" I find it interesting that a company that at the last SEC filing employed FIVE people, and that does not have enough money to meet the operating cost (according to SEC filings as well) is in a position to build a multi billon dollar facility. It seams to me a lot of tax payer money is being wasted here. "

" Im confused HOW this will raise property value. Looking at it from a home buyers perspective I would NOT want to live near any factory or plant.
In regards to jobs, I feel like this is being dangled in front of one of the poorest counties, at one of the toughest economic times. Sounds like perfect timing on there part, simply because people are desperate and perhaps willing to overlook issues that may at other times receive more scrutiny.
Obviously the idea of a nuclear plant was not well received by other communities in Idaho. We've heard AEHI's reasons behind this, what about the residents who turned it down? As much as AEHI's plays if off as people who simply didnt know, or want to learn about nuclear power, I find it difficult to believe that educated residents ran from this simply based on the fact they didnt 'know' about nuclear power.
Im not an expert, nor pretend to be, but when money is involved companies become blinded and I highly doubt they are wanting to build this for our benefit. "

" I didn't much get past the website.. minimal is an understatement. I see no fruition on this proposal whether it is favored or not. A good idea for power though to meet Idaho's needs would be Wind Farms.. Scatter a thousand through Jerome , Twin Falls area and Idaho is good to go, can't take off your hat in that area without it being blown away. "

" From what I have heard the plant will bring jobs, and raise land value. The chance of a nuke leak is the same as walking outside and being hit in the head by a stray bullet from a hunter. i am not sure of anything but i do know..almost every other country uses this type of power. I dont want to be pig headed and say they all also have free health care and many other ammenities, but we in america seem to be doing something very wrong..noone wants to live here besides the desperate (mexico) everyother country wonders whats wrong with us! I can only assume we have been taken over by selfish, money hungry, people..so to make my point I am on the fence about the plant, I just want people to think of others instead of themselves for once! "

" Eric -
if it weren't for people like myself asking stupid questions and carrying on like a maniac, others would just buy into all the claims being made by AEHI without questioning anything, and that is just as dangerously ignorant as only following the opposition's propaganda. The truth lies somewhere in between.
And yes, I've looked at some of the government data and every news article i can find, AS WELL AS those by watchdog groups and blogs (including mr. gillispie's blog)

after the meeting last night, I have a few "corrections" to some of my opinions (my concern about the 1 mill gallons of water, for example), but I also have a few more questions (they still haven't answered where this water will come from, other than that it will be "pumped in", or where the water that is "lost due to leakage" will go), and will continue to ask them and ask that others ask them until they are answered.

It's cute how Gillispie worries (in the recent Argus article) that people might form their opinions based on "media" or last night's meeting (wha?!), yet AEHI really hasn't given out much helpful information. Maybe, if he doesn't want people resorting to getting their info about him and his company from blogs/unfavorable editorials, and the words that actually came out of his mouth last night, AEHI ought to just do the smart thing and actually post some real information on their website!

The issue here isn't "nuclear ignorance", its whether or not to get involved with something as serious as a nuclear plant in the area merely on the basis of all the promised jobs and economic bonuses that have been advertised. The company hasn't been around long enough to have much of a "paper trail", and what IS out there really does portray them as a new company with little experience ... which has and ought to concern all those in the area who are looking at this company to give them work. "

" To Eric Cooper:

I am a lover of truth from all sides, so I was wondering if you could please cite your sources instead of merely saying that your "background check" on Rickards was "a whole other story".

It was you, yourself, Mr. Cooper who nudged me earlier this week on my blog, defending AEHI and asking ME to provide sources (other than "blogs" that others had written). In checking on YOUR background, I have a few suspicions of my own. Namely, why does a guy who "has friends in the nuclear industry who were involved in the three-mile island studies" and who lives in Boise be so interested in little 'ol Payette? Could it possibly have something to do with YOUR ties to AEHI? Or are you just a concerned citizen who wants more energy for Boise and the rest of the West at the cost of Rural Payette? I suspect the former.

A lot of people are concerned at the half-truths (yes, LIES) that are being told in support of the project, but quite a few are concerned about the dangers of such a plant being built a couple miles out of town. It might not affect you over there in Boise, but if an accident were to occur - and make no mistake: we are perfectly aware that these accidents DO occur, and people DO get contaminated and the environment around these places DOES get injured - and that these accidents STILL occur, even in the US, even in commercial plants, even in the past 2-3 years - when an accident occurs, those in the plant are at highest risk, followed by those of us outside the plant in our rural community, followed by those downstream, followed by those downwind. So yeah, YOU live in Boise/Eagle, great. Your risk is exponentially lower than ours. Why not build your plant in Boise? Eagle? Meridian?

