Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 2243

Certainly not Onagawa, So either of the Fuku plants had to be their experiment reactor. en.wikipedia.org
by lillymunster 8/26/2011 1:07:57 AM

sometimes the german wikipedia is better: de.wikipedia.org
by Edano 8/26/2011 1:08:49 AM

@RonD But a natural gas plant doesn't require all that extra energy to cool a reactor to keep it safe, ie: pumps intakes etc. Is it still the same?
by lillymunster 8/26/2011 1:09:05 AM

@Edano I'm jealous. I have noticed that, German wiki seems to have better data. Why is that?
by lillymunster 8/26/2011 1:10:06 AM

@lillymunster yes, the nuke plant has the decay power problem that even after you turn off the main nuke reaction, there are leftover reactions that takes years to die down and you need to keep water
cooling running for years
by RonD 8/26/2011 1:10:49 AM

@lillymunster very often it is the case. i always compare the languages, sometimes spanish as well.
by Edano 8/26/2011 1:10:55 AM

but sometimes they are simply translated word by word.
by Edano 8/26/2011 1:12:52 AM

must be daiichi 6 or daini 1-4
by Edano 8/26/2011 1:13:42 AM

@RonD right, water cooling must operate while running the reactor, something you don't have to do with a natural gas plant. What I don't know is the amount of energy that makes up between operating a nuclear plant vs. a nat. gas fired one. I bet Pathfinder would have some data since it ran as a nat gas plant for a few years after they removed the reactor.
by lillymunster 8/26/2011 1:14:50 AM

en.wikipedia.org but i cannot find a 1/3 thermodynamic law.
by Edano 8/26/2011 1:16:24 AM

@lillymunster a comment from www.world-nuclear.org "The amount of cooling required by any steam-cycle power plant (of a given size) is determined by its thermal efficiency. It has essentially nothing to do with whether it is fuelled by coal, gas or uranium."
by RonD 8/26/2011 1:16:38 AM

"When expressed as a percentage, the thermal efficiency must be between 0% and 100%. Due to inefficiencies such as friction, heat loss, and other factors, thermal engines' efficiencies are typically much less than 100%. For example, a typical gasoline automobile engine operates at around 25% efficiency, and a large coal-fueled electrical generating plant peaks at about 46%. The largest diesel engine in the world peaks at 51.7%. In a combined cycle plant, thermal efficiencies are approaching 60%" en.wikipedia.org
by Edano 8/26/2011 1:17:22 AM

and nukes 33% :(
by Edano 8/26/2011 1:17:55 AM

what is the Japanese health dept as in education is meti
by elainekirk 8/26/2011 1:18:45 AM

Question on the papers rockhopper found about the disaster scenarios. Is all that data for a single reactor? I am assuming so but wanted to make sure I didn't miss something.
by lillymunster 8/26/2011 1:20:43 AM

@lillymunster yes.
by Edano 8/26/2011 1:21:26 AM

@RonD hmm. I think world nuclear is leaving a few things out. As far as the generator side everything would be identical, on the heating side all that additional needed equipment uses up more energy and is not needed in a gas fired plant.
by lillymunster 8/26/2011 1:22:26 AM

@lillymunster I was referring Carnot's theorem that gives an upper bound for the efficiency of a steam engine based on the ratio of Peak Steam temp to Cold sink temp en.wikipedia.org
by RonD 8/26/2011 1:25:09 AM

@lillymunster the decay heat diagram is not correct either. imo
by Edano 8/26/2011 1:25:57 AM

@you all the other power losses to run pumps etc decrease the final efficiency
by RonD 8/26/2011 1:26:08 AM

@elainekirk : Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare www.mhlw.go.jp
by Edano 8/26/2011 1:30:23 AM

@lillymunster this wiki on Thermal Power Stations states en.wikipedia.org "The energy efficiency of a conventional thermal power station, considered as salable energy as a percent of the heating value of the fuel consumed, is typically 33% to 48%. This efficiency is limited as all heat engines are governed by the laws of thermodynamics. The rest of the energy must leave the plant in the form of heat." the max Temp the plant uses for steam is the key limit
by RonD 8/26/2011 1:31:28 AM

@edano I had an idea and it seems it could be turning up good stuff if we are wanting to know what they actually had researched www.jaea.go.jp
by elainekirk 8/26/2011 1:33:01 AM

@elainekirk "The expansion of nuclear technology for the enrichment of mankind" i love it...
by Edano 8/26/2011 1:34:39 AM

@Edano yeah cute innit
by elainekirk 8/26/2011 1:43:32 AM

Here is what I wrote up. let me know if the facts are correct:

A Japan Atomic Energy Institute paper from 2002 recently surfaced online. This paper was the technical estimations of what would happen if a nuclear reactor on the Pacific coast of Japan were to have a catastrophic accident. The models included radiation dispersal under a variety of scenarios and also illness and death rates under multiple scenarios.

