News & Analysis
Comment
Etmax
I noticed that the German pebble bed reactor has lots of graphite like ...
Etmax
I agree with you to some extent, but putting your backup systems (diesel ...
Update: Plutonium-laced fuel heightens Japan's nuke woes
R Colin Johnson
3/14/2011 8:05 PM EDT
How the fail safe measures failed
"Backup power initially worked, but failed when the sea wall protecting the site was found to be no where near high enough to stop the tsunami from flooding the generators," said Mary Olson, a nuclear waste specialist at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "Of course, the generators should not have been placed in low-lying areas behind the sea wall--that was clearly a human error."
Once the emergency generators were knocked out, eight sets of backup batteries were brought online to keep the pumps going. Initially that worked too, but after about eight hours and hundreds of damaging aftershocks, their power was exhausted and plant operators began loosing control of the rising temperature inside the containment vessels.
"For every single nuclear reactor in the world, 50 percent of the risk comes from loss of power to the site. Reactors do not power themselves, but depend on external sources of electricity for their control rooms, pumps and other auxiliary equipment," said Olson. "A nuclear reactor does not have a switch. You can stop it generating electricity, but you can't turn off the heat."
The only option left to plant operators was pumping seawater into the containment buildings in a last-ditch attempt to cool off the inner containment vessel, which is made from concrete and steel. Nevertheless, steam pressure building up in three reactors have now caused explosions and deepening concern about the integrity of the reactor containment vessels.
"Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to pump seawater into the containment vessel because there is too much pressure inside. There are pipes that can allows water to be pumped in, but right now the pumps are not working, and its not clear that the pipes are even connected," said Olson.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the No. 2 reactor lost is normal cooling capability late Monday (March 14), prompting emergency workers to start pumping sea water into the damaged reactor. On Tuesday morning, a hydrogen explosion rocked the No. 2 reactor’s containment building, causing a release of radioactive steam clouds that coincided with a pressure drop inside the inner containment vessel, indicating that its outside shell had possibly cracked.
Also on Tuesday, a fire broke out in the No. 4 reactor containment building, which had been shut down before the tsunami hit last Friday. Spent fuel rods in its storage pool were apparently exposed while workers concentrated on the three other damaged reactors. Large amounts of radiation were reportedly released into the air before the fire was extinguished.
According to Japanese officials, radiation levels in and around the Fukushima plant spiked to 400 millisieverts per hour after the No. 2 reactor explosion and the No. 4 fire, prompting Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan to expand the evacuation order from 12 to 18 miles from the plant.
Wind shifted inland on Tuesday, causing radiation levels to temporarily jump 10 times higher than normal as far away as Tokyo, according to Japanese officials, who claimed the rise was not major health hazard. By nightfall local time, according to the U.N. weather agency, winds had shifted back out to sea, lowering radiation levels in Tokyo and around the Fukushima plant. That could indicate that the inner containment vessel at the No. 2 reactor remained intact and that the spent fuel rods stored in No. 4’s pool were again covered with water.
After fueling reactors for up to six years, spent fuel rods are stored underwater for 10 to 20 years in pools at the bottom on containment buildings. All six Fukushima reactors have spent fuel rod pools at the base of their containment buildings. The water both cools the fuel rods and provides shielding from radiation. These storage pools are now exposed to the air at the Nos. 1 and 3 reactors, but officials said they will not release radioactive materials as long as they are covered with water. Workers were said to be using fire trucks to pump in sea water.
It remains uncertain whether or not molten uranium and plutonium inside the reactors will burn through the containment vessels since rising temperatures can no longer be controlled. If the containment vessels are breeched, the Chernobyl scenario becomes a possibility, some experts think.
If the containment vessels hold--either through luck or the process of venting steam to relieve the mounting pressures inside--then the remaining hazards will be the venting of radioactive air from inside the containment vessels and from the fuel pools exposed by the hydrogen explosions.
Most of the Fukushima reactors have operated well beyond their expected 25-year life expectancy. The plant began operating in 1971. The No. 1 reactor was to have been decommissioned in 2011, but Japanese regulators recently gave operator Tokyo Electric Power a ten-year extension of its operating license for the reactor.
Early Wednesday morning local time, yet another fire broke out inside the containment building at the No. 4 reactor, according to Reuters. Tokyo Electric Power did not immediately release information on the level of radiation being released, but warned that the cooling systems were also failing in the Nos. 5 and 6 reactors, which also were off-line when the tsunami hit.
