It’s Saturday 3:00 pm EDT; it’s Sunday 4:00 am in Japan.
The news on Saturday was discovery of a large crack in the concrete floor of a staging area “pit” outside Fukushima Daiichi Reactor Unit 2. See story and video from NHK World. New York Times coverage is here.
Cracks in concrete floors are rarely a crisis, but since this crack was in a low spot outside Unit 2, and radioactive water from the Daiiche units was apparently leaking through the it, the crack is a pathway for leaking radioactivity into the nearby ocean, where higher readings were again recorded. They’ll try to seal the crack with concrete, but do they know where the water is coming from?
[Update: Unfortunately, per CNN, initial efforts to seal the leak have failed to stop radioactive water from leaking into the sea. ]
The Japanese utility, TEPCO, also continued efforts Saturday to pump contaminated water out of the turbine buildings basements and outside trenches and into any storage facility that still had room. Removing this water is necessary to be able to work in the area and to continue hooking up electrical equipment they hope will eventually allow a restart of cooling water pumps, values and related equipment. That’s still the main objective for stabilizing these reactors and the fuel in their storage pools.
To remove this water, they’ve filled condenser units inside the turbine buildings and are trying to make room in condenser storage tanks on site. To do that, and to make way for new fresh water brought on by US Navy barges, they’re trying to decide where to put excess contaminated water, such as on barges or an offshore floating “island” that might be able to store, temporarily, up to 10,000 tons of water. They’ll need more than that, as they keep pouring more fresh water into the reactors and spent fuel storage pools each day.
It’s important to keep in mind Unit 4′s storage pool has a full load of “non-spent” fuel that was removed from the core last December. The pool has already suffered a fire and/or explosion and may be damaged/leaking. Most important, the storage pool is outside the containment structure, and even the external building walls/roof have been destroyed. Unlike the damaged fuel in the reactor cores, which are still, we hope, inside one or more layers of containment, whatever happens to that still vulnerable fuel in the storage pool has a direct path to the environment.
Sources:
NHK World
Kyodo News
CNN
Hi-res photos
IAEA Updates
Union of Concerned Scientists
____________
The AREVA Presentation
A few days ago, a number of folks began seeing a PowerPoint presentation by Dr. Matthias Braun at the French nuclear firm, AREVA. Then on Thursday, an apparently approved version of the presentation was posted at the blogsite, EnergyFromThorium.
[Update: This is the same AREVA presentation described by the New York Times in an article posted Saturday evening. That story confirms the analysis relies on computer simulations based on observed hydrogen and types of fission products -- e.g., iodine, cesium -- and models of how the fuel reacts at various temperatures to release them. This allows analysts to understand what's probably happening in the core or pools even without other on-site measurements.]
The presentation is very helpful for its pictures, descriptions and accident time lines and sequence. So read through that link, and if possible, open that presentation in a separate tab. I’ll add a few comments here and refer to specific pages.
Slides 4, 5 and 6: The reactor design we’ve used in our posts here is on slide 4, along with a picture of an actual reactor of this type under construction at Browns Ferry. Slide 5 has a picture we haven’t used before of the reactor “service floor.” This service floor is above the reactor and containment structure and is used for loading/unloading the fuel, to/from the reactor or storage pool, using the crane.
In slide 6, we see a crane from the service floor lifting the dome cap off the containment vessel below. In the right panel of that slide the dome is sitting to the left. I believe the reactor vessel is down below, in the dark hole to the mid-upper right, and the spent fuel storage pool could be lower right, beneath the crane.
Slide 7′s schematic of the plant design identifies the key features and illustrates how fresh water is introduced to the reactor core (“main feedwater”) and how steam is drawn from the reactor (“fresh steam line”) to eventually drive the turbines.
Slide 8 begins the accident sequence, with the quake on March 11, 14:46. The term SCRAM = the automatic shutdown sequence that each reactor follows to bring the reactor to a safe cold shutdown. The figures for continuing heat generation after the SCRAM of 6%, 1% after a 1 day, and 0.5% after 5 days represent, I believe, what is supposed to happen, but didn’t. As slide 9 shows, in a normal shutdown, the reactor is sealed off from the outside systems, and even if electricity from the grid is lost, the backup generators kick in to power the cooling system.
Slide 10, the tsunami happens at 15:41, just 55 minutes after the quake. It floods the backup generators and cooling pumps/equipment in the turbine building. We have a station blackout, but an emergency, battery-operated cooling system is still available, as long as it lasts.
Slide 11 illustrates that emergency cooling system. Steam is still being produced from boiling water inside the reactor, and that steam can be used to drive a turbine which in turn drives a pump. The steam then goes into the “wetwall” structure where it condenses to water, and the somewhat cooler water is pumped back into the reactor. This works as long as the batteries continue to control this system and the pumps work, but since this is a closed system, gradual heat buildup can’t be avoided. It’s designed to be only a temporary solution until power is restored, but that didn’t happen.