We can all intellectualize and bicker back and forth on this issue as much as we want, but the bottom line is this:

If the people of this area don't want an environmentally dangerous "big corporation" in their backyard, WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. "

" This plant will be completed about the
same time the Ethanol Plant in Ontario is.In other words, never. "

" At the time MidAmerican was planning to build a plant out there 7% of the power they generated was from nuclear power. Although MidAmerican Nuclear Energy did not personally build a plant they had the resources to hire people with the experience to make it happen. The people with that experience told them after doing real work at the site it did not make financial since. One has to ask why is AEHI spending their time and effort getting a zoning change before they study the site? It takes more than just zoning, water, open area and a business community that want jobs to validate a site. I personally support nuclear power and have a hard time coming up with valid reasons to personally oppose it. But I think we need to look at the companies that are proposing these endeavors and ask our selves, Are they a legitimate company that can study, develop a plan and implement the plan? Or are they just dreaming about building a plant? If a company does not have the resources to implement their plan they are wasting tax payers money. We should look at a companies history and financial situation before we support any zoning changes. "

" Amy, your concern about property values and the 'neighbor effect' of nuclear plants is quite understandable. But, I have good news. From my research, property values actually increase (although property taxes decrease because of increased tax yields from the plant) for people living near nuclear power plants. And the most recent polls show extremely high favor of people living less than 10KM from plants in the US, with over 85% saying that nuclear power plants are excellent neighbors. Rather than take my word for it, you can check it out for yourself online or at your local library. Also, the British, French, Japanese, South Koreans, Italians, and Canadians have reported similar findigs for both the US and their respective countries. So, you can get a truly third party perspective on the whole issue. Hope that helps you find some good places to start learning about this stuff. "

" While I disagree with nearly everything Inforodeo was said regarding the AEHI nuclear plant proposal, I must congratulate him on point 5 from his Nov 18, 2009 9:18 PM post: it is spent fuel; not waste. It can be re-used. However, I'd highly suggest taking a breath and actually better-educating one's self on this entire project--many of your concerns are so wildly off base that they don't even exist. For example, how will power prices be forced up if the rates will be determined by market forces or purchase agreements (that are controlled by utilities)? If the rates are too high, nobody will buy the power. And Idaho has built many coal plants out of state to provide much of its power. However, those states aren't going to allow that much longer. So, what's the solution then? And I see you still haven't consulted the numerous govenment, academic, agency and industry reports that I mentioned to you on your earlier post. If only 1% of them had been read,we probably wouldn't have to waste more time here addressing them. "

" It's hilarious that Dr. Rickards states Don Gillispie lies and then recommends everyone trust his website instead. First, investigation revealed that Don Gillispie received an Executive MBA--anyone familiar with that program at MIT would know what that stands for; this is no small accomplishment and IS considered a graduate-level program of high caliber. Second, Dr. Rickards, the adage warning against throwing stones while living in glass houses comes to mind. For example, your testimony about water consumption, which you claimed was based on consultation with AREVA, was so outrageously wrong as to be laughable if not an outright lie. However, I PHONED AREVA in France and talked to several of their people, including design engineer reps and found out that Gillispie was right. And I prefer to get my facts from law-abiding decent people. In doing background checks on both of you, I found nothing on Gillispie, but you are another story. "

" I don't want a nuclear plant built because I worry about my property value. Who wants to live by a nuclear power plant? It's not exactly a selling point.

If it's so safe why don't they build it in Canyon or Ada County?

If Elmore and Owyhee county didn't want it built there, why would we want it here?

I hope people in this county stand up and oppose this. We need new jobs and businesses in this area but this is not the way to go. We are not desperate.

Why don't they build this plant in the middle of nowhere where there are no communites, and schools nearby? "

" Anyone who is NOT in favor of a nuclear plant in Payette to email your concerns to the following people:

lroyston@payettecounty.org
imachuca@payettecounty.org

and ALSO SEND A PAPER COPY to:

PAYETTE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING
PAYETTE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
1130 3rd Ave N. Room #107
PAYETTE, IDAHO 83661

more info on my blog: inforodeo.wordpress.com "

" I'd also like to know a few things:

1) where is the "million gallons a day" going to come from? There's not that much year-round consistent water out at Big Willow ... are they going to steal mour groundwater or build a pipeline across town to pull from the Snake or Payette rivers? Where is the used water going to go?

2) why have they avoided telling us what kind of nuclear plant it will be? Is this to prevent us from doing our own research prior to the town meeting, so we'll continue to look like ignorant people (according to Gillepsie)

3) ditto on the missing details about their alleged midwest plants ...

4) everything i've read online about AEHI says they essentially have no funding, and that the claims they make about financial backing are premature (that place in CT said they're still waiting for AEHI's due diligence before they agree on money). How are they planning on pumping these billions into the local economy while spending billions on building the plant?

5) what route will new and spent radioactive fuel take to get to the plant? I-84? Train? Either way, it's going to have to go through our communities.