"Backup power initially worked, but failed when the sea wall protecting the site was found to be no where near high enough to stop the tsunami from flooding the generators," said Mary Olson, a nuclear waste specialist at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "Of course, the generators should not have been placed in low-lying areas behind the sea wall--that was clearly a human error."
Once the emergency generators were knocked out, eight sets of backup batteries were brought online to keep the pumps going. Initially that worked too, but after about eight hours and hundreds of damaging aftershocks, their power was exhausted and plant operators began loosing control of the rising temperature inside the containment vessels.
"For every single nuclear reactor in the world, 50 percent of the risk comes from loss of power to the site. Reactors do not power themselves, but depend on external sources of electricity for their control rooms, pumps and other auxiliary equipment," said Olson. "A nuclear reactor does not have a switch. You can stop it generating electricity, but you can't turn off the heat."
The only option left to plant operators was pumping seawater into the containment buildings in a last-ditch attempt to cool off the inner containment vessel, which is made from concrete and steel. Nevertheless, steam pressure building up in three reactors have now caused explosions and deepening concern about the integrity of the reactor containment vessels.
"Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to pump seawater into the containment vessel because there is too much pressure inside. There are pipes that can allows water to be pumped in, but right now the pumps are not working, and its not clear that the pipes are even connected," said Olson.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the No. 2 reactor lost is normal cooling capability late Monday (March 14), prompting emergency workers to start pumping sea water into the damaged reactor. On Tuesday morning, a hydrogen explosion rocked the No. 2 reactor’s containment building, causing a release of radioactive steam clouds that coincided with a pressure drop inside the inner containment vessel, indicating that its outside shell had possibly cracked.
Also on Tuesday, a fire broke out in the No. 4 reactor containment building, which had been shut down before the tsunami hit last Friday. Spent fuel rods in its storage pool were apparently exposed while workers concentrated on the three other damaged reactors. Large amounts of radiation were reportedly released into the air before the fire was extinguished.
According to Japanese officials, radiation levels in and around the Fukushima plant spiked to 400 millisieverts per hour after the No. 2 reactor explosion and the No. 4 fire, prompting Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan to expand the evacuation order from 12 to 18 miles from the plant.
Wind shifted inland on Tuesday, causing radiation levels to temporarily jump 10 times higher than normal as far away as Tokyo, according to Japanese officials, who claimed the rise was not major health hazard. By nightfall local time, according to the U.N. weather agency, winds had shifted back out to sea, lowering radiation levels in Tokyo and around the Fukushima plant. That could indicate that the inner containment vessel at the No. 2 reactor remained intact and that the spent fuel rods stored in No. 4’s pool were again covered with water.
After fueling reactors for up to six years, spent fuel rods are stored underwater for 10 to 20 years in pools at the bottom on containment buildings. All six Fukushima reactors have spent fuel rod pools at the base of their containment buildings. The water both cools the fuel rods and provides shielding from radiation. These storage pools are now exposed to the air at the Nos. 1 and 3 reactors, but officials said they will not release radioactive materials as long as they are covered with water. Workers were said to be using fire trucks to pump in sea water.
It remains uncertain whether or not molten uranium and plutonium inside the reactors will burn through the containment vessels since rising temperatures can no longer be controlled. If the containment vessels are breeched, the Chernobyl scenario becomes a possibility, some experts think.
If the containment vessels hold--either through luck or the process of venting steam to relieve the mounting pressures inside--then the remaining hazards will be the venting of radioactive air from inside the containment vessels and from the fuel pools exposed by the hydrogen explosions.
Most of the Fukushima reactors have operated well beyond their expected 25-year life expectancy. The plant began operating in 1971. The No. 1 reactor was to have been decommissioned in 2011, but Japanese regulators recently gave operator Tokyo Electric Power a ten-year extension of its operating license for the reactor.
Early Wednesday morning local time, yet another fire broke out inside the containment building at the No. 4 reactor, according to Reuters. Tokyo Electric Power did not immediately release information on the level of radiation being released, but warned that the cooling systems were also failing in the Nos. 5 and 6 reactors, which also were off-line when the tsunami hit.
