Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

[Master Shake]

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

Alarmists will be disappointed.

[seanm123]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

Worldwide almost 100 tonnes of Plutonium is created in spent Uranium fuel each year. That is the bigger Nuclear issue and even using MOX fuel will not get rid of it all.

Perhaps Starving Steve can chime in on how we should just spread it all out as a frosting for Wheaties or something?

I have no doubt than Man will continue on and will fail again and again spectacularly for our Hubris at times knows no bounds.

[lektrode]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

Worldwide almost 100 tonnes of Plutonium is created in spent Uranium fuel each year. That is the bigger Nuclear issue and even using MOX fuel will not get rid of it all.

OH COME ON Mr 123 - not to seem offensive or nuthin - but eye note the time of yer post vs mastershake's - and either you read way, way, WAY faster than eye do (not all that difficult, IF i want to actually absorb/retain) and dont i _wish_ i could type as fast as the guy who wrote all that - but really - did you even read _any_ of the thousands of words on those 2 pages???

Perhaps Starving Steve can chime in on how we should just spread it all out as a frosting for Wheaties or something?

now i certainly dont want to take Mr Steve's thunder away from him here, as i certainly expect he'll have his own unique (and quite entertaining ;) viewpoint that he'll want to share with us, eh Mr Steve?
but plutonium frosted wheaties? cant ya come up with something better than that - i know HE can....

I have no doubt than Man will continue on and will fail again and again spectacularly for our Hubris at times knows no bounds.

yes and the anti-everything crowd shows more 'hubris' than even rumsfeld himself!

the facts - and i believe what this guy wrote, as i simply accept that people like him are far more principled, ethical and INFORMED, as well as 'educated' to spend that much time kranking out BS/propaganda or to _waste_ their valuable time to lie about stuff like this - it would be too embarassing to bear for people like him, i'd wager - while the opposing camp seems to be comprised of mostly people who have way too much free time on their hands to protest (anything and everything that even sounds 'controversial')?

sorry... i do tend to go on... (and on and on an....)

but the FACTS are perhaps simply too 'inconvenient' (as al gore/mike moore like to say) for you here?

the writer refd above, barry brook signs off with:

Now, where does that leave us?

• The plant is safe now and will stay safe.
• Japan is looking at an INES Level 4 Accident: Nuclear accident with local consequences. That is bad for the company that owns the plant, but not for anyone else.
• Some radiation was released when the pressure vessel was vented. All radioactive isotopes from the activated steam have gone (decayed). A very small amount of Cesium was released, as well as Iodine. If you were sitting on top of the plants’ chimney when they were venting, you should probably give up smoking to return to your former life expectancy. The Cesium and Iodine isotopes were carried out to the sea and will never be seen again.
• There was some limited damage to the first containment. That means that some amounts of radioactive Cesium and Iodine will also be released into the cooling water, but no Uranium or other nasty stuff (the Uranium oxide does not “dissolve” in the water). There are facilities for treating the cooling water inside the third containment. The radioactive Cesium and Iodine will be removed there and eventually stored as radioactive waste in terminal storage.
• The seawater used as cooling water will be activated to some degree. Because the control rods are fully inserted, the Uranium chain reaction is not happening. That means the “main” nuclear reaction is not happening, thus not contributing to the activation. The intermediate radioactive materials (Cesium and Iodine) are also almost gone at this stage, because the Uranium decay was stopped a long time ago. This further reduces the activation. The bottom line is that there will be some low level of activation of the seawater, which will also be removed by the treatment facilities.
• The seawater will then be replaced over time with the “normal” cooling water
• The reactor core will then be dismantled and transported to a processing facility, just like during a regular fuel change.
• Fuel rods and the entire plant will be checked for potential damage. This will take about 4-5 years.
• The safety systems on all Japanese plants will be upgraded to withstand a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami (or worse)
• I believe the most significant problem will be a prolonged power shortage. About half of Japan’s nuclear reactors will probably have to be inspected, reducing the nation’s power generating capacity by 15%. This will probably be covered by running gas power plants that are usually only used for peak loads to cover some of the base load as well. That will increase your electricity bill, as well as lead to potential power shortages during peak demand, in Japan.