In slide 12, either the batteries or the steam-driven pumps fail. At unit 1, the batteries fail within an hour after the tsunami. For some reason, in Unit 3, they fail 35 hours after the tsunami (given the short 8-hour expected life for the batteries, did this system not begin sooner?) And in Unit 2, the pump fails before the batteries give out, almost 3 days after the tsunami.
Slides 12 through 17 then follow the consequences of the emergency cooling system failures. Each successive slide shows the water level in the core falling until parts of the core containing the fuel become uncovered.
Slide 17 shows what they would predict as the core becomes exposed (I don’t believe these are actual measurements of the event). At 50% exposure, the core may still be undamaged, but at 2/3 exposure the fuel rod cladding starts to break down and release of radioactive fission products begins.
In slide 18, at 3/4 of core exposure, the zirconium cladding begins to burn, which produces hydrogen gas. Pressure pushes hydrogen out of the reactor vessel, down into the wet well (doughnut at bottom), where it escapes up into the containment structure. At this point, the hydrogen and fission products radiation are still partially “contained,” though outside the reactor vessel.
However, from slide 19, the core continues to heat up, the fuel rod cladding begins to melt and that melts adjoining steel structures. Even higher heat can destroy the fuel rods and leave molten debris on the reactor vessel bottom.
According to slide 19, the “restoration of water supply stops the accidents.” I assume this means it stopped the accident from getting even worse. The author notes that the core was “27h w.o. water” at Unit 1, which I take to mean that the core was at least partially (or totally?) uncovered for 27 hours in Unit 1. It was uncovered for 7 hours in units 2 and 3 each.
Slides 20 – 22 illustrate the progression that led to the release of radiation (“fission products”) and hydrogen from the containment structure surrounding the reactor vessel. From the melting core, it moves down into the wet wall and then up into the space contained by the dry well. Pressure inside the dry well containment rises — up to 8 atmospheres in a structure designed for 4-5 atmospheres. And the reactor core is still melting, creating more steam and pressure. So TEPCO decides to relieve this pressure within a day or two after the quake/tsunami. Slide 22 shows steam/hydrogen being released outside the containment — it goes first into the service floor area at the top of the building and gathers there. Of course, the hydrogen is flammable and can explode.
Slide 23 depicts the resulting hydrogen explosion at the tops (service floor) of Units 1 and 3. These destroy much of the outer buildings and equipment on the service floor.
But as slide 24 shows, Unit 2′s fire or explosion occurs below, down at/by the wet well/condenser, not in the upper service floor. The outer building remains mostly intact, but there is presumably some damage to the emergency cooling system. The author doesn’t know why Unit 2 was different.
Finally, slides 30-32 illustrate the problems at Unit 4′s spent fuel storage pool. Down for maintenance, it had a full non-spent fuel load recently removed from the reactor core to the storage pool. All storage pools are outside containment. So any fire or explosion associated with that fuel, if it becomes uncovered by cooling water, has an unrestricted direct path to the environment.
These are just initial comments without the benefit of actually hearing the presentation. So if folks see errors in my reading, let us know in the comments.




94 Comments

My ignorance about nuclear power is endless but one question that keeps popping up for me is what are they eventually going to do with all that contaminated water? They can’t leave on ships, barges and containment buildings forever.
The best photos I have viewed were posted at Crytome.org today:
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp/daiichi-photos.htm
yes, those are great high-resolution photos. thanks for reposting the link.
It was the first time I noticed damage to the roof of the turbine building. Cause? tsunami? or part of the internal exposion at its adjoining reactor building?
I don’t think they have time to create permanent storage; at this point, it seems more like musical chairs — they need to move it quickly from where it is now, and then later they’ll worry about whether where they put it is also a problem, which it surely is.
My question also is about the contaminated water. What if there’s another earthquake/tsunami and the water is on barges or in containers that can be ruptured by more violent weather?
I have other questions.
What is the best course to take to make sure Obama and Congress don’t authorize loan guarantees for more nuclear reactors to be built?
South Texas’ two nuclear reactors’ licenses expire in 2028. NRC has renewal applications before them to extend their licenses another 20 years. These are the same design as the Fukushima reactors. What is the way to stop this?
How can we start dismantling our aging reactors? Especially the ones near earthquake zones &/or near hurricane zones.
that can’t possibly happen, because it’s not in the design book.
They surely know then can’t leave this stuff just floating around offshore. They also know they have to move it quickly to someplace close. What are their options? Bad and awful.
According to this article, the hole was apparently caused from debris hitting the roof from a hydrogen explosion.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/30_08.html
Rainwater samples taken near San Francisco have been tested and found to contain radioactive iodine-131 at 181 times safe levels.
http://enenews.com/radioactive-iodine-131-in-rainwater-sample-near-san-francisco-is-18100-above-federal-drinking-water-standard
As Bill McKibben always says to questions like this: organize, organize, organize.
