts too. General combustion engines are generally not as efficient as they could be because they lose most of their energy due to heat loss. Ceramic engines can hold the heat and run at higher efficiency—thus, not using as much gas….sounds good right?
The only problem is the technology/patent was bought up and shelved by some folks that didn’t see it in their interests. Now, follow me on this:
Local and State Governments can and do confiscate property through eminent domain uses. Certainly, they have to compensate the owner(s) for taking the property for public purposes. Why then couldn’t we extend eminent domain to taking patents and technology that are gathering dust somewhere (admittedly, probably by oil companies) and put these technologies to work for the public good? That would be an excellent use of eminent domain that local and state governments could get involved in and make a big impact.
Here is an interesting idea that Pocatello City Officials were looking at: electric cars.
http://kpvi.com/Global/story.asp?S=8280654
Now, if they could just get them to go faster than 25 mph. it might make alot of sense to use some of these cars for certain city duties. I wouldn’t use them for police cars, but building inspectors and park and rec folks could definitely use them and save the city money….all the while being eco-friendly.
Excellent point Mike. I’ve heard of that ceramic technology as well and I believe it would do wonders for auto industry.
I’ve always wondered why rotary engines aren’t utilized more often as well. I had an RX-7 back in the mid 90’s that had a rotary engine and I loved that car. The power was so smooth throughout the whole rpm range and it got great gas mileage for being a sports car, not to mention much more reliable than your standard internal compustion engine. I believe Mazda still uses the rotary engine in their RX-8 model, but for some reason that engine never really caught on with other auto manufacturers. Even if Mazda holds the patent on it, you would think somebody would be able to come up with something similar without infringing on Mazda’s original design/patent.
It just seems like there should be a way or at least some type of technology available (after all these years) to improve on gas mileage without compromising power. I have to think there is, but like the ceramic issue, it’s been “shelved” to keep more money in the auto-makers pockets.
Same issue with more futuristic looking and much more functional automobiles. They have incredible looking cars that are fully functional now, but each year they put out something just slightly better than the year before, instead of just putting on the market what they already have built already. Why waste everyones time keeping these cars off the street when we could be driving the “bat-mobile”!
Guest_house – Iceland is a very small country. Where exactly do you expect all that hydrogen to come from in a large scale hydrogen economy? You can not run millions of cars on hydrogen unless there is a plentiful source. It takes energy to produce hydrogen. Lots of energy. Solar and wind will definitely help on smaller scales but this country, and the emerging world markets, need truly massive amounts. That’s why the new generation of nuclear plants is so important. It will enable large scale hydrogen production to make this type of economy possible. The waste issue would also go away with fuel recycling. The INL has the technology to make all this work together to reduce dependence on oil.
Then you’ll be able to fill up your “nuclear” powered Caprice after all.
Just a comment to message #38 reguarding the comment on earthquakes causing a “meltdown”. The INL has multiple sensors placed underground level to detect any sisemic activity and then it shuts down all the reactors. There cannot be a “meltdown”, because a meltdown occurs when the cooling system fails. INL has a system in place that shuts down the reactors if the cooling system fails. It does so by pulling the reactor cores apart, so that they can no longer react(which is what causes the heating up of the reactor), which in turn, causes the cores to cool, which prevents a “meltdown”. This system does the same thing if a total power failure(including backup power systems)occurs, thereby renduring the reactor disabled. Most of everyone’s concerns can be eased by simply doing more research on the subject, and just looking at all of the facts. We’ve had a nuclear site here for a lot of years—those who are opposed to Areva coming are either going to have to learn to live with it(ease your minds and do some research on your concerns), or leave the area. To me, I don’t really see a difference from having the INL here alone, and having INL and Areva here together.
Mike, #56 was a masterpiece in the “wow” department. I had never heard of using eminent domain in such a way, but why not?
It just seems so efficient and logical, it blows me away…
Windfall profits for years and years make me very bitter to the oil industry, where I see our country’s policies making billionaires out of some already wealthy individuals and gouging the rest of us (don’t go there with the “most of your price at the pump isn’t profit” because even with all the taxes, those oil companies are rolling in the dough) who are beginning to struggle again with less discretionary income all around.
I admit that I am almost as wasteful as anyone else in my use of resources, so cutting back will be difficult but not impossible.
If Areva can utilize existing nuclear waste and safely do something productive with it, then I guess I’m all for it.
So, if I open up a Krispy Kreme donut shop and sell a product that everyone wants, needs, likes, etc….I am going to make alot of money aren’t I? Should I get penalized for providing a needed product because it is EASIER to tax than to fix the underlying problems?
