Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Delays, Confusion as Toshiba Reports $6 Billion Nuclear Hit and Slides To Loss (reuters.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the delays-and-confusion dept.

Makiko Yamazaki, reporting for Reuters: After a day of delays and confusion, Japan's Toshiba said on Tuesday it expected to book a $6.3 billion hit to its U.S. nuclear unit, a writedown that wipes out its shareholder equity and will drag the group to a full-year loss. Hours earlier on Tuesday, the battered conglomerate rattled investors by failing to release its earnings on schedule, saying initially it was 'not ready' and then announcing later it needed more time to probe its Westinghouse nuclear business after internal reports uncovered potential problems. The figures eventually released were numbers that have yet to be approved by its auditor and Toshiba cautioned investors that a major revision was possible. Fully audited numbers are now not due till March 14 after the firm was granted a reprieve for its formal filing by Japanese regulators. "Finally now people are starting to recognize that internal control problems, the accounting issues and governance issues are very real and no longer abstract," said Zuhair Khan, an analyst at Jefferies in Tokyo. "They impact the viability of the company."

12 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. China and South Korea and Russia can do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Countries that want to and commit to building nuclear can do it well, on decent schedule and budget. A half ass commitment will fail for any large project, be it nuclear or other.

    1. Re:China and South Korea and Russia can do it by mspohr · · Score: 2

      Part of Toshiba's problem is the reactors they are building in China.
      Nuclear has gone from "too cheap to meter" to "too expensive to matter".

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:China and South Korea and Russia can do it by mspohr · · Score: 2

      Your comment doesn't make any sense...
      Here's Wikipedia's entry for Germany:
      Germany[edit]
      "Comparison of the levelized cost of electricity for some newly built renewable and fossil-fuel based power stations in euro per kWh (Germany, 2013)
      In November 2013, the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE assessed the levelised generation costs for newly built power plants in the German electricity sector.[39] PV systems reached LCOE between 0.078 and 0.142 Euro/kWh in the third quarter of 2013, depending on the type of power plant (ground-mounted utility-scale or small rooftop solar PV) and average German insolation of 1000 to 1200 kWh/m per year (GHI). There are no LCOE-figures available for electricity generated by recently built German nuclear power plants as none have been constructed since the late 1980s."
      Wind is cheaper than hard coal in Germany. PV is only a little more expensive in Germany.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    3. Re:China and South Korea and Russia can do it by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 5, Informative

      > Countries that want to and commit to building nuclear can do it well, on decent schedule and budget

      Uhh, yeah.

      Over the years, Russia has committed to building something like 50 reactors. After Chernobyl, that was reduced to something like 25. They have grand plans for a closed fuel cycle using breeder/burners and reprocessing, and lots of other ideas. So far they've successfully built three. The rest remain hopelessly overdue or completely unfunded. They have decommed as many as they've built since 2000.

      China had big plans too, something between 50 and 100 reactors over a 25 to 45 year period. Then the 2008 Sichuan earthquake happened, and they learned that all the construction companies lied and cut corners practically everywhere. The famous school that collapsed only did so because the construction team couldn't be bothered to bend the end of the rebars in the vertical supports, which would have otherwise easily survived. This, needless to say, opened many people's eyes, and the plans have been scaled back to about 25 reactors.

      However, these plans are very much in doubt. CNNC based much of its economic arguments on buying up old western designs and then selling them, with Chinese financing, around the world. This did not happen, no one is interested in building nuclear and sales have been rather limited. As a result, the government has been somewhat more interested in renewables, which everyone is buying, and the country has since become the largest installer of wind and solar on the planet. They install more PV in the last five years than the entire planned nuclear buildout.

      Nuclear is dead. Siemens, Framitome, AECL, Westinghouse, Toshiba, B&W, BNFL, and on and on and on. The few remaining players are all on life support - GE looks very much like they'll end development with their current generation, Areva only remains alive due to repeated massive French taxpayer infusions, and CNNC's only prospects are local.

      You can pretend this isn't true, and many people reply to my messages talking about all these paper plans, but to anyone that's actually worked in the energy industry, the CAPEX > $7.50 is a death knell and everyone knows it.

  2. don't know a business? don't buy it. by swschrad · · Score: 2

    appears there was horrid due diligence all the way down the line when Toshiba decided to go for the Westinghouse nuke business as Westinghouse shed its skin to become CBS. and then one bad addition after another. shame.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  3. Other problems by tomhath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Shares in the group slid 8 percent, putting the company's market value at 973 billion yen ($8.6 billion), less than half its value in mid-December. Just under a decade ago, the firm was worth almost 5 trillion yen.

    Lost over 80% of it's market value in ten years. Sounds like Toshiba has other problems besides this.

  4. Re:Don't let the door hit... by b0bby · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thanks, I'll make sure to get my next nuclear power plant from someone else!

  5. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by mspohr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wind and solar are getting to the point where they'll be cheaper than coal (without subsidies). Nuclear is the most expensive.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  6. Re:Don't let the door hit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Toshiba Customer Support: Hello, and thank you for calling Toshiba Customer Support. How can I help you today?
    cellocgw: There's hole burning through the bottom of my Toshiba Nuclear Power Plant and it's really, really hot in here. What should I do?
    TCS: Have you tried rebooting?
    c: Yes, I've tried rebooting. I've also pulled the core out while the reactor was on and then re-inserted to core and turned it back on. That's how I fix my Blackberry.
    TCS: Great. What happened when you did that?
    c: I got even hotter and now my hand is swelling up.
    TCS: Good, that shows the core is still working. Is you're reactor connected to the Internet? Can you request Remote Assistance?
    c: Sure, doing that now.
    TCS: What credit card will you be using to pay for today's Remote Assistance?
    c: What, I'm not paying?!?
    TCS: Sir, the warranty on your reactor expired yesterday.
    c: What?!? Fuck Toshiba and the [generic beast of burden] they rode in on. You have by far the worst consumer customer service I've ever run across.

  7. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by networkBoy · · Score: 2

    jokes on your great great great grandchildren then as my great great great grandchildren will be atomic supermen by then!

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  8. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

    I'm by no means an expert but recent media has made this seem to be the case.

    Your image showed the most expensive nuclear as cheaper than the cheapest residential solar. Utility-scale solar was comparable to, or cheaper than, nuclear, but that didn't include the required back-up power (your utility-scale unit is just as susceptible to clouds as your home system, which requires a backup)....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  9. Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive by mspohr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Believe it or not, a lot has changed in 20 years.
    To get you up to date, here's a good article (with real data) showing solar and wind are cheaper than coal and nuclear:
    https://cleantechnica.com/2016...
    Short version for the click impaired: $Cost per MWh: Wind $32, Solar $39, Coal $60, Nuclear $97
    These are unsubsidized prices for wind and solar... coal and nuclear are the subsidized prices and do not include the cost of external damage.
    "A study led by the former head of the Harvard Medical School found that coal cost the US $500 billion per year in extra health and environmental costs — approximately 9/kWh ($90/MWh) to 27/kWh ($270/MWh) more than the price we pay directly. To fool yourself into thinking these are not real costs is to assume that cancer, heart disease, asthma, and early death are not real.
    The air, water, and climate effects of natural gas are not pretty either. On the nuclear front, the decommissioning and insurance costs of nuclear power — unaccounted for above — would also put nuclear off the chart."

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?