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)
5. TEPCO appears to be on track to be nationalized
Thu Dec 22, 2011, 05:01 PM
Dec 2011
Obstacles loom for TEPCO 'nationalization' plan
December 22, 2011

A government plan to bring Tokyo Electric Power Co. under state control to secure decommissioning costs for the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant faces opposition from the utility among many other hurdles.

Under the plan being discussed within the government, the government-backed Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund would invest about 1 trillion yen ($12.87 billion) in TEPCO to secure more than two-thirds of its shares.

The investment is designed to ensure that TEPCO will have access to sufficient funds for decommissioning the Fukushima No. 1 plant.

A government third-party committee estimates that about 1.15 trillion yen will be required to decommission the No. 1 to No. 4 reactors damaged by the Great East Japan Earthquake. The No. 5 and No. 6 reactors may have to be decommissioned.

“It is difficult...
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201112220050


All of this is, of course, separate from all other costs associated with the meltdowns. I can't imagine we will ever be able to quantify the full costs; for example what method could be used to assess the cost of impaired response to the tsunami and rebuilding efforts? A specific example of that would be corporations have fled the area; not because of the natural parts of the disaster but because of the long term nuclear problems.

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 #5