The real kicker here is that the American People charge to the hilt on credit cars, drive huge SUV’s, and waste fuel on conspicuous consumption activities…..and then wonder why they are in the mess they are in…..and so, it is easier to nail Exxon than themselves. Taxing is a lazy response to politicians that can’t, won’t or don’t understand how to fix problems. These guys are not economists or statisticians, they are liars and thiefs only interested in power.
Speaking of themselves, windfall profit taxes will not spur exploration and refinement. They will inhibit these activities….tried and tested by Jimmy Carter…..remember the long gas lines?
One other point, windfall profit taxes will hit YOU, ME, and the NEXT GUY in the pocketbook? Why? If you have a 401k or stock, guess what…..you will experience a reduction in dividends/profits as a result. Exxon Mobil, like many oil companies, is not owned by one guy….in fact Exxon Executives own less than 9% of the company stock. The rest is owned by millions of Americans and other stock holders elsewhere. So, in effect, the politicians are at it again: taxing Exxon means taking ALL OF US who invest…..once again in case you missed it: Taxing Exxon is taxing all of us!!!
There are better ways to address the underlying problems energy consumption/shortages/demand is causing. Taking the easy way out is like putting a bandage on a gaping wound.
I am going back to eat my Krispy Kreme donuts now!
You should have put a “BOP” alert on that one!
I didn’t mention windfall profit taxes, I don’t know that I am in favor of them.
And unlike your donut, oil is a huge part of our economy in almost all areas. The person with stock in the oil company may profit, but they are paying higher prices on everything else to eat up that profit.
My first thought was that the oil companies could lower the wholesale prices, and still make loads of money, but then I realized that unless everyone in the chain agreed to keep their charges the same, the savings would not be passed along to the final consumer.
So praise God and pass the extra helping of capitalism, because I’ll need that patriotic pap to comfort me when I have to tighten my belt in every other area of my life. I am but one of the millions of “John Q Public” citizens who isn’t wealthy but thinks I am as entitled to live out the American Dream as those who have enough money to not be affected by all this glorious profiteering.
Sigh. I could be living in a 3rd world country, so I guess I’m just whining, after all.
okay, this is slightly off topic but someone did mention a “nuclear car”; has anyone here read “IDAHO FALLS” about the nuclear disaster out at the site in the 60’s I believe? Very interesting book……..discusses not only the accident (??? although WAS it an accident at all???) but the history of the site and the reason the government was looking into “mini reactors”. One of the proposals being kicked around was a nuclear airplane. Two problems: the pilots would die from radiation unless the reactor was adequately shielded or vice versa;
problem two: the amount of cement needed to adequately shield the pilot would make the plane too heavy to fly.
I’m really not making this up!
The truth about the gas tax:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aza2XQB.kk0k&refer=home
BobbyD! Good to have you back….where you been hidin these days?
Is Cement whats mainly used to shield radiation? Afterall, cement is rather porous, so why couldn’t say titanium or iron be used as a shield. What’s used in nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers?
Those are good points, CR67: I believe this was being discussed in the 50’s when nuclear energy was in its infancy…….obviously, the idea might be workable now; it was just that when the Air Force first proposed the “nuclear plane”, the technology had somewhat outpaced the practical application thereof.
Have you read the book? It truly is fascinating.
No, I havent read the book…..I’ll have to check it out sometime. Sounds pretty interesting.
I have read Idaho Falls, by William McKeown. It’s a very interesting book, that gives not only a peek into the heyday of the INL but also a look into what Idaho Falls was like back then. It’s a pretty fascinating story about an explosion that killed three workers at a US Army nuclear reactor in the early 1960s (I may have the time wrong). Theories abound, but the most popular one involves love triangle or dispute involving two of the three men at the reactor.
As a subscript: the prototype engines for the nuclear plane are on display near EBR-1, as is a locomotive used to move the planes. The hangar built for the project is still visible off U.S. Highway 33 shortly after you enter the site boundaries. I’ve written a travelogue story about it at uncharted.net — look under road trips.
Bloop, I was about to say the same thing. Test Area North (TAN) is where they were doing all that work. In fact, there’s a really looong runway out there as well.
CR, I haven’t gone anywhere – work’s just been keeping me a little too busy.
That being said, shouldn’t we get back on topic and move the alternative energy topics to another thread?
Especially since when you search “Areva Idaho Falls” on Google, this is the first hit. This thread is a chance for us to show the world that Idaho can be an energy revolution leader.
Recently I came across the fact that Idaho has the lowest consumer electricity cost in the nation. I would like to see numbers on how much power the Areva plant plans on consuming. Could the low cost of Idaho energy have been one of Areva’s main decision factors?
Mike, re #56, this is truly brilliant.