At a minimum start making a list of everything we’ve learned from Fukushima about what they shouda done but didn’t. Measures and equipment they should’ve had available on site or nearby but didn’t and still don’t. A contingency plan for evacuating everyone withing 50 miles and relocating them forever.
Then argue that every owner seeking to relicense has to buy and pay for all that stuff or put money aside for it. Then make them explain how much it costs and how much they’re expecint the gubmint to subsidize. The make sure everyone who votes locally on whether to support this know you know.
Meanwhile, attack demand. Cut it, manage it. Make the supply problem smaller by cutting demand. They show you can solve the smaller supply problem with other sources. See California.
Holy. F’ing. Crap. *breathes into paper bag*
Schools around here collect the rainwater for their gardens, which produce some veggies. Experts…how dangerous are these levels?
Don’t worry, the EPA is vigorously working to revise the safety standards for air and water quality – UPWARD!! Pretty soon no level of radioactivity or toxicity will be deemed too great to be unsafe. Remember the infamous proclamation made by Christine Todd Whitman after 9/11 that the air was safe to breathe?
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/epa-to-help-mainstream-media-obscure.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActivistPost+%28Activist+Post%29
Since the first criticality at the University of Chicago on December 2nd 1942, 69+ years ago, we’ve embarked on creating a lot of mostly useless waste. It needs to be contained eight times the length of time most of the pyramids have existed and 50 times as long as the English language as such has been recognizable. A lot of this stuff is under the control of companies that have to only think about how to justify their next quarter to their stockholders. It appears to me the long term options are – mutate and/or die.
I took a lot of pictures two years ago at school gardens around Arcata CA that do just that. Good question.
The most serious consequence of exposure to iodine-133 is thyroid cancer. Potassium Iodide is the most effective treatment. It should not be taken until radioactive iodine has actually been detected because of possible thyroid damage. The adult dosage is 130 mg per 24 hour period for as long as the exposure exists.
Fortunately, the half-life of Iodine-133 is only about 8 days. It is excreted from the body through sweat and urine. There are special products available to clean your clothing, toilet, etc.
http://www.reflexindustriesinc.com/index.php/i-bind-radioiodine-decontamination-fluid
gigi, thanks.
It seems to me that the major stakeholders here are the refugees from Fukushima, Japan’s agriculture and Japan’s fishing industry. Depending on which way the wind blows, China, Russia, and the Korean Peninsula may also be stakeholders.
I see the possibility of value in estimating the design costs to protect Japanese ground water. My concern is that those kind of cost estimates might lead to premature entombment/catch-basin solutions, which, despite the best intentions, might actually make things worse.
Fukushima imho will also evolve into Japan’s nuclear waste dump.
OT, another (perhaps safer) way to find the leaks is to use an underground boring machine, piloted by a robot. It’s what miners use to dig underground shafts. Test the radioactivity of the earth that comes out on the conveyor belt. Let those readings inform the navigation.
I share your concerns about entombment. They constructed a sarcophagus after Chernobyl. It has developed cracks and is leaking radiation. Plans were made to replace it using different materials, but I don’t know the current status.
The problem with any type of encasement is it does not protect the ground underneath. Radioactive materials leach into the ground and make their way into water sources.
Your idea of boring beneath the reactors would be preferable. It would depend on the depth of the ground water. I read one article about iodine-133 and cesium being found in water beneath one of the reactors. This was at a depth of 15 meters (about 48 feet), but I don’t know if this water depth is consistent throughput the Fukushima area.
Haven’t read a thing yet, but have to say to you and all this is the place to get the real deal on what is happening in Japan. Thanks so Much, Great coverage on a macabre subject.Back to catch up.
no safe level for children
Looks like a gigantic game of pick up sticks.
Just watched On the Beach on TCM. It certainly takes the fun out of all this.
Removing this water is necessary to be able to work in the area and to continue hooking up electrical equipment they hope will eventually allow a restart of cooling water pumps, values and related equipment. That’s still the main objective for stabilizing these reactors and the fuel in their storage pools.
They first have to dry everything electrical because turning the power on when all the wires are wet from a tidal wave and weeks of firehoses blasting the reactor with water is a bad idea.
Bring in a portable pump and a portable generator hook it up to the coolant pipes.
The power people are going to do what they damned well please and with Obama’s complicity.Georgia Power Company just a few months ago got a customer rate increase to pre-pay their adding two, just recently licensed, additional reactors at their Plant Vogtle. Now they are asking for another rate increase to cover any cost overruns. The biggest cement mixer crane being sent to Japan is from Georgia/SC nuclear weapons plant on the Savannah River. We found t3 in the headwaters of the Chattahoochee so the EPA stopped checking for it in those streams and wells.
Everyday more radiation leaks how long before the cost of the clean up is more than all the power that will ever be generated from the last 2 reactors?
One would think the radioactivity has already gotten into the Georgia gene pool.