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
the_floating_ gate
3/15/2011 1:03 AM EDT
Sodium cooled fast breeder technology?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNR-300
Sign in to Reply
kdboyce
3/15/2011 2:17 AM EDT
There have been many 'reports' about the nuclear power plant problems in Japan as a result of the MAJOR earthquake/tsunami double whammy Japan has suffered. However, I must give kudus to Colin on this article for his clarity in explaining the failures. It is hard to get some details out of the mainstream press.
While one can always bemoan the fact that the failures occurred, as well as the reasons for them, in general nuclear power has worked well in Japan for nearly 40 years.
Sign in to Reply
JKaplanIP
3/15/2011 4:44 PM EDT
40 years doesn't seem like much of a track record, considering the enormous risks. Plutonium is the most lethal substance known -- just one pound is sufficient to kill every person on earth. Studies have shown that abundant power is available, with current technology, from Solar and Wind. The only real barrier is that it would take about 20 years, even if we started today, to replace our fossil fuel infrastructure. But think of jobs 20 years of Solar and Wind construction could create!!
Sign in to Reply
Ed96
3/16/2011 12:22 AM EDT
Plutonium is NOT the most lethal substance known. Far from it. Killing everyone on the face of the earth with one poune of Plutonium is a crock. It is theoretically possible to kill everyone one the face of the earth with 20 gallons of water, a statement that makes as much as the one about Plutonium. In nuclear bomb testing, the USA and the old Soviet Union dispersed 12,000 pounds of Plutonium into the earth, the water, the air, everywhere.
Botulin is the most toxic lethal substance known, and it is common in nature produced by a bacterium. Dimethylmercury, which is man made, is readily absorbed through the skin even if you're wearing latex gloves.
Then there is Amanitin, Castor beans, English Nightshade, Hydrogen Sulphide, etc, etc, etc.
Plutonium is nowhere near the top of the list. Plutonium is an alpha emitter and a particular hazard to people only if a sufficient quantity is inhaled. Even then, it takes a long time to kill you by inducing cancer, such as decades, and chances are something else will get you first.
Concerning jobs, think of the jobs that nuclear construction or any construction would create. And, guess what, nuclear jobs are higher paying and require higher skill.
Plutonium, and for that matter Uranium and Thorium are very valuable and useful materials. Prior to making statements about things, some research would be a good idea.
Sign in to Reply
popeh
3/16/2011 10:52 AM EDT
It also helps to put things in perspective when evaluating the performance of this plant. It was designed to withstand an earthquake with a magnitude of 8.2.
Nuclear energy is a very viable source of energy.
Sign in to Reply
Duaine
3/17/2011 7:53 PM EDT
There was once a famous response to this (one pound of Pu is enough to kill every person on earth) -- in fact, I think it said, 1 gram. I don't remember who said it. In any case, the response was (and I wish I had said it!): "Maybe so. But also, I have enough sperm to impregnate every woman on earth. Unfortunately, my delivery system isn't up to it!"
Sign in to Reply
Etmax
3/18/2011 11:23 PM EDT
These conflicting amounts prompted me to look it up, it seems about 10g for one person. I'm assuming quickly as I also found that 1g could cause lung cancer if inhaled. I also found that 1g could cause could kill a few people due to lung cancer. All that said, if you had 100g and let everyone on earth hold it for a time they would probably all be dead or dying. It's important to have the how explained. Regarding your sperm, I'm assuming you mean in one "sitting", I'm afraid you flatter yourself :-) as apparently there are between 2 and 500 million sperm in one shot, you will at best only manage 1/4 to 1/3 of the women of child baring age.
Sign in to Reply
resistion
3/15/2011 10:37 AM EDT
These radioactive isotopes are really heavy compared to water or air, shouldn't they settle to ground very quickly? The greater danger would be they would seep into groundwater and become part of the food cycle.
Sign in to Reply
Kenlbear
3/15/2011 3:23 PM EDT
Please read, "INIR - International Nuclear Incident Response" in www.snowflakehell.blogspot.com
Sign in to Reply
Maleficent
3/15/2011 3:27 PM EDT
Brilliant article on a terrible subject. Let's hope that the prevailing winds continue to blow radioactive fumes to sea. Before reading your article, Colin, I had thought that Tokyo was "safe" from contamination. Now I am not so sure. Time will tell. Let's hope that it plays in Japan's favor this time.
