Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 1557

@cat sorry you were waiting you are now on auto
by elainekirk 6/9/2011 11:59:38 AM

Morning all. I wouldn't be that quick to discount Gundersen's concerns. He has had considerable information in advance of everyone else regarding some of the issues at the plant including the instability issues at 4. I have not seen his newest videos so I don't know exactly what he was saying.
He has been solidly anti-nuclear in the sense that the dangers that many know that have been ignored for decades need to be addressed. He was pointing out all these safety issues long ago that are now coming home to roost. Are these the newest vids on his website?
by lillymunster 6/9/2011 12:01:44 PM

@elainekirk Good place to ask that question would be here: arstechnica.com Fukushima nuclear emergency
by jt 6/9/2011 12:03:40 PM

@Pedro Jesus are there calculations on burn through rates for time and the amount of concrete it could burn through at certain temps?
by lillymunster 6/9/2011 12:04:07 PM

@jt I will wait see what comes up on here first then go look at your link later when I sit down for coffee thank you
by elainekirk 6/9/2011 12:05:47 PM

@elainekirk They are discussing this question, and have been for some time. There is a refreshed interest given the admission of melt-thorough in the last few days. More technical expertise than here, and they will answer you.
by jt 6/9/2011 12:11:06 PM

@lillymunster don't forget to include in calculations the amount of control rods, rod insertion mechanics, steel...
by trh 6/9/2011 12:13:17 PM

@trh someone had posted some generic numbers or calculations of temps vs. hours or days etc. for burning through the steel & concrete containment plus the base mat. I have no clue if there is enough heat being generated to do that or not. I still think the steam shows at #3 were bits of corium hitting water either under the RPV or in the suppression chamber. I don't know if there is enough heat going on to burn through. I will leave that to the hard core techies to calculate. :-)
by lillymunster 6/9/2011 12:17:06 PM

@lillymunster yep... better let them to figure that out.... tooo complicated for me...
by trh 6/9/2011 12:22:33 PM

@lillymunster Here is the interview with Arnie Gundersen, it's a radio interview with thext showing on the video. youtu.be He really covers everything aout Fuku- it's a long interview, and a really good one. Here are answer to some q I have been asking myself, but never seen answer to elsewhere.
by Mona 6/9/2011 12:22:58 PM

@lillymunster : it was dean who calculated the numbers. and corium, that is so hot that it just has burnt thru a pressure vessel, is as well hot enough to burn thru concrete very rapidly.
by Edano edited by Edano 6/9/2011 12:28:59 PM

"Complete melt-through can occur in several days even through several meters of concrete; the corium then penetrates several meters into the underlying soil, spreads around, cools and solidifies.[3] During the interaction between corium and concrete, very high temperatures can be achieved. Less volatile aerosols of Ba, Ce, La, Sr, and other fission products are formed during this phase and introduced into the containment building at time when most of early aerosols is already deposited. Tellurium is released with progress of zirconium telluride decomposition. Bubbles of gas flowing through the melt promote aerosol formation." en.wikipedia.org
by Edano 6/9/2011 12:33:09 PM

@lillymunster I never said we should discount his commentaries. Not in the sense of them being wrong. He definitely knows what he's talking about. He worked in the nuclear industry for many years and he became an anti-nuclear activist after he found out that there was a certain resilience from the nuclear industry to put more strict safety measures into place. And he's been right about several predictions, but he also stresses, although in a clever way that could almost pass unnoticed to the regular listener, that he's basing his estimates of what might happen on speculative assumptions.

Answering to the other question, there have only been 6 reported partial meltdowns in the history of the nuclear industry, not counting Fukushima, which give a very small pool of data from which to derive statistical scientific models. There has never been a full meltdown experiment before so the way the molten fuel might interact with the RPV, the CV and the concrete base mat are only speculative. There is no way of knowing for sure what will happen. And that's exactly why not TEPCO nor anybody else in the world knows exactly where each molten fuel blob will be sitting at the moment. It could all be inside the RPV and only the water leaking through, it could all have leaked to the bottom of the CV, or even through the CV, or anything in between or something else that hasn't been predicted yet. The only thing we do know is that the fuel is still inside the units, somewhere, because we have very high radiation levels inside each unit (#1 to #3). All calculations and modelling have high level of uncertainty due to the lack of physical evidence from which to derive and formulate accurate statistical equations.
by Pedro Jesus 6/9/2011 12:33:22 PM

