TEPCO: Nearly all nuclear fuel melted at Fukushima No. 3 reactor

[yuiyoshida]

Source: Asahi Shimbun

Almost all of the nuclear fuel in the No. 3 reactor of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant melted within days of the March 11, 2011, disaster, according to a new estimate by Tokyo Electric Power Co.

TEPCO originally estimated that about 60 percent of the nuclear fuel melted at the reactor. But the latest estimate released on Aug. 6 revealed that the fuel started to melt about six hours earlier than previously thought.

TEPCO said most of the melted fuel likely dropped to the bottom of the containment unit from the pressure vessel after the disaster set off by the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.

The utility plans to start fuel removal operations at the No. 3 reactor no earlier than in the latter half of fiscal 2021.

Read more: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201408070055

[rickyhall]

1. When will we all realize nukes are insane and put a stop to all of them?

[Cicada]

2. is oil safer? wars, global warming

until solar, wind etc are widespread I think nuclear is less costly than oil

[AndyTiedye]

4. Make Solar and Wind More Widespread Then

It takes years to build a nuclear power plant, and by the time you finish it will be obsolete.

GE, once one of the world's largest builders of nukes, is putting its money in solar these days.

[rickyhall]

27. Cicada: I don't like those things either but they won't kill people 50k years hence.

And Andy: I totally agree.

[eggplant]

9. Yes, oil is safer.

Safer does not mean safe, of course. Oil is safer in that horrible calamities are localized (usually), and recovery can be measured in years and decades. With nuclear power, once you get to calamity stage, it's pretty terrible. Not a lot of fun times happening at Chernobyl these days.

[NickB79]

13. "Oil is safer in that horrible calamities are localized"

Um, no.

The CO2 emissions from oil, as with all fossil fuels we consume, is most certainly NOT localized.

And the recovery from climate change, even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels today, will take tens of THOUSANDS of years.

And since we are likely already past the point of no return with climate change, the death toll from it will likely reach the billions by the end of this century.

[eggplant]

15. That's not what I was saying.

And I would like to think that you knew that.

But if we're going to twist words, I think it is safe to say that, regardless of climate change, the death toll will still likely reach billions by the end of the century. It is eighty five years away, after all.

[diane in sf]

10. It's not a choice of oil vs. nukes. Efficiency is the first, cheapest option,

solar is very near grid parity for conventional forms of power (gas, coal), wind sometimes below. When you take all costs into consideration (environment, health, water use, pollution, etc.), wind and solar are cheaper than coal, nukes, and gas. In California, we structured our laws to incentivize the utilities to not use power. We have the lowest per capita use of electrical power in the US and now that we got rid of the Republican stranglehold on our state government, one of the better economies.

[love_katz]

25. ^^^^This!^^^^ + a gazillion!

Your state got rid of the Republican stranglehold...and now you have the lowest per capita use of electrical power, and one of the better economies.

Nukes are not affordable at any price. There is NOWHERE safe to put the waste/spent fuel.

[Kelvin Mace]

14. Nuclear is only cheaper

when you ignore the subsidies, the cost of accidents and long term cost of storing the waste.

[roomtomove]

16. less costly than oil??? really???

I think you need to do some research regarding nuclear and it's REAL costs:
1. The government (by law) limited the liability of nuclear plants. They would be uninsurable otherwise.
2. The (nuclear) industry is heavily subsidized.
3. Who is responsible for the waste disposal? The taxpayer. And they have yet to determine how to do it or how to pay for it. Think 500,000 years of what I would call the golden age of radiation.

[Jerry442]

3. Call me cynical, but...

...I have a hunch the people on the ground knew a long time ago that all the fuel had melted. Management just couldn't find a way to put a (slightly) happy face on the situation any longer.

[Javaman]

18. +1 nt

[RobertEarl]

5. The explosion

A lot of the nuclear material exploded into the air, landing around the world.

It was a critical event unlike any ever seen before.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Nonsense.

Something like 75% of the total mass of the core at Chernobyl, exploded, burning, into the sky. Three quarters of its 190 metric tons . The total radiation release from all three reactors in Fukushima, not even close to what Chernobyl launched.

Before it exploded, the thermal output of reactor 4 hit 30,000mW, according to where the dials were frozen in the control rooms. On a reactor vessel rated for 1/10th that output.

Peer reviewed estimate of Fukushima's total radiation release is 340 to 800 Peta Becquerel's. Chernobyl exceeded 5,000 PB.

No, we've seen worse than Fukushima. In this case, the Russians were overachievers.

[RobertEarl]

21. Yeah?

Just look at the videos. That was the biggest explosion ever from a nuke plant. Chernobyl burned for a few days and then was covered up. Some of the material from Chernobyl was found around the world, lots more material from Fukushima has been found.

Fukushima #3 had plutonium fuel. Reactor #4 burned/exploded. #2 burned out releasing to the atmosphere as well as #1 with its explosion.

While Chernobyl is pretty much covered up, Fukushima is still exposed to the atmosphere going on 3 1/2 years.

Too, at Fukushima, the current extent of controlling the 3 melted reactors is to keep pumping water over the cores. Water which then flows into the pacific day in and day out.

It is spreading, it will be spreading for years and years.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. You realize nobody was recording when Chernobyl #4 exploded right?

When the 2000-ton cover plate and most of the core was tossed into the air like a child's toy? Chernobyl went up with 30,000MW thermal output. Fukushima 1-3 were scrammed, and trying to shed waste heat (Not fast enough), 4-6 were cold shutdown before the quake even happened.