Sign in to Reply
jarg
3/15/2011 3:35 PM EDT
Here is the technology we should go with:
http://energyfromthorium.com/
Sign in to Reply
SPLatMan
3/15/2011 4:00 PM EDT
@jarg: Agreed. Thorium seems to be a potential winner. The Indians have a working Th reactor. It has been suggested that "Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium," and could put "an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel
David Stonier-Gibson http://splatco.com
Sign in to Reply
deanb
3/15/2011 4:05 PM EDT
What I have not seen anyone attempt to explain is why it takes such an incredibly long time to get the reactor cooled down even though supposedly the reaction was halted immediately. Even when the circulation system is working normally it sounds like it takes a very long time? And this article said used fuel rods are placed in a pool for "10-20 years" just to cool down? It can't possibly take that long but must be primarily a safe storage area until they get around to shipping the used rods to safe storage.
Sign in to Reply
dennisec
3/15/2011 6:15 PM EDT
If it were only U235 that were fissioning, the reactor would cool down relative quickly. The insertion of control rods mostly stops the U235 fissioning. However, other radioactive elements are formed during reactor operation. Some of these have a half-live of a few days. The cooling is required while these decay. Once decayed, the reactor goes static after a few days.
Sign in to Reply
JKaplanIP
3/15/2011 4:34 PM EDT
Unfortunately, there is no "safe" storage for spent nuclear fuels, which remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. The earth is still mostly a ball of molten rock and metal, despite the cooled crust on which we live. On a geological time frame, there simply is no part of the earth's crust stable enough to store the spent fuel.
Sign in to Reply
przemek
3/15/2011 5:14 PM EDT
There are several reasonable ways of dealing with spent fuel. Long term storage is one: Yucca mountain storage was stable enough in my opinion, and was only killed by politics. We should try to be rational about radiation, which is after all a natural phenomenon and manageable using well-known engineering techniques.
Sign in to Reply
Etmax
3/15/2011 9:45 PM EDT
They are all reasonable, but only for your life time. What you are essentially saying is that people that live a few hundred years from now don't really matter. I'm sure that isn't the case, but it is the result of burial. There have been interesting studies done on the storage in salt mines and they are seeing only a few hundred years of safety in that. The only long term safe method (over the life of plutonium) is disposal into space or something like that. The down side is that a rocket failure would undo the benefit very quickly. Make note of JKaplan's (above) reasons which hold true.
Sign in to Reply
rpell2
3/16/2011 10:40 PM EDT
It's easy (and a red herring) to claim there's no "safe" nuclear waste disposal method when "safe" is defined as absolute 100% guaranteed perfect safety with absolutely 0% possible risk to anyone, ever. By that standard, getting out of bed in the morning is unsafe ...
And the argument also ignores the history of technological progress by essentially assuming that future generations will somehow lose the ability to continue to safely monitor and manage the relatively small quantity of waste being stored.
Sign in to Reply
R0ckstar
3/15/2011 5:17 PM EDT
I simply don't understand why such critical pumps are not designed to at least be powered alternately by one of the multiple reactor units. It's a freakin' power plant!
Sign in to Reply
Frank Eory
3/15/2011 6:23 PM EDT
I wondered the same thing, especially after reading this in the article:
"For every single nuclear reactor in the world, 50 percent of the risk comes from loss of power to the site. Reactors do not power themselves, but depend on external sources of electricity for their control rooms, pumps and other auxiliary equipment," said Olson.
Ok, a damaged plant needs to go offline and would then need to rely on external sources of electricity. But in normal operation, why doesn't the plant provide its own power? Why don't they have a step-down transformer that can produce standard AC mains voltage from that turbine generator? Then in the event of a widespread power outage, at least the plant could provide power to its own critical safety & control systems.
Self-powering capability might not have helped at Fukushima, since it sounds like they had to shut down all operating reactors. But what if one of them could've be kept online? It's ridiculous that coolant pumps would have no ability to tap into the output of an operating power station generator in the event that all other backups failed.
Sign in to Reply
the_floating_ gate
3/16/2011 12:55 PM EDT
I believe Colin mentioned that the Diesel back up got flooded; Cummins, CAT, they all have packages that range up to 2.7 MW
(5000 horses I believe). These are very reliable pieces of equipment but in case intake manifold gets flooded you are in trouble.
They probably followed procedures and started up the diesel backup without checking the integraty.
Colin also mentioned that looking backwards it was overlooked (mistake) not to place the back up at higher ground - besides there is a cluster of blocks rather than just a couple.
