Japan scrambles to contain nuclear threat

[KeepItReal]

Source: ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corp)



Japanese authorities are struggling to deal with a possible meltdown at a nuclear plant north of Tokyo, after an explosion at the facility blew the roof off an unstable reactor on Saturday.

The explosion sent plumes of smoke spewing from the ageing Fukushima No 1 nuclear power plant, raising fears of radioactive meltdown a day after the massive quake struck the facility's cooling system.

Mr Edano says due to the falling level of cooling water, hydrogen was generated and that leaked to the space between the building and the container. He says the explosion happened when the hydrogen mixed with oxygen there.

Nuclear physicist Professor Paddy Regan says what is important is where the explosion hit. "It's not clear what has exploded. The big problem would be if the pressure vessel has exploded but that does not look as though that's what's happened," he said. "If the pressure vessel, which is the thing that actually holds all the nuclear fuel... if that was to explode - that's basically what happened at Chernobyl - you get an enormous release of radioactive material. "It doesn't look from the television pictures... as though it's the vessel itself."

Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/12/3162554.htm

[fasttense]

1. Not yet.

"It doesn't look from the television pictures... as though it's the vessel itself."

Not yet.

[chelsea0011]

2. So, if cesium is being released, what would have exploded?

[abqmufc]

5. CNN reports pump system via website, but

on air (6:15 AM MST) they say it was the outer containment of the reactor but the inner safety containment is OK.

I found an aerial shot of the complex, and next to one reactor you can see a building that would share a common wall with the reactor. I wonder if the pumps blew and blew out a shared wall with the reactor room? I also wonder how much truth is being told.

It took time to hear about the true extent of Chernobyl and Bopal, it took weeks to get the truth about BP oil spill...yet many seem to believe the reports we are being told about this incident. I fear that they don't want to admit they've lost the reactor b/c BBC, WSJ, CNN. and others all state that 3 to 4 more reactors are overheating as well. If that is the case, they may try and rid out the media as long as they can.

Cesium can coming from the water vapor that is formed from the water attempting to cool the rods. Cesium is a product of the nuclear reaction.

[Sirveri]

8. there is always a small amount of fission products in the coolant.

It's a byproduct of the fuel rod creation technique, small amounts of nuclear particulate get embedded in the cladding and then fission off and enter the coolant. This is normal, and accounted for. One thing they look for is Charged Disc Fission Product Activity (CDFPA) levels to determine a Fuel Element Failure (FEF). Because they're performing a feed and bleed they expect some activity simply because it exists in the coolant as a gas. What's important is the levels of activity, not the fact of its existence.

[slackmaster]

10. Hydrogen gas, mixed with the right amount of oxygen

:hi:

[JJW]

3. How do you cool the vessel

with the entire cooling system blown up?

[Ian David]

4. They're preparing to pump seawater onto the reactor.

A physicist they spoke to on BBC said this is a sign that they've given-up on ever having the reactor function again.

[SkyDaddy7]

6. They need to build a new one anyway...

That has latest in safety technology...And build the complex so that it is not vulnerable to Tsunamis.

[madokie]

7. Trouble is a nuke plant requires lots and lots of water for cooling

So they have to build them near water and since japan doesn't have many rivers sized to support a nuke plant they hardly have any options other than near the ocean.

[Ian David]

9. They could build them in giant dirigibles.

Oh.

Never mind.

[SkyDaddy7]

14. Yes, I understand why they build them next to the coast...

but I think now they will build the plants where all the water would be diverted around the plant. They could do it it would just be expensive...Lots of concrete! LOL!

Check this out & see what you think...Kinda off topic but not really. This could be a future way to go with nuclear power...

It is called "Fast Nuclear Reactors"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXmHrC7kpis&feature=player_embedded

[madokie]

20. proliferation is the problem

Too easy to use the waste for bomb material.
If i'm wrong let me know

[SkyDaddy7]

21. No, that is not an issue...

No, you can't use the type of fuel reactors use for energy for Bombs...It would have to refined down even further & that requires lots of technology centrifuges, etc.,

"Fast Reactors" can actually use the waste from current reactors & the depleted uranium and once they are done with it there is very little waste...Basically the waste from all the energy a human being uses in their lifetime would fit in a coke can! And that waste is less dangerous than the waste from current plants & it would only have to be stored 100-300yrs vs 10,000-50,000yrs!

Watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXmHrC7kpis&feature=player_embedded

[abqmufc]

11. Um, how about decommission all and move to wave energy?

Call me crazy but I think this proves there is no safe nuclear power in a 8.9 quake and tsunami. Nor would there be a safe oil refinery, coal fired power plant, and possibly carbon capture sequestration site.

Yet wave energy like that being done by the Makah Tribe in Neah Bay (WA) would seem to be ideal for Japan. Yes some limits may exist for a large scale need (I honestly don't know, but it seems everyone says sustainable energy can't do it now...but in the future, maybe so). I'd tend to feel if anyone had the ability to solve the problems that may exist would be the people of Japan.