Fukushima Fallout: Low Levels of Radiation in US Milk, Contaminated Marine Life in Japan
Kristina Chew, Care2.com, April 1, 2011
(quoting the N.Y. Times:)
http://www.care2.com/causes/real-food/blog/fukushima-fallout-low-levels-of-radiation-in-us-milk-contaminated-marine-life-in-japan/
“‘…Levels of iodine 131 entering the air can be very diluted, but if the iodine is deposited on grass eaten by cows, the cows will reconcentrate it in their milk by a factor of 1,000. This is mainly a concern with fresh milk, not for dairy products that are stored before consumption….’”
http://sites.google.com/site/evernewecon
I believe that “pre-pay” policy is called “construction work in progress.” I’d be interested in any links to stories about the Georgia commission’s approval of that, just to confirm. Georgia Power is a division of Southern Company, which is very powerful in Congress.
Unlike the damaged fuel in the reactor cores, which are still, we hope, inside one or more layers of containment, whatever happens to that still vulnerable fuel in the storage pool has a direct path to the environment.
We still don’t know Japan can’t even send robots in that far into the plant? Let me guess no Japanese or American robot is protected against radiation, can climb stairs, can remove debris clogging the stairs and or can’t communicate or recieve commands from inside the plant because radiation proof walls block out radio control signals?
Fiber Optic control of robots has not been tried assuming they have robots that can walk up stairs, clear debris, withstand radiation.
Thanks for the info and link.
I found a Bloomberg article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-21/southern-co-gets-2-1-billion-rate-increase-approval-update1-.html
Even better, here is the actual approval from the Georgia Public Service Commission:
http://www.psc.state.ga.us/facts/docftp.asp?txtdocname=133155
It opened for me as an MS Word document.
I found a great app for Android phones called RadDroid. It provides current, real-time, radiation mesurements (Beta & Gamma) in whatever area you choose anywhere in the U.S. It’s $2 and it shows meaningful information about the levels of radiation starting to reach the USA.
The readout is compared to normal ambient radiation so, for example, right now where I live is S. Calif it’s reading the measurements from San Bernadino County and indicates that Gamma is 93% of normal and Beta is 36% of normal. The numbers are real time numbers and they’re from the EPA’s radiation detection system. The readout is like having a radiation detector with you all the time and it can be shifted to any of the front pages of your Android phone.
https://market.android.com/details?id=net.rage.radnet
Re the UCB numbers–if you were to drink your entire annual water allotment in the one single day of high readings, and drink all of it straight from a rainwater cistern rather than your tap, it would amount to about 70 microSv, which is the level of excess radiation dose of staying in Denver, CO for a month, or of living in a brick house for a year. These other activities are not, generally speaking, considered meaningful radiation risks. Drinking 365x your usual water intake is, of course, an exceedingly dangerous activity. The increase in your cancer risk (under a linear-no-threshhold extrapolation, the most conservative possible assumption) would be something like 0.0005%.
Contaminated water is fairly easy to decontaminate. They just add some chemicals to bind to, for instance, iodine, then use a mechanical filter of the appropriate size to filter those particles out. Clean water comes out, and you’re left with a much smaller contaminated filter that goes to the n-waste site.
Here are some pertinent links. We had quite a discussion of this a few weeks ago also. I am more than a little familiar with the Southern Company as well as Georgia Power and am an anti nuclear activist here in Georgia. I have little doubt ass to the profound corruption involved. And of course Obama went ahead and gave the loan guarantees and licensing.
http://www.ajc.com/business/nuclear-plant-vogtle-budget-877728.html
http://joanking.gamountains.net/?s=outrage
http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/archives/43221/
http://www.ajc.com/business/georgia-power-nuke-fee-606587.html
But if your cow eats an acre of grass to make a pint of milk and you drink a pint a day that adds up. This stuff gets concentrated in the things we take in. And dose is cumulative. Cancer risk has to be calculated on total life time exposure. You get a lot now. you can’t afford many more of these little accidents the rest of your life/
and weren’t spent fuel rods stored at the roof? so weren’t those fuel rods pulverized in the explosion and carried away with the wind?
Phil, we all know it’s gonna be mutate and die. Immortality is still not an option.
thank you.
Living in a brick house in Denver (or maybe Mexico City at 7000′?) 365 days a year is also cumulative.
What’s the cancer rate in Denver, and what type of radiation are we considering?
The imagineering going on, not only here but every blog on which people post is mind boggling!
I just turned 65 and grew up during the era of above ground nuclear bomb tests in the Western US. Where I grew up had less radiation fallout than some other areas, but it was part of the great swathe of material moving from the SW to the NE. I was a big milk drinker, as I think most kids were back then (soda was a limited treat).
I developed thyroid cancer, which is slow growing and was found 6 years ago.
I asked my surgeon what might have caused my cancer and he said, “Bad luck.” That bad luck could be genetic, exposure as a child, who knows?