If you want to stay informed, please forget the usual media outlets and consult the following websites:

• http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...s_1203111.html
• http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...ar-earthquake/
• http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/03/11...ions-in-japan/

------

one last comment from up in the bleechers:

eye just hope this dude wasnt running financial models for the quants in 2000-2007.... ;)

[don]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

quantifying nuclear plant incidents:

2011	Fukushima	4	Japan	Reactor shutdown after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami; failure of emergency cooling caused an explosion
2011	Onagawa		Japan	Reactor shutdown after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami caused a fire
2006	Fleurus	4	Belgium	Severe health effects for a worker at a commercial irradiation facility as a result of high doses of radiation
2006	Forsmark	2	Sweden	Degraded safety functions for common cause failure in the emergency power supply system at nuclear power plant
2006	Erwin		US	Thirty-five litres of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer
2005	Sellafield	3	UK	Release of large quantity of radioactive material, contained within the installation
2005	Atucha	2	Argentina	Overexposure of a worker at a power reactor exceeding the annual limit
2005	Braidwood		US	Nuclear material leak
2003	Paks	3	Hungary	Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets
1999	Tokaimura	4	Japan	Fatal overexposures of workers following a criticality event at a nuclear facility
1999	Yanangio	3	Peru	Incident with radiography source resulting in severe radiation burns
1999	Ikitelli	3	Turkey	Loss of a highly radioactive Co-60 source
1999	Ishikawa	2	Japan	Control rod malfunction
1993	Tomsk	4	Russia	Pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure
1993	Cadarache	2	France	Spread of contamination to an area not expected by design
1989	Vandellos	3	Spain	Near accident caused by fire resulting in loss of safety systems at the nuclear power station
1989	Greifswald		Germany	Excessive heating which damaged ten fuel rods
1987	Goiânia	5	Brazil	Four people died and six received doses of a few Gy from an abandoned and ruptured highly radioactive Cs-137 source
1986	Chernobyl	7	Russia	Widespread health and environmental effects. External release of a significant fraction of reactor core inventory
1986	Hamm-Uentrop		Germany	Spherical fuel pebble became lodged in the pipe used to deliver fuel elements to the reactor
1981	Tsuraga	2	Japan	More than 100 workers were exposed to doses of up to 155 millirem per day radiation
1980	Saint Laurent des Eaux	4	France	Melting of one channel of fuel in the reactor with no release outside the site
1979	Three Mile Island	5	US	Severe damage to the reactor core
1977	Jaslovské Bohunice	4	Czechoslovakia	Damaged fuel integrity, extensive corrosion damage of fuel cladding and release of radioactivity
1967	Chapelcross		UK	Graphite debris partially blocked a fuel channel causing a fuel element to melt and catch fire
1966	Monroe		US	Sodium cooling system malfunction
1964	Charlestown		US	Error by a worker at a United Nuclear Corporation fuel facility led to an accidental criticality
1959	Santa Susana Field Laboratory		US	Partial core meltdown
1958	Chalk River		Canada	Due to inadequate cooling a damaged uranium fuel rod caught fire and was torn in two
1958	Vinča		Yugoslavia	During a subcritical counting experiment a power buildup went undetected - six scientists received high doses
1957	Kyshtym	6	Russia	Significant release of radioactive material to the environment from explosion of a high activity waste tank.
1957	Windscale Pile	5	UK	Release of radioactive material to the environment following a fire in a reactor core
1952	Chalk River	5	Canada	A reactor shutoff rod failure, combined with several operator errors, led to a major power excursion of more than double the reactor's rated output at AECL's NRX reactor

International Nuclear Events Scale (INES)