@Pedro Jesus "The thermal hydraulics of corium-concrete interactions (CCI, or also MCCI, "molten core-concrete interactions") is sufficiently understood." en.wikipedia.org
by Edano 6/9/2011 12:35:58 PM

"The thermal load by corium on the floor below the reactor vessel can be assessed by a grid of fiber optic sensors embedded in the concrete. Pure silica fibers are needed as they are more resistant to high radiation levels." en.wikipedia.org i wonder if they have such fiber optics in the reactors.
by Edano 6/9/2011 12:37:42 PM

There are plenty of unknowns. I don't think TEPCO knows much more unless they are getting random tell tale signs they are not sharing with the public. I think doing some sort of modeling based on various factors and scenarios would still be worthwhile as was done with the station blackout and rod melt situation. Of course all of this is highly speculative because nobody can get in there and look.
by lillymunster 6/9/2011 12:39:22 PM

@lillymunster : i do think they know.
by Edano 6/9/2011 12:40:35 PM

It seems to me that to qualify Gundersen as an anti-nuclear activist is quite a sweeping, and a tad biased, statement. He is a nuclear engineer providing sound insight. To chalk down anyone questioning the safety of the nuclear industry as "anti-nuclear" smacks of mccarthyism. Many of his conclusions, based on analysis, have proven correct so far.
by Dom 6/9/2011 12:42:13 PM

@Edano The recent testing over #1 makes me think they are looking for signs of burning through concrete, recriticality or reheating
by lillymunster 6/9/2011 12:43:00 PM

@Edano I wouldn't say so, considering not a single RPV in the world is completely safe. Models need to be tested in order to be fine tuned. Fukushima is the best real test the nuclear industry has so far. There's a lot to be learned from this experience. Bare in mind, one thing is modelling and predicting how certain substances react with each other in a controlled environment, something completely different is estimating how they will interact in the real world. And we have seen how little nuclear scientists know about the real world scenario over time. Fukushima is only another sad example.
by Pedro Jesus 6/9/2011 12:43:22 PM

@Dom : 100% agreed. gunderson is absolutely credible.
by Edano 6/9/2011 12:43:51 PM

@lillymunster : we have the special elements (Ba, Ce, La, Sr) in the readings since a long time. this proves corium-concrete-reactions, but it does not say where the corium is now.
by Edano edited by Edano 6/9/2011 12:46:57 PM

Finally we have the radioactive water treatment system in English lotsa pics which probably means it has no substance www.tepco.co.jp
by elainekirk 6/9/2011 12:52:01 PM

@elainekirk : i see zeolithe !!!! have you seen duct tape ?
by Edano 6/9/2011 12:54:05 PM

the capacity is 1200 tons/day, the input is 500 tons daily, that means 700 tons net daily. 100000 tons / 700 tons makes 142 days or 5 months to treat all the water. if the groundwater does not push in from below.
by Edano 6/9/2011 12:58:32 PM

@edano looking for it now :)
by elainekirk 6/9/2011 12:58:57 PM

@Edano is this in metric tons?
by trh 6/9/2011 1:01:31 PM

@trh : i only know metric. :) yes of course.
by Edano 6/9/2011 1:02:45 PM

1 ton = 1000 kg
by Edano 6/9/2011 1:03:16 PM

am. ton is nearly the same. 907 kg.
by Edano 6/9/2011 1:04:27 PM

brit. ton is 1016 kg.
by Edano 6/9/2011 1:05:03 PM

and can you imagine under what kind of structural stress are the buildings with all that water in them...
by trh 6/9/2011 1:07:08 PM

@Edano The CV is made of steel reinforced concrete so it is not such a surprise that some of those elements have been detected. That's how they came to the conclusion that a partial breach has happened in those RPVs. Question: could some of those detected elements come from reactions between scattered spent fuel (from SFP) that has fallen to the bottom of the secondary containment, after the explosions, with the concrete floor?
by Pedro Jesus 6/9/2011 1:09:15 PM

online.wsj.com
Japan Considers Evacuating More Towns
by trh 6/9/2011 1:10:48 PM

@trh twitter usually becomes quiet re tweets from Japan around now but it is humming and the mood is not good
by elainekirk 6/9/2011 1:15:12 PM

Some good insight into how the EQ risks of the Mark 1 were ignored in the US and then ignored in Japan based on the US reports. mdn.mainichi.jp
by lillymunster 6/9/2011 1:19:54 PM

