Heard some apologist say just now on msnbc that of course the reactors shut down

[madokie]

like they were supposed to, it was the other things that didn't work, blaming everything on the loss of power and the generators that didn't start but taking no responsibility for the shit that is going on.. Looks to me like those other things that didn't work are the most important parts to make sure of their working in running a nuclear power plant, considering the potential of a catastrophe like they pose and all. FUCK

[Nederland]

1. Really?

Looks to me like those other things that didn't work are the most important parts to make sure of their working in running a nuclear power plant

Personally I would consider the containment structure to be the most important part of a nuclear plant, because that is what protects you if everything else fails. Its pretty damn impressive that the containment structures of every single reactor in Japan have remained intact even after being subjected to the fourth most powerful earthquake in recorded history. If all the buildings in Japan were built to the same standards as its nuclear reactors, we would have seen far fewer deaths.

[bananas]

2. Without cooling, the containment fails

that's why they've been so desperate to get the cooling going.

edit to add: I've posted this article many times over the past few years,
this is why we shut down nukes when a hurricane approaches:

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=514

The Current State of US Nuclear Safety Regulations and Transmission Grid Reliability
10.22.03 Stephen Maloney, Principal, Devonrue LTD

<snip>

As plant operating experience developed through the 1970s, however, it became evident to most risk analysts that the potential for extended transmission grid unavailability coincident with the loss of the onsite emergency power supplies was sufficiently high to warrant additional measures. In the nuclear power industry, this scenario combining transmission grid unavailability (such as occurred in the 2K3 Blackout) with total loss of all onsite emergency power is referred to as a “Station Blackout.”

Depending on circumstances, the Station Blackout reactor accident scenario can be particularly dangerous to public health and safety. The reactor core can melt on time scales comparable to the TMI accident. Unlike the limited loss of cooling event at TMI, however, the core damage scenario in a Station Blackout can be particularly severe, including a so-called “early high energy release” comprising a particularly heavy “portfolio” of fission products dispersed far and wide within a few hours.

Bad enough an extended loss of offsite or grid power occurs at a single reactor site and threatening a Station Blackout accident – worse that this extended grid loss occurs without warning at more than a dozen reactors such as the 2K3 Blackout or a particularly severe hurricane.

Let’s be clear -- the 2K3 Blackout did not cause a Station Blackout at any nuclear power station. Nukes trip and lose all offsite power from time to time for short periods. However, the sudden and unanticipated loss of the transmission grid to more than a dozen nukes for this duration has not happened before.

<snip>

Readers Comments

<snip>

Joseph Somsel 10.23.03
Having served with Mr. Maloney on the industry group that helped formulate and implement the improvements for station blackout, I can state that the man knows about which he speaks.

<snip>

[madokie]

5. They got caught with their pants down no doubt

but still they should have been better prepared. Anyways what my point was was here this apologist was trying to whitewash the fact that the system failed trying to blame it all on the loss of power first then the generators second. Not that a reactor is a dangerous beast at best, no mention of that.

[bananas]

6. Yeah, I was just pointing out to Nederland he's wrong

Nederland was doing his own kind of whitewash.
Nuclear reactors are the most Rube Goldberg contraptions ever created.
And when it breaks down, they have to evacuate people for miles around.
And the USS Reagan which was designed to survive a nuclear war with the USSR has to move away from the fallout plume from the Japanese reactors even though it's 100 miles away from the reactors.

[Nederland]

11. Only if you have a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity

A negative temperature coefficient of reactivity means that the amount of heat generated by the core will inevitably decline over time, even without cooling. I would agree that any reactors that do not have this feature should be shutdown and decommissioned immediately.

[bananas]

13. No, otherwise they wouldn't bother trying to cool it so desperately

They'd just let the fuel melt within the containment and not worry about it.
They are risking their lives trying to keep it cooled.
They have evacuated the control room except for a suicide squad.

[FBaggins]

14. No... his statement isn't as clear as it could be, but it's essentially correct.

Since the reactor was shut down, the only heat production has been from radioactive decay. The amount of decay actually declines fairly substantially over the first few days.

The long and short of it is that if this event (fuel rods entirely uncovered for 2-3 hours) had happened right after the earthquake, the meltdown would have been far faster and far more substantial. It still needs to be cooled, but the amount of heat being produced (and thus the amount of cooling needed) does go down over time.

[FBaggins]

12. Really?

We seem to have had four reactors with ongoing cooling problems (including reportedly entirely uncovered fuel rods). It does not appear that containment failed, does it?

There's no doubt that this is the big test. So far... they haven't failed. If you have four meltdowns in two different reactor variants with designs that are decades old... and the containment doesn't fail? You can assume that your statement is not entirely correct.

OTOH, a great deal of time has passed since the reactors were shut down. It's very possible that the results would have been more signficant if this lack of cooling had occured right after the event began.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hatrack]

7. Goodbye, NN

The world does not come down to an epic battle between the anti-nuke contingent (blinkered troglodytes slavering for the agonizing deaths of as many as possible through radiation sickness) and the forces of virtue and wisdom (mighty, omniscient YOU, possessed of Perfect Knowledge, Supreme Truth and Utter Certainty).

For whatever it's worth, I think there's a very real possibility that even in the absence of a full-on meltdown as the icing on the cake this godawful week (a dreadful outcome which fortunately looks unlikely), Japan's nuclear sector is going to end up permanently hamstrung, given the scale of the capital investment that's never going to generate another kilowatt-hour and the potential replacement costs.

For whatever it's worth, I'm not opposed to nuclear generation. Given what we know about the power of coal (GHGs, ocean acidification, the wholesale destruction of entire counties & the deaths of thousands every year in mining the damned stuff) the impacts of natural gas (GHGs, wastewater, poisoning of groundwater) the curse of oil (GHGs, wars, massive spills, corruption, genocide, wars) there has to be a place for it, if we're operating from the basis that it's a good thing to be able to keep the lights on.

That said, maybe it wasn't the best idea in the world to locate large nuclear generating facilities right next to the ocean in a nation known for thousands of years for the power of its volcanoes, earthquakes and seismic sea waves. Maybe planning for greater quake magnitude and tsunami height wouldn't have been a bad idea either. Maybe Japan needs to reconsider as a nation where it wants to go next in terms of how it generates energy and how it uses it.

But I guess that just makes me another fossil fuel apologist. And if you'll excuse me now, I have to go and "lie around on (my) fat ass hoping for more deaths from the reactors."

I just don't need your venom or your arrogance anymore.

[madokie]

9. Peace

[madokie]

4. We think, we hope they're all intact,

we don't really know anything for sure yet. I keep reading about a meltdown so I'm not so sure they're past the worst part yet.

[SpoonFed]

8. just imagine if you were there...

This is totally heartbreaking:

'Kyoko Nambu, whose home was destroyed by the tsunami, said: “It’s like a horror movie. Our house is gone and now they are telling us to stay indoors.

“We can see the damage to our houses, but radiation? We have no idea what is happening. I am so scared.”'

From:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8382139/Japan-crisis-meltdown-alert-raises-spectre-of-nuclear-nightmare.html

[madokie]

10. My hearts broken for them

I wish I could do something to make it go away for them but I can't, time is all that will do that now.