Click heading to sort. Download this data

Level	Definition	People and environment	Radiological barriers & control	Defence in depth	Example
SOURCE: IAEA
7	Major accident	Major release of radio active material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures			Chernobyl, Russia, 1986
6	Serious accident	Significant release of radioactive material likely to require implementation of planned countermeasures.			Kyshtym, Russia, 1957
5	Accident with wider consequences	Limited release of radioactive material likely to require implementation of	• Severe damage to reactor core.		Windscale, UK, 1957; Three Mile Island, 1979
		some planned countermeasures • Several deaths from radiation	• Release of large quantities of radioactive material within an installation
			with a high probability of
			significant public exposure. This
			could arise from a major criticality accident or fire
4	Accident with local consequences	• Minor release of radioactive material unlikely to result in implementation of planned countermeasures other than	• Fuel melt or damage to fuel resulting in more than 0.1% release of core inventory.		FUKUSHIMA 1, 2011
		local food controls.	• Release of significant quantities of radioactive
		• At least one death from radiation.	material within an installation with a high probability of significant
			public exposure.
3	Serious incident	• Exposure in excess of ten times the statutory annual limit for workers.	• Exposure rates of more than 1 Sv/h in an operating area.	• Near accident at a nuclear power plant	Sellafield, UK, 2005
		• Non-lethal deterministic health effect (e.g., burns) from radiation.	• Severe contamination in an area not expected by design, with a	with no safety provisions remaining.
			low probability	• Lost or stolen highly radioactive sealed source.
			of significant public exposure.	• Misdelivered highly radioactive sealed source without adequate procedures in place to handle it.
2	Incident	• Exposure of a member of the public	• Radiation levels in an operating area	• Significant failures in safety provisions	Atucha, Argentina, 2005
		in excess of 10 mSv.	of more than 50 mSv/h.	but with no actual consequences.
		• Exposure of a worker in excess of the	• Significant contamination within the	• Found highly radioactive sealed
		statutory annual limits	facility into an area not expected by	orphan source, device or transport
			design	package with safety provisions intact.
				• Inadequate packaging of a highly
				radioactive sealed source.
1	Anomaly			• Overexposure of a member of the
				public in excess of statutory annual
				limits.
				• Minor problems with safety
				components with significant
				defence-in-depth remaining.
				• Low activity lost or stolen radioactive
				source, device or transport package

[lektrode]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

[I]quantifying nuclear plant incidents:

thanks don!
a little (ok, a boatload) of perspective is always helpful in these kinds of matters

[Master Shake]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

The chart shows TMI as a Level 5 event, which lists "several deaths from radiation" as a criterion. There were no deaths associated with TMI.

[ASH]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

The chart shows TMI as a Level 5 event, which lists "several deaths from radiation" as a criterion. There were no deaths associated with TMI.

I get the impression that you qualify for a given level based upon meeting some of the criteria (such as major damage to the reactor core) as opposed to meeting all of them at once (including loss of life). That said, based upon the reported trouble cooling, I'm betting that we'll get to at least 5 with the Japanese reactors, with significant core damage.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

I get the impression that you qualify for a given level based upon meeting some of the criteria (such as major damage to the reactor core) as opposed to meeting all of them at once (including loss of life). That said, based upon the reported trouble cooling, I'm betting that we'll get to at least 5 with the Japanese reactors, with significant core damage.

None the less, I think Master Shake's original point stands.
These reactors experienced worst-case disruptions or more and seem to be keeping the high level radiation contained (so far).

Of course, another lesson from this is that we may need to make our worst-case scenarios even worse.
Further, perhaps we should consider purchasing a few airborne generators that could arrive at such a site within hours to provide 10 MVA or so of emergency power for such a natural disaster, just to keep the cooling systems going during the 2 or 3 days after control rods are fully inserted. A handful of such systems positioned around the planet could cover such future disasters at nuclear plants worldwide.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

I think if I had my family down wind of a reactor whose experienced the explosions I have seen on TV I would be very alarmed. I am not an opponent of nuclear energy but it is hard to look at this and decided this is an "okay" series of failures.

[GeraldRiggs]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

None the less, I think Master Shake's original point stands.
These reactors experienced worst-case disruptions or more and seem to be keeping the high level radiation contained (so far).

Of course, another lesson from this is that we may need to make our worst-case scenarios even worse.
Further, perhaps we should consider purchasing a few airborne generators that could arrive at such a site within hours to provide 10 MVA or so of emergency power for such a natural disaster, just to keep the cooling systems going during the 2 or 3 days after control rods are fully inserted. A handful of such systems positioned around the planet could cover such future disasters at nuclear plants worldwide.