Sign in to Reply
Juzujka
3/15/2011 5:58 PM EDT
Probably, facilities for getting energy from reactor unit are broken by earthquake and tsunami.
It is not very simple to get usable energy from nuclear reactor.
Sign in to Reply
askubel
3/15/2011 7:56 PM EDT
This is a classic example of poor engineering. In the service provider industry, we account for every possible situation when deploying a new product, because if you disrupt the service to the customers, you lose millions of dollars. But that's all that's at stake.
Here, not only is a billion dollar power plant, along with the power it produces at stake, but so are the lives of everyone around. And to hear they didn't even plan for a tsunami? It's unbelievable! All reactors need to be designed so that they can safely be shut down after loss of external power, taking into account the vulnerabilities of the secondary power supplies.
Fortunately, many nuclear plants meet these requirements - just not these ones. Like the disaster with BP, one company's poor decisions will negatively impact the entire industry.
Sign in to Reply
Robinho
3/22/2011 12:31 PM EDT
No service industry accounts for all possible scenarios. Firstly, all designs are done to meet some specifications. If your specficiation is to withstand an earthquake of 8.0 and Tsunami of 5m, its too bad you got hit by 9 and 6m Tsunami. Secondly, no human being can think of all possible scenarios.
It is not yet clear if the situation could have been controlled better with timely action. I would not blame bad engineering just as yet.
Sign in to Reply
Etmax
3/22/2011 8:33 PM EDT
I agree with you to some extent, but putting your backup systems (diesel generators) in the firing line is a little worrying, but not as much as storing spent fuel where continuous power is required. This is really pushing it. I think spent fuel storage is still the nuclear industry's biggest failing.
Sign in to Reply
VincePG
3/16/2011 3:42 AM EDT
The fundamental issue is the nuclear power business is protected and subsidized by government dollars and liability caps. Nuclear plant backup systems are determined by actuaries based on some acceptable level of risk given history and potential capped damage limits. Get government out of the nuclear power indemnification business and let the industry settle at a true cost equilibrium. Remove the laws that cap damages and make the companies who own and build these plants responsible and require they hold appropriate reserves based on unlimited liability. No one would even think of building a plant if they were held responsible for potential damage. If nuclear power is as safe as we are being told have those that own and build the plants put their money where their mouth is, otherwise just shut up about nuclear power and focus on something more cost effective.
Sign in to Reply
Etmax
3/16/2011 9:25 AM EDT
Now that I didn't know, thanks for enlightening me.
Sign in to Reply
jater
3/16/2011 9:44 AM EDT
Yeah! Right on! Power to the people! Don't stop at nuke power, though... let's make every power producer "responsible and require they hold appropriate reserves based on unlimited liability. No one would even think of building (any kind of plant) if they were held responsible for potential damage." How 'bout all those birds that are slaughtered every year migrating thru wind turbine blades? That ought to be worth a couple billion dollars to screw some greedy capitalist! Heck, let's apply this logic to every manufacturer of anything, huh? Don't know 'bout you, but I've already stocked my cave with buffalo-chip fuel!
(...geesh, give it rest!)
Sign in to Reply
rpell2
3/16/2011 10:27 AM EDT
This issue, among others, is addressed on RationalWiki's page analyzing the various "Arguments against nuclear power" (see the "Economic arguments" section):
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Arguments_against_nuclear_power
Sign in to Reply
davejor
3/16/2011 1:17 PM EDT
Solar power??? That's far more dangerous than nuke power. How many people have died from cancer due to exposure to the sun? Far more than have or will be affected by nuclear power here on earth.
Sign in to Reply
Etmax
3/16/2011 7:20 PM EDT
I hope you jest, if we don't use solar energy the sun will still be there :-) I live in the country with the highest rate of skin cancer an simply wear a hat. I'd like to see a hat that holds back nuclear fallout.
Sign in to Reply
goafrit
3/16/2011 1:20 PM EDT
This world is troubled. Even technology cannot save us. I am very unhappy to read the risk associated with nuclear power. It does not worth it. Let us go back to the stone age and at least die when nature calls.
Sign in to Reply
Ferren
3/16/2011 4:28 PM EDT
Nuclear waste disposal: material taken down in a subduction zone may resurface in vulcanism, but the time involved is on the order of a million years. Loose sediment may build up on the nose of the oceanic plate rather than being subducted, but even so, it is pretty permanently buried. Marine geologists shudder at the thought, but so far, no one has been able to point me at a published analysis suggesting that this is not a safe and inexpensive disposal method.