But, Iodine 131 is something which does get concentrated in milk; I drank the milk of local cows; they did have fallout on their pastures. The effect? Well, after I had my thyroid removed and had thyroid hormone replacements (still not totally worked out yet, after 6 years; but some things are very clearly better), I realized why I was cold all the time, why I had begun to be so terribly fatigued, and why I’d had some other issues. Yet I’d always tested “normal” for thyroid hormone….
It’s usually not a fast growing cancer, altho’ some types are more aggressive than others and it does seem to be more serious if it shows up in younger people. Thyroid problems can have effects that are not easily identified as being caused by thyroid hormones. For example, it can make it more difficult for women to get pregnant.
Point being: I would definitely take care with pregnant women and infants through teenagers of both sexes, about ingesting anything with I-131. I think cesium is heavier and doesn’t travel as far, but I don’t know for sure. But, if I had children I would avoid as much as possible any exposure.
Since I-131 has a half life of 8 days, drinking milk toward the end of its sell-by date might be fine.
You are welcome.
Actually there is relatively good data available. They have been collecting it since before the bombs. I am somewhat mystified as to why it is not being put out there more clearly. Unless it is similar to the oil companies’ billion dollar project to throw doubt as to the dangers of burning carbon fuel.
A doubt or alleged uncertainty is all they need to convince the PTB and the public to continue with these fuels.
There is no such thing as a safe exposure.
Areva made the MOX rods.
http://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/evacuees-warned-not-to-return-to-homes-for-short-inspections/
Sorry. I copied that NRC link without checking it. It has either been taken down or is just a screwed up address. I did try it also using “effect” instead of the improper “affect.”
Thanks for the explanation.
Scarecrow: The decay heat estimates (down to 0.5% after five days) are correct. There is the uncertainty about localized recriticality events, which would increase the heat source by an unknown amount, but the decay heat numbers are pretty solid (AFAIK).
Unit 2 was something like a 750 MW-electric reactor (maybe 768 MW-electric if memory serves, but 750 makes the math easier). That means the heat produced at full power would have been around 2.25 GW. Assuming the decay heat is currently what they are dealing with (no recriticality, which is probably close to correct), then that is around 0.5%, or 1/200. Let’s call it 1/225 to keep the math easy.
That means the core of unit 2 is still producing around
(2,250 MW / 225) = 10 MW of heat = 10,000 kW.
The average household uses about 1 kW, so this amount of heat is roughly comparable to the power used by 10,000 households.
They have to supply enough water to remove as much energy per day as 10,000 US households use, or the reactor core will heat up. Maybe that will help to put the problem of how much water they have to deal with (continuously and for a long time) in a more familiar perspective.
In an earlier comment on one of these threads, I mentioned that overall they have a cooling load of around 50 MW to deal with for the foreseeable future. That includes the six reactor cores (one of which is in a spent fuel pond) and the spent fuel for the six reactors. That doesn’t sound so bad, except for the fact that plant is in shambles and the cooling water is leaking to the environment.
The LA Times is reporting that they are going to try a special polymer to absorb the water. If that reminds you of a giant diaper, it should. It is essentially the same polymer. Seems like a great marketing opportunity for these people.
Oops, the LA Times was talking about another polymer. I was remembering this NHK article.
Here’s the only original thought I have to offer tonight.
TEPCO has acknowledged that they will decommission units 1-4 at Fukushima Daiichi, and I have seen reporting to the effect that units 5-6 will likely also be shut down because of radiation on site.
There were two more reactors (units 7-8) scheduled to be built at Daiichi. Ixnay on that plan, I assume.
More interesting: The levels of contamination from Fukushima Daiichi at Fukushima Daini are currently large enough to force serious consideration of whether they might also have to shut down Fukushima Daini (currently around 100x normal background). Probably the radiation on site at Daini from Daiichi will decay and Daini will be okay, but there will also be continuing releases from Daiichi. Hard to see the final outcome yet.
Correct. While the Areva analysis of the “incident” so far is mostly very good, I think the discussion of what happened at unit 4 is significantly in error. Unit 4 did not have MOX (AFAIK) but still, one wonders if the Areva engineer just couldn’t quite bring himself to talk about the unit 4 problems as frankly as was done for units 1-3.
Assuming no more big surprises, the problems @ unit 4 — which had nothing to do with the outdated 1960′s BWR power plant design, but quite a bit to do with the problem of nuclear waste disposal — will be much more of a headache for the nuclear power industry than the problems at units 1-3.
Even if these reactors had all been inherently safe (or passively safe), the fact is that the entire 69 tonne fuel assembly for unit 4 was outside the containment at the time of the earthquake.
Must-read article on the conditions of the workers. Tragic.
OT, but big news about another energy-related disaster.
The “autopsy” on the Deepwater Horizon blowout preventer has been completed.
In other words, the key failure in the “failsafe” technology @ Deepwater Horizon is a fundamental design flaw that could happen again at any other well in trouble. In a sane world, this finding would stop deepwater drilling all by itself until blowout preventer technology is actually able to, er, prevent blowouts. Don’t hold your breath.