Not sure why it hasn’t been mentioned but Lead is normally what is used as shielding in a reactor. That was one of the problems with the shielding on that Nuclear Aircraft. Lead as you know is heavy but it is also one of the best types of shielding. It was considered for the Aircraft but again it was realized too much weight in shielding making the aircraft too heavy to fly.
Anyways, I guess my point is Lead is one of the main types of shielding used as it shields quite well.
Back to AREVA. I found it interesting that many comments were accepting of wastes being retained here because we “produced” the waste.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t this a separation process where spent nuclides and scrap components in the fuel are removed until the remaining concentration of uranium is again at a level that can reach criticality in a reactor?
This being the case I would have several comments.
Handling virgin non used fuel is fairly safe. Handling fuel that has been used once is deadly.
Wouldn’t this processed and re-concentrated stuff also be deadly to handle and transport?
What prevents this material that is now traveling on a regular basis from falling into terrorist hands and being used in a “Dirty Bomb”?
If we are not the state that originally split the atom, used its energy, and produced the hazard then we are not in any way liable to keep their trash even if we perform a separation and enrichment process on it for them.
I would think that since this is a service to them then they should be liable for any additional dirty materials added to the waste stream due to the refinement process.
I’ve heard rumors that Gold Emblem Farms is scooping land near INL to be package for development. Is there any solid information regarding the specific location of the proposed Areva site? How many acres will they need anyway?
Thanks
I thought the Areva site was being built in/near Shelley? (I could be wrong)
18 miles west on same highway as inel just closer
This whole conversation is uninformed and pointless. The “waste” produced here is nothing more than U-238. To put this in context, it is about as hazardous as granite. It’s easily and safely disposed of by digging a hole, putting the “waste” in and covering it with a few feet of dirt.
To summarize: An enrichment plant does not irradiate nuclear material and thus it does not result in waste that is appreciably more radiological than what is readily found in nature.
You have nothing to lose by giving tax breaks to get Areva to come here. Even if they were to only operate the plant for a few years (which is unlikely, since an enrichment plant is a big, multi-decade investment), that would be a few years of extra tax revenue and economic activity which you would get none of otherwise.
Well, MIT Nuclear Engineer #80, the whole idea is that we’re NOT you, and we only know what we see and hear and read from our poorly informed perspective. So, with us being uneducated in this area, you should expect our opinions to be uniformed…but never pointless. Even the uniformed have opinions that are valid from their viewpoint.
Thanks for giving us the benefit of your knowledge, and joining the discussion.
I agree that it’s a good thing Areva will be coming here, and I hope that our economy and our energy future will be brighter for it.
So, if I understand you correctly…when this “waste”, that is only buried a few feet deep, eventually starts to leak into our water supply, we should have nothing to fear because it’s “harmless waste”? So why is New Mexico’s Nuclear waste facility a half a mile underground?
What about all the waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation that’s been leaking into the ground for years? Hanford Washington is the most contaminated place on this planet and our govt has been trying to clean it up for for almost 20 years now to no avail. There’s 53 million gallons of waste stored there, over a million of which has already leaked. (it’s probably alot more, since we know our govt doesn’t like to tell us everything and/or want the American people to panic)
Waste is waste and no matter how much occurs “naturally”, the waste we’re talking about isn’t “natural”.
People want nuclear energy to be their alternative answer to our energy needs, but nobody really considers the waste. As long as it’s not stored in our back yard, who cares right?
Guest_House, you are touching on my same issues for being anti-nuke for the last 30 years.
It’s that waste that no one wants to store in their state, no one knows how to effectively reduce. Those in the know think is a non issue, but those of us not in the know are not convinced.
Apparently there must be differing types of waste products depending upon the particular project.
For those of you who are educated about nuclear issues, this is your biggest challenge from a public relations standpoint. People who are otherwise reasonably intelligent and caring are concerned about all the waste and what will happen when it’s not stored safely, or when it’s transported and an accident occurs. Or even, when the material is stored and gets into the wrong hands.
The waste is my last issue with nukes. I’m seeing more countries using nuclear without more reports of major issues, but I’m concerned, where is that waste going? Why are they able to use nuclear without there being a waste storage issue?
Other than that, I’m ready to accept nuclear power in a big way. Help me understand, please…
I just heard this weekend that our government is bringing “hot” soil from Kuwait and other gulf areas to the desert near Boise and burying it. Anyone else hear or know anything about this?
I had heard that we were taking ownership of a problem that we created, and that it was coming our way in Idaho, for long term storage.
I guess it’s only fair, but on the other hand, gee whiz, we sent our men and women there to fight and die for them, so it feels a little strange that they are now requiring us to clean up after ourselves after doing them the favor of liberating their country.
