TEPCO, Fukushima Meltdown

The last report that I read is that it is going to cost TEPCO around $14 billion dollars just to decommission the 4 reactors.

As far as the cost to restore their public image? I don't think that will ever happen, no matter how much money they spend. To be fair, they aren't the only ones to blame- Japanese regulations on nuclear power were proven to be completely inadequate. However, TEPCO will face the brunt of the blame.

 

To bad these guys weren't using salt cooled thorium reactors.

 

Their problems didn't stem from the type of reactor used. Their problems were a result of a lack of safety upgrades and emergency planning.

 

The thorium reactors don't require such stringent regulating in order to be safe. Containment is easier, and with salt cooling over water or gas cooling, you don't run into the problems of high pressure like fukishima experienced when their coolants started leaking.

Sounds a little bit like it addresses some of the problems they had.


Sidenote : In the USA, Regulation is the largest hurdle companies face in investing into this technology.

 

The reactors were designed to withstand earthquakes, and they did withstand one of the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in history.

What the reactors could not withstand was the loss of offsite power, that resulted from the tsunami (they were hit with 40 foot wall of water). Their emergency generator capacity was inadequate.

This was compounded by the fact that the reactors were not retrofitted with a hardened vent to the outside, which caused the hydrogen explosions that we all watched unfold.

 

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but i want to point out that flouride salt thorium reactors solve this problem. The salt coolant stays at low pressure, and the system uses a portion of the energy created by the reactor to "freeze" a block of fluoride salt in the bottom end of the coolant lines. This acts as a plug, which begins to melt and allow a the coolant/fuel mixture to drain into a proper containment vessel if power is not adequate.

Like i said, regulatory guidelines do not take this technology into consideration and have so far introduced barriers into employing it.

Your statement that it was a failure of safety regulation is a bit ... weak.

Because of regulatory guidelines, the inferior technology has been relied on in the place of better engineered technology.

 

I'm not sure what you mean when you say their "coolants started leaking". That's not what happened at Fukushima.

They lost offsite power, which caused the water cooling the reactors to heat up. With adequate emergency power supply (generators), they could have cooled down the water, which would have cooled the reactors, and prevented the shitstorm that followed.

When they were unable to cool the reactors (because they had no offiste power), they vented hydrogen into the secondary containment, which is what caused the hydrogen explosions. Once hydrogen explosions blew the plants to smithereens, there was very little chance of preventing further radiation exposure.

It's really comparing apples to oranges. Thorium reactors are a very new technology. This doesn't address the hundreds of already existing boiling water reactors world wide that are fully operational. You can't just convert an existing boiling water reactor (or pressurized water reactor) into a thorium reactor.

Regulation is not the biggest hurdle. It's opposition. Nuclear reactor technology is continually being developed and improved in the US. The federal government is actually one of the biggest proponents of nuclear power we have in this country.

It's opposition to nuclear power that prevents it from being commercially viable. NIMBY!

 

Answer to OP.


Only government would have any interest in preserving inferior technology at the cost of billions, no private company would fuck with it. Id say your proposal would only have a chance at seeing the light of day if you convinced the right politician to find a way to earmark something for you.

 

Okay so technically your right, the coolant didn't rupture anything, but they still had to blow of the hydrogen, which had obvious negative consequence. This does not have to happen in a salt cooled reactor.

Salt cooling technology is what allows for the safer cooling. thorium just happens to work well with salt coolants. Salt cooling, and the thorium cycle have been around since about the 60's

Who is exerting the force of the opposition?

Ill give you a hint, regular citizens aren't doing it.

Your statement would be more accurate, if you said they are the largest proponent of government controlled nuclear power they want THEIR boys designing, selling and profiting from the technology.

 

I think penelope gave you a pretty good number. 14 billion just to decommission. Sounds like your gonna be measuring your budget in the tens of billions to say the least.

 

There are too many factors involved to make an accurate estimate based on the information you've provided. Before pricing can be adressed, one must first define the audience, research their media consumption, and, using that information, develop a media strategy. From there, one can start developing a timeline (e.g. when and for how long the ads will run for) and selecting specific vehicles. Until you determine the specific 'whens' and 'wheres', pricing is entirely up in the air. I know that isn't the answer your looking for but that's how it's done (properly, at least).

He's trying to develop an advertising budget. Did no one actually read the post?

 

They need to decommission those reactors before they can even begin to restore their public image.

 

Yes, but again, you're comparing apples to oranges. There are very few thorium reactors in commercial operation. This isn't because of regulations, it's because of economic factors. Creating fissile thorium is not an easy task.

Thorium

You are dead wrong. If there's one thing I have experience with in this world, it's the anti-nuke crowd. The primary opposition of nuclear power does not come from the federal government.

http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/987473-judge-rules-vermont-can%92t-shut-nuclear-plant.html

Can you expound on this?

 

Of course. However, that isn't the topic...at all—the OP is asking specifically about advertising/PR costs, not TEPCOs overall project costs.

 

It is on topic. How can run an effective PR campaign if the plants are not even decommissioned? My point is, once they get the decommissioning under control, then they will have a legitimate place to start a PR campaign to rebuild their reputation.

My point is that will cost them at least $14 billion dollars start to rebuild that reputation. It's all related.

 

I'm an advertiser by profession. If a representative from TEPCO walked into my office tomorrow morning and asked me to provide an estimate for a PR campaign like that described in the OP, the cost of decommissioning their reactors. Why? Because, quite simply, that isn't my job. I wouldn't factor that expense into my estimate because I'm not rendering that service. Is it something they need to address? Definitely. Would I take TEPCO's ongoing cleanup efforts into consideration when developing my campaign strategy? Yes. However, beyond that, it's entirely irrelevant to the me and the service I'm providing. That isn't to say it isn't important but it doesn't fall within the sphere of advertising/PR (particularly as it relates to cost). I don't know why that is so difficult to grasp.