They are going to use gas and coal plants to make up for the loss of the nuclear reactors.
As Barry Brooks said on his blog htttp://bravenewclimate.com
“it’s either nuclear or gas and coal plants” meaning these are the only options that can provide the power for modern society and the Fukushima incident shows that’s exactly what will happen in countries that are scared off nuclear (scared off unjustifiably in my opinion.
So the efficiency of the reactors is only ~33%?
Remember “Peak Oil”?
Non-OPEC production of crude peaked in 2004, despite sky-high prices for oil, which would have raised production to some extent if that were in the cards.
As non-OPEC production begins to fall, the power of OPEC will grow. Anyone arguing that the US should drill more now (i.e., Obama) is foolishly advocating using up resources now for short-term political gain despite the fact that their strategic and economic value will be much, much greater in the future.
Yes, that’s because they boil water and use the steam to turn turbines.
I expect that testing the flaw correction will involve a destructive test, and I expect that would have to replicate the deep water conditions, or go down in real time and depth to test it. Triggering a violent surge to test gives me great pause.
Doing computer modelling…likewise.
Damn, between nukes and oil, we are so screwed. Can getting rid of horseshit be any worse?
Putin is sitting on lots of natural gas. Russia the next Middle East barons?
There are many ways to pursue nuclear power. I think one lesson of Fukushima is that a 5 GW power station is too economically risky. Too many eggs in one basket. It would be better even for the utilities to have lots of small power sources. That’s why 200 MW gas turbines are selling like hotcakes. (Well, that + the Cheney-era law that socializes the risk of fracking.)
There are lots of interesting ideas for small modular nuclear reactors that have been discussed on these threads (pebble bed, for example). Much safer. Of course, the waste problem still must be solved + problems related to proliferation risks if you reprocess, and if you don’t reprocess, you don’t have that much fuel available.
Conservation is a big part of the short-term answer. On scales that greatly exceed what was done in the 70s.
I don’t normally read sites like this one but since you mentioned horseshit…
I have not read any of the “Freakonomics” books, but evidently the horse manure story is recounted there, too.
I read those also, which is why I mentioned it. Besides, I would not mind having a horse to ride, even at my age (70++)!
Speaking of horses, I think I’ll give my brain a rest from all this and curl up with a sane western novel, like Zane Gray.
Imagine, this crisis caused by boiling water to make steam to turn a generator to create electricity.
Rube Goldberg or what?
this group might be able to help:
http://nirs.org/
The “waste problem” has been solved.
See http://energyfromThroium.com and htttp://bravenewclimate.com
Conservation won’t ever solve our energy problems and neither will efficiency. Lookup Jevon’s paradox.
The amount of energy the world will need in the coming decades is huge.
It’s not Rube Goldberg. They provide, or rather provided, and enormous amount of electricity in those 4 reactors. Just because the use boiling water to make steam to turn a generator is not really the point. It’s that fact that nuclear energy is energy dense and contains a lot of power in a small space, more than any other power source and there are much safer designs.
The powerpoint is informative. In reference to the station battery for Unit 3 failing in under 3 hours, drawdown tests of station batteries are required (in my experience at least every 2 years). This test is accomplished by shutting down the charging system and allowing the DC loads to fall entirely on the battery. A battery consists of cells–for example a 120VDC system may have 60 2-volt cells. Cell voltage is monitored, and when the individual cell voltage drops to a predetermined level (in my experience that point is often specified by the battery manufacturer but sometimes by plant engineering) the test is terminated. With that information–the ampere load on the battery, the starting cell voltage and the time that it takes for the voltage to decline–the condition of the battery can be determined. No station battery should ever fail due to a battery that does not meet specs, assuming that the maintenance is done according to schedule. Sixteen hours has been about the absolute maximum that I can recall, so Unit 1 batteries were very good. Ditto for Unit 2′s, which were still operating 13 hours later, when the pump failed.
The venting of hydrogen into the building makes absolutely no sense. What engineer would design a system to deliberately vent an explosive gas into an enclosed space? And the Areva engineer’s assessment that the damage from the hydrogen explosion is minor is questionable. The concussion from the hydrogen blasts very likely exceeded build standards for the plant equipment (piping, pipe mountings, motor mounts, etc.), not to mention that the building contains tons of spent fuel rods sitting in a swimming pool with piping to fill, drain and circulate cooling water. I really think that the gas containment for reactors 1 and 3 failed to vent to where it was supposed to, either because of earthquake damage or a design flaw.
To speculate on why Unit 2 behaved differently, a look at the simplified drawing leads to a good guess that the hydrogen wasn’t vented anywhere at all. Instead of being diverted to atmosphere (or inside the building), either due to operator error or the inability of the operators to monitor pressure or open valves, or due to equipment failure such as a back-flow preventer stuck closed, it accumulated in the torus. All 3 operating reactors failed, with 1 and 3 having similar explosions. Unit 2′s explosion wasn’t the same. Because of the scale of the accident, we may never know what happened, which doesn’t bode well for preventing future occurrences of similar failures.