I would suggest encasing waste in steel tubes and depositing the tubes parallel to and in the bottom of a deep-sea trench, where there is a good chance of them acting like roller bearings. (And obviously, you do this in someone else's trench, in the standard colonial manner.) One might even contemplate burying them in anoxic mud at the time of disposal, minimizing oxidation of the container and getting a head start on subduction.
If one fears failure to subduct, or fracture too close the surface, one might perhaps drill into the subducting plate far enough to ensure integrity. Drilling holes in the sea floor is a known art, as are re-entry and capping. Granted, trenches are deep, so maybe one does this part way down the descending slab.
What am I missing here? Can anyone point me at a rebuttal?
Sign in to Reply
Etmax
3/16/2011 7:27 PM EDT
Interesting idea, trenches are probably not good as they're more than 6km down and the pressures would destroy anything that tried to accurately locate the waste at these depths. Subduction zones aren't bad as many are only about 3km down. It would be a moving target though as it would have to be a fairly active area. There is probably more radio active material in the mantle than in the crust anyway.
Sign in to Reply
motti2
3/16/2011 8:58 PM EDT
Apparently the present major risk is not the reactors themselves that have very thick containment vessels than still can melt through the bottom ( modest leak, little airborne likely / hoepfully )
BUT the actual major risk presently and going forward seems to be the spent fuel rod pools at each respective reactor - located at the top level of the actual reactor vessel.
This configuration is seemingly for compact transfer of spent fuel from the reactor rod unloading station to a near lateral displacement at the top of the containment vessel.
While convenient for transfer and compact configuration, for long term even medium term, the open pool spent fuel storage at the top of the containment vessel, if the water in the pool is lost and unable to be refilled with water nor kept continuously filled, then if that water is lost then the spent fuel rods in the open pool storage begin melting and combustion of sorts will occur.
It is presently suspected that one of the reactors ?#4 - the spent fuel storage pool may be dry of water and early phases of burning and melting of the old fuel rods may be underway.
Apparently if combustion of the old fuel rods occurs, all kinds of high level radiation gets emitted, and the flames and dust carry this some distance.
If the same things come into play in each of the 6 reactors spent fuel storage pools at the site, at various times, the results might approach something akin to a stretched out Chernobyl, likley (hopefully ) smaller in peak radiation, but stretched out over time.
Sign in to Reply
motti2
3/16/2011 8:59 PM EDT
The use of the top reactor storge pools for long term storage averted the rods being swept away in say as sea level storage pool might have, in the massive tsunami sea wave.
But in this site, the proper storage of the used rods for ALL the reactors would be very short term in the elevated transfer pool, and very shortly therafter transfer to storage in the hills in a pupose built facility so no tsunami might affect safety nor operations ( earthquake resistant obviously ).
If it gets confirmed that multple reactors storage pools run dry over time as seems to be the case, the magnitude of the radiation contamination and its spread to larger areas, might indeed possibly become catastrophic.
Since all the reactors are pretty close together, high emissions in a modest area, can encompass all the reactors, limiting the chance for possible safe remediations, of pumping cooling water etc. since people will if radiation is highh be prevented from accessing any of the reactors or pools except with risk of deadly doses of radiation.
This seems to be the makings of a potential huge calamity, and I hope and pray this does not transpire.
Sign in to Reply
motti2
3/16/2011 9:05 PM EDT
The use of the top reactor storge pools for long term storage averted the rods being swept away in say as sea level storage pool might have, in the massive tsunami sea wave.
But in this site, the proper storage of the used rods for ALL the reactors would be very short term in the elevated transfer pool, and very shortly therafter transfer to storage in the hills in a pupose built facility so no tsunami might affect safety nor operations ( earthquake resistant obviously ).
If it gets confirmed that multple reactors storage pools run dry over time as seems to be the case, the magnitude of the radiation contamination and its spread to larger areas, might indeed possibly become catastrophic.
Since all the reactors are pretty close together, high emissions in a modest area, can encompass all the reactors, limiting the chance for possible safe remediations, of pumping cooling water etc. since people will if radiation is highh be prevented from accessing any of the reactors or pools except with risk of deadly doses of radiation.