Maybe I’m mistaken about the reason or the real issue with this “hot sand”. I guess I’m also not sure how I feel about it, it just seems odd.
Good point GH and Nemesis. But it’s the same issue with us footing the bill to rebuild Iraq, when Iraq should be pitching in and helping to rebuild their own country.
I’m not harping on Obama in any way here, (so no bashing please) but he suggested the other day that we should help rebuild Georgia, yet he doesn’t think we should help rebuild Iraq. Granted, we bombed Iraq I think we should help a little. (although I believe Iraq needs to get off their duffs and put some of that oil money to good use rebuilding their own country) As far as Georgia goes, Russia should be helping to rebuild that country since their the ones that bombed it.
Back to the nuclear issue: nuclear waste is a huge problem, but our government doesn’t want you to think it is. Neither does Bechtel (a company of INL) who is given huge contracts to help dispose of waste and has been given (given not awarded by our govt) contracts in Iraq as well. It’s an important issue and one that should be addressed immediately.
Like GH noted with the waste that’s leaking in Washington. Last I heard (which was about 2 years ago) that is was close to leaking into the Columbia river, which would be a huge disaster that would be next to impossible to clean up. Again, Bechtel has had the cleanup contract for this and it doesn’t seem like their doing such a good job. Evidently they built some storage facility and large holding tanks that are supposed to hold this waste and the tank they built is already leaking, so they have to build another one, which isn’t supposed to be done until the year 2017. By that time the whole Columbia river could be contaminated.
Like I said, it’s a huge problem but you never hear anything about it on the news. Do a search online and you’ll see for yourself.
I agree with Nemesis: it’s a concern for those of us that aren’t nuclear scientists. This isn’t your normal pollution that the earth and time will help to decompose. This is waste that will be around for hundreds of years, long after we’re all gone.
So while I’m all for nuclear energy on one hand, the other hand is slapping that hand going “no!, we don’t need this waste”!
Yeah, CR67, my hands are doing a lot of slapping, too!
My former father in law was a technical editor at Argonne, retired in the 80s. He was one of the smartest men I ever knew. He was pro nuke all the way, didn’t understand why I didn’t “get it”. He was patient with me but, he just couldn’t figure out a way to help me understand how to deal with the waste products in a way that didn’t wreak havoc.
So what are the other countries doing with their waste? Why is it sucessful for them…why aren’t we doing the same things? (Or are they just better at hiding their problems from the media?)
I really want to know. I want to support nuclear power, and am willing to listen and learn.
Ditto to comment 87.
I believe having Areva become part of our community would be great for the economy and I personally have worked hand in hand with crews from Areva at a nuclear power plant in South Carolina. They know what they are doing and they do it well. They aren’t going to come in and dump crap on us! There are way way way to many regulations this day and time enforced by the NRC! Come on people we are getting hit hard here in Idaho Falls and the surrounding areas………..how many of you have a neighbor or a friend or a family member who is out of work right now, or has been out of work in the last six months. Having a large company like Areav coming in and bringing hundreds and hundreds of jobs with them is in no way shape or form a bad thing!
While I do think it’ll be nice to have Areva in the area, the only problem is, most of those jobs you speak of will go to high paying scientists, and others with Bachelor degree’s and the like. Qualifications that most of those out of work in IF don’t posses. It may however have an impact on the housing market which in turn may help those in the construction business, laborers, electricians, relators, etc.
Does anyone know when Areva will be up and operational?
I am one of few civilians that have actually been allowed inside the AREVA site at Tricistan, known as the Georges Besse II facility. It operates using Centerfuge technology, which will be exactly what will be at the Eagle Rock Enrichment facility. There will be no smoke stacks or nuclear reactors. I can take any questions you might have.
How does it work?
Comment 90 JellyBelly: if the problem with Areva is they will only give those good jobs to people with degrees, then why don’t you try to earn a degree so you can get one of those types of jobs?
even people with degrees get turned down for jobs sometimes. See the guy with the MBA holding the sign on 17th street. Ya. it’s called overqulified and it really does happen. These people need jobs too if that is the arguement.
Sure, but that is a separate and opposite issue. I am tired of the crybabies around here that refuse to get higher education and who vote for conservative lawmakers who refuse to fund education, then complain the good jobs require higher education. What did you think would happen?
Good point April. I thought it took a lot of courage for him to stand on the corner like that. It looked like he got quite a few offers so it might just have paid off for him. I have to give him props.
At the same time, I don’t necessarily believe you need a 4-8 year degree to make good money. Which is why the local technical schools are doing so well. You can graduate in 18-24 months and easily make 6 figures in the right field. I know quite a few people that don’t have degrees and live quite comfortably.