I was thinking last night as I listened to the press conference regarding the leak that they’d be better off stuffing toilet paper down the tubes. Well it turns out today they’ve been putting sawdust and newspapers down the conduits along with the polymer to stop the suspected leak through the conduits. No good result yet. Maybe they’re not guessing the right route. (Is it possible they have incomplete/inaccurate documentation with regard to the various conduits and routes that connect the turbine room to external areas?)
New Tepco spokesperson which the twitterratti have named “namazu” or catfish, is at least clear speaking.
They will be putting dye in the water in the “trench” (access tunnel structure) to see whether the dye will show up in the leak coming from the crack.
That’s 20 bags of 3kg packages of sawdust, some newspapers and 80 packages of the polymer elixer pushed down into a drilled area of the concrete conduit connecting the trench to the pit.
Area of stuffing junk is approximately 20m inland direction from pit. Apparently the polymer stuff is called “water-gel bag” made by IB Daiwa. Expands to 50 times volume when wet.
Why they think putting dye in the water will clarify the route of leak is beyond me. Seeing the color come out at the exit will not confirm anymore than what is known already. So they go into the third day with the leak still going.
Maybe we will get to see the ultimate tool of angle grinder against the grating in the water exit channel. So someone can get in and stop the leak from the outside.
For a start, it would help to have the basic facts correct. The South Texas Project’s two reactors are Westinghouse PWRs, not GE BWRs. They’re as different from the Fukushima design as can be found in commercial reactors.
Remember the “Junk Shot” on the BP Macondo well?
Meet the new Junk Shot. Same as the old Junk Shot; didn’t work for squat.
I get the feeling that they really do not believe that the conduit is where the water is traveling to the pit. It is probably leaking throughout the concrete cracks and just coming out into the pit. They really do need to clear up the basement in the turbine room at #2.
In the meantime common sense solution of a steel plate, piece of rubber and a jack should be able to stop the leak out into the seawater channel. Capping with steel always beats stuffing junk.
While the half life of iodine is 8 days, the amounts released are continuing and half the effects remain after 8days, so the exposure continues until enough half lives have passed to deplete all the isotope, assuming that the releases of radioactive iodine stop.
This is a report on federal subsidies to nuclear power.
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press-release/nuclear-power-subsidies-report-0504.html
Renewable energy is needed to solve the long term fuel problems as well as the safety problem with nuclear power. Coal prices are also expected to rise and diesel moves the railroads that move the coal. Read this for additional choices.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/clean-energy-stocks-to-fill-the-nuclear-gap
Seems the link is broken, But the government financing what has clearly become a non-functional enterprise is also scandalous. Perhaps because it is local, I am even more outraged at the work around Georgia Power has found in strong arming the PSC to make their rate payers pay for and take the risk of development and even cost over runs.
Thanks for the correction. I appreciate it.
You’re welcome. The proposed new reactors for STP are ABWRs, perhaps you were thinking of those. At present, things look financially bleak for that expansion because TEPCO won’t be able to fund their (20%?) share of the project.
fml @10:09
You wrote: “It’s that fact that nuclear energy is energy dense and contains a lot of power in a small space.”
That’s what makes it such a terrific weapon, that PERMANENT dense energy. Unless you have a COST-EFFECTIVE lead-lined space shuttle that can orbit all the waste, we’re stuck with “dense” energy for its half-life.
Could you calculate the inefficiencies of bringing water to 100C with nuclear fuel? It’s like castrating a mouse with a machete to a power of a billion. That’s why you need enormous supplies of FRESH water, which you already can’t afford to keep it PERMANENTLY cool.
Google bi-phasic fluids. We can turn generators at temperature below 100C.
There’s nothing “small” about the ability of radiation to leak.
Sure the newer designs may be better, but who will ever again trust the nuclear industry. Prior to Fukushima I was willing to give those newer designs a chance. The nuclear industry used up all their brand equity with me. They couldn’t clean up their own side of the street.
Conservatives abhor concentrations of power where they occur. Diversification and de-centralization make the most sense in terms of power generation. That reduces the attractiveness of targets to terrorists and increases redundancy. Nukes provides single points of failure. Clean air and clean water are capital. Because the ownership rights are diffuse, the risks to them routinely get “socialized” onto the taxpayers. We need cost accountants who will more accurately calculate the ROI of clean air and clean water.
I’m not saying never use coal and natural gas. I’m saying the current costs of extraction and disposal are under-reported.
IMHO the key investment we need to make is in storage technologies and transmission technologies such as HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current). Wind and various kinds of solar have no fuel costs on the front-end and virtually zero clean-up costs on the back end. Those are enormous advantages over coal and ng. If you like coal, go to West Virginia or any state that have a history of mining it. If you want it to be profitable, you have to be willing to at least kill a lot of miners. If you like ng, tell me how you’re going to frack it out without destroying the underground aquifers. Again, humans need potable water. I can’t grow crops with ng. I can’t bathe in it. I can’t wash clothes in it and I can’t drink it. Once you lose an underground aquifer, there’s no way to repair it. When it bubbles to the surface, it gets in the rain. Thanks to Shell in Nigeria, it rains oil.
