Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 1873

from the other board:

Japan May Be Nuclear Free by May as Tests Delay Restarts
Japan may have no nuclear reactors running by May next year should the round of tests announced by the government this week cause further delays to restarting units idled for maintenance, a Bloomberg survey shows.

Shikoku Electric Power Co. today said it delayed starting a reactor that was due to resume in two days. About two-thirds of Japan’s 54 reactors have been shut down by the March earthquake and tsunami or because of regular checks, leading to power- saving measures in parts of the country.
More: www.bloomberg.com

Sounds too good to be true but lets hope.
by joniver 3:03 PM
by Edano 7/9/2011 7:09:43 PM

Radioactive cesium detected from Tochigi tea

Radioactive cesium exceeding the government limit was detected in processed tea made in Tochigi City, about 160 kilometers from the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

The Tochigi Prefectural Government says 1,810 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium was detected in tea processed from leaves harvested in the city in early July.

The level is more than 3 times the provisional government limit.
by Majj 7/9/2011 7:10:01 PM

www3.nhk.or.jp
by Majj 7/9/2011 7:10:12 PM

japan will be faster than germany in abolishing nukes ? :) :) :)
by Edano 7/9/2011 7:11:11 PM

—A government-led panel looking into the future of Tokyo Electric Power Co. is keen to wrest monopoly power away from Japan's largest utility, but it has for now put aside more radical proposals to break up the company and sell off key assets, panel members and government officials said.

The problem facing officials is how to ensure that Tokyo Electric remain for the long term a viable shareholder-owned company that is able to provide electricity at a reasonable cost while paying off the estimated trillions of yen in compensation to those affected by the disaster at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear ... online.wsj.com
by Majj 7/9/2011 7:11:25 PM

@Majj will be interesting to see how this disaster affects future energy prices in japan. people tend to think with their wallet rather than their brain.
by Edano 7/9/2011 7:13:50 PM

www.houseoffoust.com
temperatures rising in #3
by Edano via Houseoffoust 7/9/2011 7:15:44 PM

@elainekirk I usually try to hold off on judgment, because wanting to believe your worst nightmares didn't just happen can be a very powerful thing. I think many people believed the whitewash because they SO wanted it to be true. Unfortunately, we're seeing that the regulators who weren't eliminated or just plain bought mostly seem to fall into that camp.
by RadioGuy 7/9/2011 7:19:46 PM

@RadioGuy yes you are right :(
by elainekirk 7/9/2011 7:21:55 PM

hi back again, I think many people were and are in denial of how severe the situation is.
by Jo 7/9/2011 7:24:51 PM

The last comment from Dominque Leglu's blog (Science and Future in french): sciencepourvousetmoi.blogs.sciencesetavenir.fr
by Olivier edited by Edano 7/9/2011 7:24:51 PM

and in english with google translate: translate.google.fr
by Olivier 7/9/2011 7:25:59 PM

how come fuku has concrete containment and cooper has steel?
by elainekirk 7/9/2011 7:26:23 PM

@elainekirk ooh. cooper has steel only? what document showed that
by lillymunster 7/9/2011 7:33:48 PM

@elainekirk um... let's see...what was it the UK/Industry emails said? uh... the outer containment building is meant to blow apart, to keep something more dangerous from happening? Some blather like that?
by RadioGuy 7/9/2011 7:35:32 PM

@RadioGuy Usually in reference to the outermost concrete building part like at Fuku. If we have mark 1 reactors with steel and not the concrete containment the NRC has some explaining to do.
by lillymunster 7/9/2011 7:41:19 PM

@RadioGuy @lillymunster roflmao
by elainekirk 7/9/2011 7:45:15 PM

@lillymunster lilly if you go back to the two bwr spec docs and gather up as you return I will gety you the steel doc put up
by elainekirk 7/9/2011 7:46:12 PM

The explosion was "visually dramatic" but it's meant to do that. I almost died laughing when I read that line.
by RadioGuy 7/9/2011 7:46:36 PM

Elaine, the GE BWR/6 documents?
by lillymunster 7/9/2011 7:47:28 PM

@lillymunster yes then there are more drawings as you come back up
had you already got the bwrs?
by elainekirk 7/9/2011 7:48:02 PM

@RadioGuy nobody does puppet gov like london do it
by elainekirk 7/9/2011 7:50:52 PM

4.5 Concrete Containment Tendon Prestress
4.5.1 Summary of Technical Information in the Application
LRA Section 4.5 indicates that CNS does not have concrete containment.
4.5.2 Staff Evaluation
CNS is a BWR with a Mark I containment. The Mark I containment consists of a freestanding
steel containment drywell, vent system, and steel pressure suppression chamber (torus). CNS
does not have concrete containment.
4.5.3 USAR Supplement
The staff concludes that no USAR supplement is required because CNS does not have
concrete containment.
4.5.4 Conclusion
CNS does not have concrete containment (not applicable)
pbadupws.nrc.gov
by elainekirk 7/9/2011 7:51:24 PM

