Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
1. Notice there is no mention of cost in the NYT piece...
Thu Dec 22, 2011, 04:23 PM
Dec 2011

That's because:

TEPCO omits total cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors from work schedule

Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), the operator of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, did not specify the cost of decommissioning the plant's reactors in its work schedule announced Dec. 21 -- apparently to obscure the possibility of the utility becoming insolvent and no longer viable as a company.

The utility, however, will inevitably come under pressure to process and release accounting information on the snowballing costs of decommissioning the No. 1-4 reactors at the plant, which was crippled in the aftermath of the March 11 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.

The government is considering injecting taxpayers' money into the utility and nationalizing it to turn it into an entity dedicated to providing compensation for the nuclear crisis. The government is also poised to launch a full-scale debate on the fate of TEPCO's management with major lenders to the utility.

It is difficult to predict how much it will cost to decommission the four reactors -- a task expected to take up to 40 years and be fraught with difficulties. A government-appointed third-party panel estimated in October that it will cost 1.151 trillion yen to decommission the troubled reactors. TEPCO, meanwhile, has decided to set aside some 940 billion yen for decommissioning.

The utility...
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111222p2a00m0na019000c.html

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Notice there is no mention of cost in the NYT piece... kristopher Dec 2011 #1
1.151 trillion yen Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #2
But what did they cost to build in the first place? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #3
Since the public is going to have to pay eventually, TEPCO's shareholder value should disappear now Kolesar Dec 2011 #4
TEPCO appears to be on track to be nationalized kristopher Dec 2011 #5
Good. joshcryer Dec 2011 #6
Transferring liability to the public is good? kristopher Dec 2011 #8
Which way do you think the job will be done better? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #10
If a for-profit company does it under proper regulatory oversight. kristopher Dec 2011 #11
How soon did you want work to begin? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #12
I'm not sure of your point kristopher Dec 2011 #13
Well, this is the model you said you prefer, a for-profit company with government oversight OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #15
I think you'd eventually have a raft of problems just as bad as you now see. kristopher Dec 2011 #17
Well, I think the motivations are different here OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #21
True. kristopher Dec 2011 #22
Actually after considering it a bit I see a problem. kristopher Dec 2011 #23
Lack of funding isn’t a problem OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #31
Anything that is legislated can change. kristopher Dec 2011 #32
And your point here would be? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #33
It isn't black and white thinking kristopher Dec 2011 #34
“Anything that is legislated can change.” OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #35
Apparently you've lost the ability to reason... kristopher Dec 2011 #36
Does this describe the view you are laying out? kristopher Dec 2011 #14
The lead paragraphs sums it up nicely OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #16
I can see that perspective. kristopher Dec 2011 #19
Why should anyone profit off of a major disaster? tinrobot Dec 2011 #25
You have it wrong. kristopher Dec 2011 #29
To play Devil's Advocate here XemaSab Dec 2011 #30
Nuclear shouldn't be in the hands of for-profit corporations. joshcryer Dec 2011 #18
And energy shouldn't be in the hands of governments that amass power over people. kristopher Dec 2011 #20
Profit always trumps environment. Strong regulations can help... joshcryer Dec 2011 #24
What energy sources? Nuclear? kristopher Dec 2011 #28
Of course... letting the likes of Enron run wild makes perfect sense. tinrobot Dec 2011 #26
Nothing I wrote endorses that. kristopher Dec 2011 #27
They've been decomissioning Hanford pscot Dec 2011 #7
Hanford, the gift that keeps on giving... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #9
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»NYT - Japanese Government...»Reply #1