I really hope these questions are answered quick, and that area residents voice their legitimate concerns to the planning & zoning people (whose email/snail mail addresses appear on AEHI's site). I'm a little worried because most local people I've spoken with have voiced support because of "jobs and cheaper energy bills", and other area communities seem to be completely unaware that there is even discussion about a plant going on. "

" what a nice man! way to take the high road against opposition:

"we were sort of forced out by some locals who don’t know much about nuclear energy and don’t want to, either."

it's too bad that jerks like him can't admit that sometimes people make choices to oppose projects like this because they ARE educated and don't want to buy a line of bull.

from what I have read, AEHI also has NO experience building plants of this type. Funny he would choose to make that claim against a competitor.

The letter AEHI sent out to the community falsely hints that the "cheap and efficient" power from these plants will reduce power bills for the consumer. It does not and never has worked that way! Our bills will likely go UP as companies try to pay for this expensive project.

They also focused mainly on all the jobs the construction and operational phases will bring to the community. Looking at other projects of this scale, most of these jobs go to contractors who bid on the deal & are from other areas ... so it is possible that few of these jobs will actually go to local people. The business that these 5,000 workers will bring into town WILL temporarily boost the economy, especially the bars owners, grocers, fast-food restaraunts and realtors in the area. That's why they are the ones pushing for the power plant. Keep in mind, too, that if/when our houses appreciate in value, our property taxes will too. If you are one of the thousands of families who will NOT get a job with the power company, are you going to be ok with the risen grocery prices, property taxes and gas prices that the increase of other business will bring to the community? And what about after the plant is done, and the 4,000 workers leave town. Then what?

They also make liberal use of this idea that nuclear power will stop "Global Warming", and attack coal and oil buring plants - neither of which are used in this area (we use the even more environmentally safe & global-warming preventing hydroelectric power). I personally find it laughable that a company who claims to be so environmentally friendly wants to set up their business on over 5,000 acres of land that is in the dead center of endangered ground squirrel habitat! S. brunneus endemicus lives in the foothills between Emmett and Weiser, and supposedly there were only 500 or so of these counted during one of the last studies done. As much as these foothills seem devoid of life, they have one of the more healthier mule deer populations in the area, and are home to a lot of other species. But hey! Building a radiation plant is going to stop global warming. Neat!

They make claims that nuclear energy is safe, and that no one has ever been injured, killed, or "improperly exposed to" radiation. That is an easily disputed falsehood. Look up "Robert Peabody" who died as a result of exposure to a lethal dose of radiation at a commercial facility in Rhode Island. Or the other people who have been contaminated when commercial facilities are improperly operated, age and leak, etc.

They also don't address the transportation and storage of fuel and spent fuel. Transportation presents its own dangers - like the truck that swerved and dumped radioactive waste into the snake river a few years back, or the one in new york, or ... you get the picture. There are numerous incidents in which "improper" levels of radioactivity are released into the environment (including our air and drinking water) where they wouldn't have been if nuclear facilities did not exist in the area.

Part of the claim of safety ("it's safer than flying in a plane, or living below a dam") is due to the way in which radiation most often affects the lives of persons exposed to "improper" levels. Scattered deaths due to cancer, deformities and other health problems are rarely as dramatic as a plane with 200 people falling out of the sky, but these things kill more people over time than any number of bigger scale disasters.

Payette, Ontario, Fruitland, Weiser and Huntington would all be downhill & down river from the planned facility. Emmett, Nampa, Boise, Meridian and Kuna would all be downwind. Those of us downstream have the most opportunity to be injured by an accident ... which is precisely why companies like to put these "safe" plants in rural areas: less people will be killed, less people can sue, less people will have to be evacuated. Besides, we're all undereducated rednecks who don't have the first clue about what we're talking about right? These "safe" plants should be built near the high-population areas that benefit the most from them, if they really are that safe, that is.

I'm not against nuclear energy, but I am against this company taking advantage of the economic desperation of people in this area. I am against the "get rich quick" mentality that is allowing these creeps to lead us blindly into support of them. We have to look at the long term effects - both in terms of contamination, loss of public land, rising taxes, and the *temporary* nature of most of the jobs they do bring into town. We need to keep in mind that we will be paying for this project through higher power costs as well as through our state and local taxes.

A bad tree doesn't bring forth good fruits. I look at the half-truths and outright lies they mailed to us in preparation for their thursday night sales pitch, and wonder "what are they trying to hide?"

I hope I am not alone. "

" Hi Idaho neighbors in the Payette area, Please beware of this nuclear company. For official documents on modern nuclear safety flaws and problems, please visit our website at MyIdahoEnergy.com
Gillispie and AEHI simply lie about safety, and Gillispie even claimed in Elmore that he has a graduate school degree from MIT! That proved false when the Times-News checked it. He went to a "seminar" for businessmen at MIT's Sloan School of Business, and that is all!
Above Gillispie claims "Gillispie said the company currently operates eight plants in the Mid-west." That is outright falsehood! AEHI owns no nuke plants, runs no nuke plants, and only produces perpetual press releases promising pie-in-the-sky. "

" It is unfortunate that the article doesn't go on to explain the extent of the company's Midwest operations. The company's website is also devoid of details of what type of plants the company operates. Are they also nuclear plants? How much power do they produce? It seems that type of experience should be part of the discussion. "