Gentlemen:

Having served in the US Navy's Nuclear Submarine program for 7 years and operated a 148 MW PWR reactor onboard a Navy submarine, I can tell you the situation at the nuclear plant that had the explosion (I don't know if there has been more than one) is probably very dangerous! However, that said, I find it very hard to believe they do not have several layers of redundancy concerning keeping the reactor core covered with water and coolant flowing.
I do not believe the reports that when the power went out, the diesels did not work and therefore could not operate the pumps! I guarantee you there are other backup systems to keep some pumps operational.....maybe battery backup?

Hell, once when our diesel engine flooded on board the sub the night before we were supposed to go into drydock fr two months, we helo'ed in another diesel and set it down on the deck, connected it to the ships power busses, and started it up. Problem solved!

I'm not really sure who or what source to believe coming out of Japan. I'm sure the government is trying to put positive spin on everything (as usual) to keep the masses from rising up.

Time will tell but I'll bet the situation is more contained than we think. I hope I'm not wrong!

Cheers,

randy

[seanm123]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

Yes, I did read the whole article posted by Master Shake.

Let's be clear I have nothing against Nuclear when applied sanely. With that said you might ascertain I am biased against
Plutonium and Uranium, especially when it is used as fuel in a power plant 80 miles from a subduction zone.

Even Chernobyl after it exploded caught fire and melted down it cooled eventually and the remaining fissionable slag melted into the basement where it hardened. The danger of a full explosion that would rip off the top of the reactor chamber in Japan has apparently passed as long as they leave the steam valves open and keep the Firefighter apparatus running we should be out of the woods for now. Hopefully this won’t take months since the radiation in the steam must be considerable.

I would not want to be on one of those fire crews manning the pumps and refueling the fire trucks with diesel. There has to be quite a bit of nasty fallout in the immediate vicinity of the plant, new aftershocks every few hours and a new tsunami warning every day or so. Hellish for the firemen and plant workers and their families.


Here is an even closer look. You can see some of the rescue vehicles covered with debris and dust and what looks like brown silt or sand from the tsunami on the surrounding roads.


https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-r...explosions.jpg


Perhaps there is a better Nuclear option? Instead of spending tens of Billions annually on Uranium and it's byproducts Nuke waste how about looking at developing a Manhattan Project around Thorium?

http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/


Once you get past the FUD put out by the Uranium Cartel there are other Nuclear options to consider for cheaper and cleaner Nuclear energy.

[Master Shake]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

I get the impression that you qualify for a given level based upon meeting some of the criteria (such as major damage to the reactor core) as opposed to meeting all of them at once (including loss of life). That said, based upon the reported trouble cooling, I'm betting that we'll get to at least 5 with the Japanese reactors, with significant core damage.

Could be.

[c1ue]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

I do not believe the reports that when the power went out, the diesels did not work and therefore could not operate the pumps! I guarantee you there are other backup systems to keep some pumps operational.....maybe battery backup?

The article in question mentions that the diesel generators were wrecked by the tsunami - not the earthquake.

Given that a 15 foot wall of water hit the coast of Japan, possibly higher, and Fukushima sits right on the shoreline, this seems quite consistent.

[ASH]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

I think if I had my family down wind of a reactor whose experienced the explosions I have seen on TV I would be very alarmed. I am not an opponent of nuclear energy but it is hard to look at this and decided this is an "okay" series of failures.

Agreed. There is a lot of space between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl in which this disaster could fit. Even if, as I believe, the probability of widespread and long-term ecological disaster similar to Chernobyl is low, I think the immediate danger of radiation exposure from controlled venting could be significant -- obviously it is a life-threatening hazard to those workers on site at the plant. If I lived downwind from this reactor complex, I would be alarmed too, even though I don't think this will end with little bits of the reactor core showered over a wide area.

[ASH]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

The article in question mentions that the diesel generators were wrecked by the tsunami - not the earthquake.

Given that a 15 foot wall of water hit the coast of Japan, possibly higher, and Fukushima sits right on the shoreline, this seems quite consistent.

For that matter, yes -- there was a battery backup. But the battery life isn't long enough to wait out the time it takes for the core to cool down.