@elainekirk How so? What seems to be eating people?
by lillymunster 6/9/2011 1:20:06 PM

Japan's Nuclear Power Shortages Poised to Spread . TOKYO—Japan's electricity shortages may be intensified over the coming months by a wide-scale unofficial shutdown of nuclear power plants across the country.
Even utilities not directly affected by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami have chosen not to restart reactors that happened to be undergoing regular maintenance at the time of the Fukushima Daiichi accident due to objections and concerns raised by local governments. Reactors that have since been shut for previously scheduled maintenance face similar obstacles.
As a result, only 17 of Japan's 54 reactors now are operating—merely a third of the country's total nuclear-generating capacity—and the potential for ... online.wsj.com
by Majj 6/9/2011 1:25:06 PM

@nancy the radiation levels, the fact that the UN report Japan has prepared contains information that was not given to the public, the later is the trigger for the former because although snippets came out in the news there was no official explanation to the people that was informative they just read it when it was sent to the UN.
We have to remember these people have in the main stood behind their government and utilities and to find that they have ostracised neighbours who sent families to safety, that they have made cowards of friends who wouldnt work in the area when all along those people were right is it seems the driver
by elainekirk 6/9/2011 1:28:56 PM

lh3.googleusercontent.com Can Water ballast from ships contaminate water around the word ??? SAD TO SAY BUT ANSWER IS MOST OF THE TIME A BIG YES. I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR CONTAINER SHIPS AND WE TRY OUR BEST NOT TO DO BALLAST OPS IN A PORT. BUT SOMETIMES WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TAKE WATER ON ANYWAYS. AND THEN THESE TANKS HAVE TO BE GAUGED PERIODICALLY AS WELL. SOMETIMES EVEN ENTER TO INSPECT VALVES ,GAUGES ETC. ALL DEPENDS ON AGE OF VESSEL. NOW MOST BULKERS AND TANKERS MAYBE AN OLDER AGE FLEET. AS FOR TAKING WATER TO ANOTHER PORT. AMERICA HAS STRICT RULES ON KEEPING BALLAST RECORD LOG AND WE DO WHAT IS CALLED A COMPLETE DEEP SEA BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE TO EMPTY OUT ANY BACTERIA OR OTHER LIFE FORM WE MAYBE CARRYING FROM ANOTHER PORT. BY RELOADING DEEP SEA WATER WE CAN BE CLEAR TO ENTER AMERICAN PORT WITHOUT ANY HARRASSMENT SINCE ALL OUR WATER HAS BEEN EXCHANGED AND WE ARE ONLY CARRYING DEEP SEA WATER. PENDING THIS NOTION OFCOURSE THEN SHIPS CAN CONTAMINATE THE BIG DEEP BLUE OCEAN AS WELL. BUT CONTAMINATING CREW AND CARGO IS HARDER TO DETERMINE. DEPENDING OFCOURSE MANY FACTORS THAT YOUR GROUP HAVE TO CONSIDER. HOPE THIS HELPS. From some American Ship officer ...
by Majj via Lh3.googleusercontent 6/9/2011 1:35:50 PM

@elainekirk Potentially 127 million people have realised more or less simultaneously they have been duped by their government about Fukushima.
by you edited by elainekirk at 2:40 PM
by jt 6/9/2011 1:41:57 PM

@jt ty that is it in a nutshell
by elainekirk 6/9/2011 1:43:09 PM

@elainekirk Ir will be the people of Japan who will make the changes, not the government, but what an uncertain, unstable situation when for at least two generations they have been told, and made to believe, it was, they were, safe.
by jt 6/9/2011 1:50:54 PM

@lillymunster , to finish my mox train of thought from last night. I imagine that Tepco's long-term goal has been to increase the percentage of plutonium in the fuel progressively, until more plutonium is burned than produced. The inability of the nuclear power industry to close the fuel cycle has turned into the Faustian experience of Mickey Mouse in Fantasia, Tepco Mickey at work so to speak!
by Peter Melzer 6/9/2011 2:00:02 PM

@jt All the rest of the world is still being told the same. Is the rest of the world going to do something about it in their countries (I mean, the ones that use nuclear power)? Lets not forget that those reactor units at Fukushima were among the strongest in the world. What if this had happened somewhere else in a not so safe NPP? I think it's time for a big change and Germany has already shown signs of good will. Lets put some pressure in our own governments to do the same.
by Pedro Jesus 6/9/2011 2:02:41 PM