Here is a link to info on the Makah's project.
http://www.devinetarbell.com/alternative_energy/ren_profiles/tidal_2.htm

[SkyDaddy7]

13. I do not think this proves...

There is no safe nuclear energy...Like I said to begin with this plant is old technology with 50-60s technology that does not have many of the modern safety features. Nothing in this world is 100% safe but comparing this old technology to new technology & saying this proves there is no safe nuclear is really not saying much. And Japan could never get the energy they get from nuclear from wave technology...Unless there have been huge advancements in the technology in which case I would love to read about it.

Check this out & tell me what you think...It is not available now but is very interesting!

It is called "Fast Nuclear Reactors"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXmHrC7kpis&feature=player_embedded

[abqmufc]

17. Thanks

I am biased on nuclear power. My reasons are plenty and life long, but one simple rationale is that most don't factor in the entire cycle of nuclear power when considering its benefits over cost. I live in a part of the USA that has seen the impacts of mining uranium, milling uranium, development of the bomb and manufacturing of nuclear weapons since day one, and the testing of those weapons, the issues around storage of low level waste (at WIPP), the issues with long-term storage @ Yucca, and the transport of nuclear materials to these storage facilities.

Funny all those issue are the reality of the land that lies from the Grand Canyon to Albuquerque, and up into UT all the way to Moab.

So you can tell me a nuclear power plant is safe in MI or IL or wherever...but it isn't b/c nobody who supports nuclear power factors in the true costs of nuclear power. Supporters of nuclear power don't factor in mining, milling, storage, and transport when making the decision. Policymakers and industry argue each step in developing nuclear power is a separate process that cannot be lumped together. That is wrong in my opinion. I argue if you do that analysis in a precautionary principle analysis rather than a cost-benefit analysis you find nuclear power is not viable. We have polluted water, land and people from the nuclear legacy. So rather than my home becoming the nuclear, coal, and natural gas whore of the country, how about we use that 320 days of sunshine (in New Mexico) for solar and take advantage of wind? We have two high level research labs that have the smartest men and women on the planet working on nuclear bombs (Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories). I'd bet the bank if you gave the duty to these scientists to come up with solar and wind devices which will create enough energy for the nation, they would do it in a short time frame (10 years). I may be a tin hat, but I believe we can do it, nothing has driven the desire to come up with the right technology for solar, wind, wave power b/c the incentive does not exist due to the economic and political structure being based on oil and gas.

[SkyDaddy7]

19. I could not agree with you more!!!

You are very correct & I will admit I had not thought about the complete "nuclear cycle" until now. Thank-you!


It sickens me that China is spending almost what we do on Defense this year into R&D and actual build outs in their country. I know if we set our minds to it we could do it. It would take serious infrastructure in terms of our electrical grid to a "smart grid" so that would could pump electricity generated in the Mojave across the country...Same for wind. And also battery R&D...I think battery technology will be the next biggest breakthrough in energy.

All this could generate jobs & if America could get out in front we could actually build up our exports as we sell this technology around the world.

Obama is trying but it is a hard sell to a public that hears we can drill our way out of our problems from talk radio & FOX "News" on a daily basis.

Now I live in Georgia so this may not surprise you but many of the people I know honestly think wind & solar are stupid Liberal ideas!! But they get this from right wing radio & books!

It is disgusting & SAD!!

[SkyDaddy7]

22. I remembered our conversation about the complete Uranium cycle

And I appreciate you bringing that to my attention...I am not trying to sell you nuclear technology but you really should watch this 4 minute video...Especially since you brought up the harms from mining Uranium.

"Fast Reactors" can actually use the waste from current reactors & all the depleted uranium we have laying around in stock piles...We would not have to mine any uranium for at 1000yrs! By then, if humans are still around I would think we would be long past Uranium for energy!

Plus, once they are done with it there is very little waste...Basically the waste from all the energy a human being uses in their lifetime would fit in a coke can! For every 50 tons of waste from current reactors "Fast Reactors" would produce ONE Ton! And that waste is less dangerous than the waste from current plants & it would only have to be stored 100-300yrs vs 10,000-50,000yrs.

This is leaps & bounds better than what we are currently using.

Watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXmHrC7kpis&feature=player_embedded

[abqmufc]

12. So where does the "waste water" go?

If I understand this - they pump water into the core to cool it down. Cooling a very hot core requires a constant cycling of water to keep it cool. If that is the case when water comes in, water will exit unless you have an opening to let water in and another to pump water out. Is that outgoing water not contaminated and needed to be diverted to the reactors storage pool? These pools are for full of highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel and reports say they are at risk from overheating. (Forbes.com)

If they don't have pumps, I can get how you get water into the core, but I don't get how you cycle water out and properly put it in the storage pools. Are they just dumping waste water into the sea? (Probably as a U.S. state of emergency would suspend enviro laws prohibiting such actions (see post Katrina oil production is the States when the White House suspended enviro laws for oil production).)

http://blogs.forbes.com/williampentland/2011/03/11/risk-of-nuclear-catastrophe-escalates-in-japan-worse-than-chernobyl/

[Sirveri]

15. They typically use heat exchangers and condensers.

Put water in, remove steam, put steam into condenser, take condensate and put that back into the reactor. The fluid on the other side of the condenser is generally checked for leakage and then dumped.

[abqmufc]

16. Thanks n/t

[jpak]

18. If the explosion was the result of the attempt to cool with seawater - it failed

If this pumping station was damaged and inoperable, their options are evaporating quickly