You don't even know what happened at Fukushima. #4 was EMPTY. The BUILDING outside the containment burned/exploded, likely due to leaking hydrogen from unit 3 getting into the building. #4's fuel pool boiled, but the fuel is relatively undamaged.



Chernobyl releases something on the order of 20lbs of uranium into the environment every year. You have really no idea about the history of Chernobyl.

"While Chernobyl is pretty much covered up, Fukushima is still exposed to the atmosphere going on 3 1/2 years."

Chernobyl's sarcophagus is in danger of collapse. The turbine building DID collapse a couple years back, more than doubling the background radiation in the area by disturbing the dust/wreckage.


And at the end of the day, the total radiation release, peer reviewed by independent sources, is LESS THAN ONE FIFTH the release from Chernobyl. The ratios of material released are different, but even Chernobyl released plutonium, as you may not realize, plutonium is a byproduct in used fuel rods. That's why these reactors are so desirable by the MIC, as they can reprocess weapons grade plutonium out of used fuel rods. Not different from MOX fuel rods in Fukushima #3.

Edit: Chernobyl's core is, in many circles believed to have experienced a prompt critical excursion, during the second explosion. Another term would be a 'fizzled nuclear detonation'.

[RobertEarl]

23. I see what you are doing

Ignoring facts.

Read Enenews.com for the real facts assembled in one place. If you dare.

Caution: Enenews.com facts might just scare the heck out of you.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Yes, let's ignore multiple peer reviewed estimates of total radiation release in favor of alarmist

BS from a non-peer reviewed source.

You should put "facts" in scare quotes when you post like that. There are multiple high-quality peer reviewed studies in exactly how much material has been released by that site.

You continue to under-estimate how much of a complete and total disaster Chernobyl was.

[RobertEarl]

28. Enenews.com is a news aggregator

There are many news stories linked on ENEnews.com

On the front page are some Japan news sources that are claiming the estimates were far below of what is being reported now.

And a few reports of what is being done to stop the flow of contaminated water. It is not fun to read: you have been warned.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. And when those reports are backed by independent peer review, I will take them

seriously.

They may be right. Or, they may be completely wrong. Hence the importance of peer review.

[RobertEarl]

30. The reports in question

Reports come from either TEPCO, or the Japanese government, and are covered by Japanese news outlets.

Really, one doesn't have to be too alarmed by the reports, as they merely confirm what has been reported by independent sources for years now.

Rather, what is scary is the reader comments about what is really happening and what could happen. For the weak, I suggest just reading the headlined report and skip the comments.

But if one is strong and wants some knowledge how to protect themselves and their families, reading the reader's comments will make you wise.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. OR, they will make you panic for nothing.

[RobertEarl]

32. Panic?

You felt panic reading the reports?

Well, like I says, it is scary what Fukushima has done/is doing to the environment. And all living things.

Panic is never a good response in critical situations, so I suggest if you are gonna panic, become like an ostrich.

The rest of us.... we shall take into consideration what the ramifications are and be prepared for what may come. Heck that's what fire departments do. They prepare, they don't panic.

[emsimon33]

6. You would think that they would address this before 2021

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. It's too radioactive even for shielded robots. The electronics fry including cameras.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Yeah, and if you try to shield it, it ends up too heavy to move...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

26. I can picture some kind of telescope being used.

[jtuck004]

7. "...plans to start fuel removal operations at the No. 3 reactor no earlier than...fiscal 2021".

Getting right on that...

Actually, the execs that are there are probably hoping to get their last check and move to New Zealand before this gets worse. As it will.

I wonder what the odds are that they won't have an earthquake there in earthquake central before 2021 that causes the chain reaction to start up that they have been hoping to avoid?

[Art_from_Ark]

11. It would have to be a pretty big earthquake, I think

There were several aftershocks in the immediate area that were in the "sevens" just after the initial disaster, including a couple of 7.4's and a 7.3.

[flamingdem]

8. No. 3 had the plutonium

didn't it?

[DeSwiss]

17. As well as in the other cooling pools.

New report estimates 278 trillion Bq of plutonium released from Fukushima reactors — Over 200 times higher than amount reported by Tepco — “Highly radiotoxic when incorporated into human body” as it decays

[Octafish]

33. TEPCO says Plutonium ''is not a health risk to humans.''

TEPCO says plutonium found on quake-damaged plant grounds

By the CNN Wire Staff
March 28, 2011 -- Updated 1735 GMT (0135 HKT)

Tokyo (CNN) -- Some plutonium found in soil on the grounds of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant may have come from its earthquake-damaged reactors, but it poses no human health risk, the plant's owners reported Monday.

The element was found in soil samples taken March 21-22 from five locations around the plant, the Tokyo Electric Power Company told CNN late Monday. The company said it was equivalent to the amounts that fell on Japan following aboveground nuclear weapons tests by other countries in past decades.

[font color="purple"]"It is not a health risk to humans," the company said. But it added, "Just in case, TEPCO will increase the monitoring of the nuclear plant grounds and the surrounding environment."[/font color]

Plutonium is a byproduct of nuclear reactions that is also part of the fuel mix at the plant's No. 3 reactor. It can be a serious health hazard if inhaled or ingested, but external exposure poses little health risk, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Three plutonium isotopes -- Pu-238, -239 and -240 -- were found in soil at five different points inside the plant grounds, Tokyo Electric reported. It said that plutonium found in two of the samples could have come out of the reactors that were damaged by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that ravaged northern Japan.

CONTINUED...

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/28/japan.nuclear.plutonium/?hpt=T2

Just in case you didn't see this: a PSA re Plutonium.