This seems to be the makings of a potential huge calamity, and I hope and pray this does not transpire.
Sign in to Reply
Ed96
3/16/2011 9:39 PM EDT
Concerning "mixed oxide fuels", I guess it is time to correct the misinformation. All irradiated commercial nuclear fuel by the time it is ready for discharge from a power reactor has substantial quantities of Plutonium in it. Plutonium is bred in light water reactors during operations. At the end of each fuel cycle, on the order of half of the power is produced by fissioning Plutonium that was created through the capture of neutrons by Uranium 238 atoms followed by Beta decay to "manufacture" Plutonium. About 97 to 98% of new fuel rods are Uranium 238, so many an atom is sitting around ready to capture a neutron and turn into a Plutonium 239 atam.
Sign in to Reply
motti2
3/16/2011 10:08 PM EDT
here is the latest status report
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/IAEA-Chief-Heads-to-Japan-to-Assess-Nuclear-Crisis-118105754.html
Sign in to Reply
BobsUrUncle
3/18/2011 8:31 AM EDT
SEND IN THE ROBOTS!
Sign in to Reply
rpell2
3/18/2011 1:14 PM EDT
The following site (an Australian-based pro nuclear energy climate science blog of all places) seems to be offering some very good in-depth ongoing technical coverage of the Japan nuclear situation minus all the hysteria and fearmongering:
http://bravenewclimate.com/
One recent post includes an essay on Fukashima by Ted Rockwell, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and editor of the 1956 handbook, "The Reactor Shielding Design Manual." Here's an excerpt:
"A lot of wrong lessons are being pushed on us, about the tragedy now unfolding in Japan. All the scare-talk about radiation is irrelevant. There will be no radiation public health catastrophe, regardless of how much reactor melting may occur. Radiation? Yes. Catastrophe? No."
Sign in to Reply
Etmax
3/18/2011 11:30 PM EDT
Thanks for this, but I personally am as concerned about pro sources under playing this as I am about anti sources over playing it.
Sign in to Reply
rpell2
3/19/2011 10:14 AM EDT
A fair enough concern, but if you visit the site you'll see that its coverage of Fukashima (including a real-time discussion forum) is very much focused on the technical facts of the situation.
You can choose to agree or not with the site author's opinion on nuclear energy, which is no secret (in contrast to that of many of the so-called "experts" trotted out by the mainstream media, who are often current or former members of activist organizations like "Friends of the Earth," Greenpeace and "Union of Concerned Scientists").
Sign in to Reply
piratebill
3/19/2011 12:34 AM EDT
"Get government out of the nuclear power indemnification business and let the industry settle at a true cost equilibrium."
Yea now there's a good idea! lets have NO government oversight (evil regulation). don't worry, business can regulate itself! the market will take care of EVERYTHING! great idea,.... oh! and the "market" will have a buying opportunity in Japanese real estate just for you VincePG.
the free market economic theory has now been proven false and dangerous on multiple fronts and is merely a useful tool to be implemented for short stretches, not a permanent scenario. freedman style free markets are as much a science as Scientology.
This catastrophe is a perfect storm of stupid ill conceived ideologies such as deregulation (yea i know its Japan and not the US but similar corporate forces are at play), as well as deceitful business interests in the name of profitability.
people die when company's lie.
Sign in to Reply
piratebill
3/19/2011 12:37 AM EDT
AH!
Vincepg,... i owe you an apology. i re-read your article and i agree with you, sorry, i had a knee jerk reflex there..
Sign in to Reply
tb1
3/22/2011 11:07 AM EDT
I keep hearing how thorium reactors are the answer to everything.
Check this link out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
Germany built a thorium reactor, then shut it down four years later. It was too expensive to run. The German taxpayers ended up paying about 100 million dollars to shut it down.
Sign in to Reply
Etmax
3/22/2011 11:38 AM EDT
After all the raving on about how pebble bed reactors are so safe and Thorium is so great this really seems to swing the argument away from nuclear doesn't it. It seems like all these "new" technologies just have new risks.
Sign in to Reply
Etmax
3/22/2011 8:35 PM EDT
I noticed that the German pebble bed reactor has lots of graphite like Chernobyl, which was one of the mistakes to come out of that incident. I'm not sure of the implications for a pebble bed reactor compared to the Chernobyl design, perhaps one of our more knowledgeable members can elaborate?
Sign in to Reply