5 ms·

Yes, was there any expectation that this would be some kind of private undertaking?

lostlogin 8y ago
It wasn’t a state owned company and it made some very poor choices with that plant. According to the inquiry, the accident was foreseeable and basic safety precautions had not been taken. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Diet_of_Japan_Fukushima_Nuclear_Accident_Independent_Investigation_Commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Diet_of_Japan_Fukus...
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  Is the company responsible still in business? Assuming it's not, who else would be expected to pay for this if not the government? Edit: According to Wikipedia the company is still in business, but it's owned (50.11%) by the "Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corporation". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Electric_Power_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Electric_Power_Company I would assume based on the name that that corporation actually might be involved in this project somehow?
  - jplayer01 8y ago
    That's the name of the state ownership part of TEPCO. The government even had to give them 1 trillion yen to keep them from going under, and it was originally planned that the entire company would be nationalized, which turned into majority ownership (a bit over 50%).
  - lostlogin 8y ago
    I would expect the company to pay or have insurance to cover the cost of mistakes in their line of business. If a company cannot afford to meet costs like these then they shouldn’t have been in business. These events were predictable and could have been prevented, as the inquiry found. Given that this has happened however, the government obviously has to pay.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Insurance companies typically won’t insure nuclear generators due to the enormous liability incurred during a black swan event, which is why government backing is required.
      - beders 8y ago
        Or we stop building power plants that are un-insurable? How about that...
        toomuchtodo 8y ago
        That’s essentially what we’ve done, but because of project management failures (time and budget overruns).
      - lostlogin 8y ago
        It’s understandable that insurance companies are not keen. But if the taxpayer is ultimately going to pay, having the company run for profit until that time seems wrong to me, why not have the state run it all? Not that this worked all that well in the Ukraine, but I’d argue that was a different set of problems.

It wasn’t a state owned company and it made some very poor choices with that plant. According to the inquiry, the accident was foreseeable and basic safety precautions had not been taken. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Diet_of_Japan_Fukushima_Nuclear_Accident_Independent_Investigation_Commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Diet_of_Japan_Fukus...

Ajedi32 8y ago
Is the company responsible still in business? Assuming it's not, who else would be expected to pay for this if not the government? Edit: According to Wikipedia the company is still in business, but it's owned (50.11%) by the "Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corporation". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Electric_Power_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Electric_Power_Company I would assume based on the name that that corporation actually might be involved in this project somehow?
- jplayer01 8y ago
  That's the name of the state ownership part of TEPCO. The government even had to give them 1 trillion yen to keep them from going under, and it was originally planned that the entire company would be nationalized, which turned into majority ownership (a bit over 50%).
- lostlogin 8y ago
  I would expect the company to pay or have insurance to cover the cost of mistakes in their line of business. If a company cannot afford to meet costs like these then they shouldn’t have been in business. These events were predictable and could have been prevented, as the inquiry found. Given that this has happened however, the government obviously has to pay.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Insurance companies typically won’t insure nuclear generators due to the enormous liability incurred during a black swan event, which is why government backing is required.
    - beders 8y ago
      Or we stop building power plants that are un-insurable? How about that...
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        That’s essentially what we’ve done, but because of project management failures (time and budget overruns).
    - lostlogin 8y ago
      It’s understandable that insurance companies are not keen. But if the taxpayer is ultimately going to pay, having the company run for profit until that time seems wrong to me, why not have the state run it all? Not that this worked all that well in the Ukraine, but I’d argue that was a different set of problems.