In terms of reducing heating and air conditioning costs, geothermal seems to make a lot of sense.
Seismic concerns about enhanced geothermal have yet to be fully addressed.
Tidal energy along the very long U.S. coastline should be explored vigorously.
Whether we can cost-effectively harness energy from waves in the next generation is outside my area of expertise.
fml,
hooptejoe’s 2008 My battery, solar and wind generator setup is a genuinely conservative approach. He’s generating his own electricity and storing it. In a lot of places you can whole-sale the excess electricity back into the grid. This is decentralized and diversified. Among other values, this investment has a positive ROI for his cash flow and his home. In a well designed system, with someone who understand electricity, this approach promotes redundancy and safety.
The primary benefits of coal and ng go to the people who claim to own them. They usually bribe politician to obtain those rights. They are the great darlings of Wall Street, unregulated monopolies and oligopolies.
If you can find a place where Adam Smith had anything positive to say about unregulated monopolies and oligopolies, let me know. I missed it.
The blog ENENEWS links to the original and altered versions of the AREVA presentations:
Oops, yellowsnapdragon and I have been having a brief conversation over on the previous (EPUd) Japan thread.
Basic question: something is very weird about the water readings in the Unit 6 turbine building sub-drain. Does anyone know what the heck is going on?
This question seems to have first arisen in a comment over at UCS.
Reposted from EPU:
According to this TEPCO datasheet, something is strange about Unit 6.
The chart shows the radiation content of the water found in the sub-drains of units 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 late in the morning of March 30.
Unit 2 is where all the attention is focused. Remember from the pictures that units 5 and 6 are completely separated from the other four reactor buildings and have not been in the news at all thus far.
Unit 2 has no observable Te-129, an isotope with a half-life of 70 minutes. Unit 6 has 81 Becquerels per cubic centimeter. Is that high? I do not actually know the typical background levels, but there is none observed in units 2, 3 or 4.
Across the rest of the isotopes in the table, with only one exception, unit 6 consistently has higher values of Bq/cm**3 compared to unit 2, often by a factor of 5 or more. Unit 5 also has non-zero values in the table, but less than unit 6.
You might argue that this is evidence of an old spill that we haven’t heard about, but the Te-129 argues against that. Nothing with a half life of 70 minutes would be around unless it is being produced or leaked to that point.
You might also argue that the total amount of water in the unit 6 sub drain is small, but these isotopes should not be there at any level.
I do not understand what a “sub-drain” is, but the link to this page from the TEPCO press release page says this is in the turbine building.
Something is very wrong. I can understand (at some level) the earlier reports which confused one radioactive isotope for another, but I cannot understand how anyone could have filled out this chart without fully understanding that there were radioactive elements in the unit 6 turbine building sub-drain that absolutely should not have been there.
So: what the heck is going on?
Here is how Radiation effects the human body:
http://www.standeyo.com/News_Files/NBC/radiation.human.body.html
Radioactive water found leaking into sea from pat at Japan nuclear plant. This can be devastating to say the least to all humankind! The effects of radiation sickness and poisoning include cancer, genetic and reproductive damage, hormonal damage, and thyroid blockage (that’s why they want you to take potassium iodine, another dangerous toxin) but I wouldn’t. There are much safer substances like Zeolites.
A couple good articles on radiation sickness protection that shows what you need do to test radiation levels, treat water, and what to take internally to not get sick:
Water Purification Tablet
Radiation Sickness
There was a huge amount of confused explanation about Te-129m which would (55 day half life)be the source of Te-129, and mistakes made in programming the software that calculated the Te-129 without reference to origin from Te-129m. Pretty much beyond me, except the point was that there are errors in the Te-129 data.
As I tried to tell the other commenter above,
the waste problem has been solved
the water requirement problem has been solved
Look at http://energyfromThroium.com there are some videos there too
and http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits has some studies of alternatives like solar and wind and why they don’t measure up to the hype.
“That reduces the attractiveness of targets to terrorists and increases redundancy.”
What do you think putting all the solar farms in one place in the desert does for terrorist targets? Hundreds of millions of people will lose power if that’s attacked.
I agree that decentralization is a good policy but the other alternatives can’t handle the power requirements of modern society.
Nuclear power is the best we have so far.
Solar and wind turbines are generally not practical for cities.
“If you can find a place where Adam Smith had anything positive to say about unregulated monopolies and oligopolies, let me know. I missed it.”
Why would you assume that I adhere to the view of Adam Smith? Some of what he said is correct but other parts are not. I think he advocated a sort of mercantilism.
fml,
Maybe it had something to do with the first two words in your handle.