@elainekirk OMG. WTF. ::headdesk:: ::headdesk::
by lillymunster 7/9/2011 7:52:55 PM

@lillymunster yeah I kinda thought that ...
by elainekirk 7/9/2011 7:53:44 PM

@elainekirk I found the two BWR/6 spec manuals, 2 diagrams for cooper/calhoun and I had some saved from about 6 hours ago.
by lillymunster 7/9/2011 7:54:28 PM

going back through pages now
by lillymunster 7/9/2011 7:54:45 PM

I think I have everything now.
by lillymunster 7/9/2011 7:56:01 PM

@lillymunster I cant find a list like I did calhoun but will keep looking meanwhile www.nrc.gov that is the closest I have got must point this one out too pbadupws.nrc.gov
like I say I will look for some doc set
there are 3000+ results in that search I need to just find the attatchment drawings for the 2010 renewal/safety whatever it was
by elainekirk 7/9/2011 7:56:47 PM

lilly you have it all the bwrs were first
by elainekirk 7/9/2011 7:58:52 PM

@elainekirk I am still just floored that Cooper doesn't have a concrete containment. I remember the old promotion information about Fuku bragged about the 4 ft thick with lots of rebar concrete containment. Maybe they were bragging because it was not always used? How many other GE BWR units are still running with just the steel containment? Can you imagine what would have happened at Fuku? The concrete ones barely stayed in one piece, some didn't
by lillymunster 7/9/2011 8:02:51 PM

Has anybody seen more info about the amount of ground movement/sink at the Daiichi Nukes? In today's NHK article about the 13.1 meter tsunami they mentioned "TEPCO also says the ground beneath the 2 plants fell by 50 to 65 centimeters after the disaster." This is about 1.6-2 feet for us Americans.
by RonD 7/9/2011 8:04:15 PM

@RonD yes. Ex-SKF and Arnie Gundersen brought the sinking up over a month ago. Ex-SKF cited a university professional that deals with that kind of geographic data. I will see if I can find the original article, it was rather informative about what happened.
by lillymunster 7/9/2011 8:05:32 PM

The ground also moved horizontally quite a bit. There are fissures and holes all over both power plants
by lillymunster 7/9/2011 8:06:14 PM

@RonD I am doing some overlays and there is movement even in the past month
by elainekirk 7/9/2011 8:07:17 PM

if you look top left on unit 1 you can see that edge has dropped in the month between the two pics
by elainekirk 7/9/2011 8:10:20 PM

Good one Elaine, I don't think camera movements account for that as the foreground seems to all line up.
by lillymunster 7/9/2011 8:12:23 PM

Ok thanks, I'm curious about how much the Nuke Building, Generator Building moved/sunk relative to each other. I'd guess the ground/foundation loading in kg/m^2 or lb/ft^2 is different for each building and the foundation with all the piping between the buildings.
by RonD 7/9/2011 8:13:46 PM

@RonD @lillymunster I have found it comparing other pairs too , the back right hand tower has moved too from what I can tell 3& 4 are more problematic because of the distance but am going to try matching them using#2
by elainekirk 7/9/2011 8:16:58 PM

@RonD something else to keep in mind is that they had to run sump pump systems to keep ground water from "floating" the buildings during normal operation. Those pumps were ruined or unusable since the blasts. At one point TEPCO claimed the water in #5 was ground water coming in. I think they may have also had backflowing water or TEPCO was storing water in 5 and didn't want to admit it. This is the site that had the original article with all the scientific details. I did a quick archive search and could not find it. Should be somewhere in April or May on the ground sinking. ex-skf.blogspot.com
by lillymunster 7/9/2011 8:18:16 PM

@elainekirk are you using just the TEPCO views? I know there were some minor changes found via TBS months ago at least things out of plumb. I think the 3-4 tower moved over that time period also. 3 isn't level anymore on TBS but better than 4 is at least as of early June.
by lillymunster 7/9/2011 8:20:08 PM

@lillymunster somebody gave me a file this morning I think it was @es it has hourly shots for 2 days at the start of june
by elainekirk 7/9/2011 8:23:46 PM

@Elaine, Peter might be interested in the rad waste plumbing diagram. We should try to remember to post it when he stops by. That is an excellent resource, one of the few whole detailed system drawings. For now I have been bookmarking or downloading the docs your finding. I will probably host copies on my server so they don't go AWOL and make a page on simply info to index and link to them. Once I get document archiving working on Simply Info we can all upload and save to there.
by lillymunster 7/9/2011 8:23:57 PM

@lillymunster Thanks for the pointer, I'll look around for a bit. I'm not a architect or civil engineer so I don't want to think about Nuke plants that are floating and not firmly connected to bedrock.
by RonD 7/9/2011 8:24:09 PM