The plant for the experiment is "1100MWe BWR5 with Mark-II type containment– One of the most common plant type in Japan". Based on the location on the maps included in the paper the reactor used was either unit 6 at Fukushima Daiichi or one of units 1-4 at Fukushima Daini. The scenario is for one reactor failure, not 3 reactor failures plus spent fuel pools as was experienced at Fukushima Daiichi.

Of the included reactor scenarios the one that closest resembles the Fukushima disaster is failure of cooling + overpressure damage. Below are two graphs, one in English, another in Japanese. They show the reactor damage scenarios, distance from the plant and mortality.

Some interpretations of the data in this report using the closest to Fukushima Daiichi model available. These do not mean specifically these things will happen, this is what the model shows under the scenario details they used:

20 km away will cause max. 1 out of 500 deaths, an exclusion zone of 100 km will cause max. 1 out of 5000 deaths. The diagram may explain the 20 km exclusion zone. all curves go down beond 20 km away from the plant.

Acute deaths = deaths for direct exposure to NPP wave radiaton + explosion deaths.
The two sharply-dropping lines on the Japanese chart show acute death.
Please make note that at 100 Km. distance values are not 0. Moreover X axis is logarithmic.

Tokio-Fuku distance= 230 Km. Our estimate for 230 Km. death rate ~ 10*-4.Tokio Metropolis population 34,500,000 (2007)34500000/10000. 3450 deaths in Tokio only.
Again, this is based on this model scenario, not exact situations currently going on.
These mortality models include late onset cancers and also survivable cancers based on
the details in the report.

There's the MOX factor to consider too, the addition of MOX fuel is not included in the model. MOX fuel in reactor 3 may have played a roll in the speed of the meltdown and adds plutonium and related isotopes into the releases different than what would be seen with uranium fuel.

The report in English, includes a series of PowerPoint slides at the end.
*This report also talks at length about ways radiation is absorbed by people, they may
not be included in the Japanese language report.

The report in Japanese as part of a JAERI journal

JAERI report that explains the OSCAAR modeling system in English
by lillymunster 8/26/2011 1:46:26 AM

@elainekirk With all that research it isn't a lack of knowledge creating the problems in Japan.
by lillymunster 8/26/2011 1:49:15 AM

@lillymunster reads very well to me @Lilly good article you have brewing there
by elainekirk 8/26/2011 1:51:34 AM

should 'Earth Simulator' and 'Nuclear' be in the same sentence docs.google.com

by elainekirk 8/26/2011 1:52:35 AM

@elainekirk Don't let my hubby see that, he will start building one in the basement. :-0
by lillymunster 8/26/2011 1:56:09 AM

@lillymunster ooops I glazed over by the third para science fiction meets real life was never a concept I grasped very well
by elainekirk 8/26/2011 1:57:46 AM

@elainekirk not sure why the nuclear research inst. was in on it, maybe they do cross department projects when it is useful?
by lillymunster 8/26/2011 2:02:20 AM

@lillymunster yes I think nasda had some pretty way out ideas I just skipped the nuclear space rocket doc
by elainekirk 8/26/2011 2:04:49 AM

Did Edano go sleepy?
by lillymunster 8/26/2011 2:13:51 AM

@lillymunster almost :)
by Edano 8/26/2011 2:14:30 AM

let me know if you have a chance to read what I wrote on that modeling paper. It can wait til tomorrow too.
by lillymunster 8/26/2011 2:17:09 AM

@lillymunster i read it. it's fine, well done. one thing i found remarkable is, that the fuku event is indeed the worst case in this estimation. a worse scenario seems not possible in this setting.
by Edano 8/26/2011 2:22:29 AM

@Edano what about the worker scenario?
by lillymunster 8/26/2011 2:24:42 AM

and maybe you should mention that the now exploded reactors are far more weak and older than the estimated mark2 type, so we should raise the estimations. i guess most people don't know the designs.
by Edano 8/26/2011 2:25:19 AM

@lillymunster the workers scenario ?
by Edano 8/26/2011 2:25:55 AM

@Edano ah, I forgot that. These models don't include a tsunami. That made me think, was anyone trying to control the reactors for those minutes while the water flooded in?
by lillymunster 8/26/2011 2:26:27 AM

@Edano I can't read. :-) I misread worser as worker. Maybe it is me that needs to go to bed. :-)
by lillymunster 8/26/2011 2:27:07 AM

@lillymunster: I couldn't find in the document one fundamental value: supposed delta radioactive inventory prior to accident versus post accident. Without this value all the model is wishful thinking.
by estacion 8/26/2011 2:27:18 AM