Post Fukushima. Where Now for Nuclear Power?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Low-res compilation of all of the above. ;) Aha, you mean the radiations readings at the NPP, I can't tell you.

[walker 0]

Hi all

One of the major problems from Fukushima, as with any other Nuclear disaster, is going to be the spread of radioactive polution.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=news&cd=5&ved=0CFQQqQIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.nytimes.com%2Fclick.phdo%3Fi%3D7d9313bfd0fc9bec6c0620cf52168883&ei=to-ITZD2PMyWhQe73uS6Dg&usg=AFQjCNHVQazfeJ2khwba_wG03Kx0yc65fA&sig2=mBgW5EU3NIMwOBRdIta3dg

Kind Regards walker

[Dwarden 1125]

Cost? 1 nuclear plant meltdown = possibility of 1000's of lives lost and irradiated ground for x months/ years

Cost of 1 wind generator going down..., disruption to sheep for a few days to replace it.

I really dont wash with your PoV, its kinda sensationalist.., so what would you have us do? carry on the status quo poisoning the planet along the way?

Also industrial hemp can provide both fuel AND food to to mention thousands of other products. Coupled with Solar AND wind energy it could work quite effectively.

you forgot the cost of all the poisons used to create 'cheap' w/e solar etc. stuff in 3rd world countries ...

or You think that cheap electronics running w/e devices around is made safely and cleanly?

naivity claiming solar/wind/bio energy is 'all mighty saviour' is just road to hell on 'eco driven' speculants

hell even really / cheap effective water based (especially waves)

and thermal energy isn't preffered against the 3 above ...

same naive is approach to nuclear fission or 'future' fusion etc. w/o properly ensuring safety ...

but from civilisation DEMAND standpoint You need nuclear 'supersources'

we have no immediate nor short term replacement, period ...

but i assume You may want to stay on use of coal / oil power plant instead of clean&safe nuclear plant ...

please try find out how much radioactive ash is released by coal (mainly brown) plants daily ? ...

Edited March 22, 2011 by Dwarden

[walker 0]

Hi all

This interview of Hirose Takashi who wrote the bestselling book Nuclear Power Plants for Tokyo explains what is being covered up in Fukushima and why.

http://www.counterpunch.org/takashi03222011.html

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 30, 2011 by walker

[STALKERGB 6]

Keep rolling the nuclear power. I spoke to someone working on the development of fusion reactors (can't for the life of me remember where he worked though...).

He said that we should have been turning everything nuclear years ago, there is no other reliable, mass scale energy source available short to medium term.

In fact IIRC the University of Idaho has developed a "safe" reactor that cannot meltdown because of the integration of new passive safety features. Again, here in the UK, our AGCR nuclear power plants have a very low risk of meltdown because of the use of gas to cool rather than water.

It has already surpassed Chernobyl,

No it hasn't, it can't and won't.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

No it hasn't, it can't and won't.

I've heard it for 11 days, but cool story bro.

3 core active zones in meltdown, draining of water in SNF pool in number 4, re-criticality of the fuel, hydrogen building & explosion <- Same thing about to happen to #2 SNF pool.

Did I mention fuel rods (and what's left of em) outside reactor 3 containment, like, literally ON THE GROUND North of it? Yeah, I just did.

[hellfire257 3]

I've heard it for 11 days, but cool story bro.

3 core active zones in meltdown, draining of water in SNF pool in number 4, re-criticality of the fuel, hydrogen building & explosion <- Same thing about to happen to #2 SNF pool.

Did I mention fuel rods (and what's left of em) outside reactor 3 containment, like, literally ON THE GROUND North of it? Yeah, I just did.

Can we have some factual, reliable evidence that it will go Chernobyl? Or is this media spewings? The Anti-nuclear crowd always jump on the bandwagon. It gives them an excuse to cause trouble. It is the same as the Anti-GM crops brigade.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Can we have some factual, reliable evidence that it will go Chernobyl? Or is this media spewings? The Anti-nuclear crowd always jump on the bandwagon. It gives them an excuse to cause trouble. It is the same as the Anti-GM crops brigade.

I'm pro-nuclear, you can't even comprehend the scale of the irradiation of the environment; Reactor 3 had Mixed-Oxide fuel (with plutonium oxide) loaded as 32 rods out of 548 assemblies, it's been there for a few months, enough to get heavy pu- isotopes and it's still burning - look at the thermal imagery.

Decay heat from SNF in #4 was 2 MW... TWO MEGAWATTS - it blew the #@*% up once water levels were below nominal and it didn't have any fuel loaded in the reactor at the time of the SCRAM in other 3.

If you want to base an opinion on facts and information that was received up-to-date from a contact on the ground, I refer you to this thread (March 14th):

http://forum.janeysnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=521

[walker 0]

Hi all

Special video to explain:

5sakN2hSVxA

To help Hellfire257 and his buddies to stop panicking :)

It was done by an amimator to reduce his childrens concern.

Alternately for the adults among us an explanation from one who knows:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/22/chernobyl-cleanup-survivors-message-for-japan-run-away-as-qui/

And a detailed IAEA explanation of the current state of play

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html

Kind Regard walker

Edited March 22, 2011 by walker

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Hilarious, I know:

Unit 4, camera facing North-East.

Updated: Down-to-Earth assessment of the status of SNF pools and their contents:

http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/4008511524/more-on-spent-fuel-pools-at-fukushima

Other commentary here: http://forum.janeysnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=745&start=200#p19315

Edited March 22, 2011 by Iroquois Pliskin

[STALKERGB 6]

I've heard it for 11 days, but cool story bro.

Obviously you failed to hear the clear differences between operation and safety at Chernobyl and at Fukushima Daiichi.

Chernobyl wasn't SCRAMmed. It was still running when the meltdown occurred, this alone is going to mean tons more radioactive material hanging around waiting to be spread about. The reactors in Chernobyl also lacked any kind of containment. They were never designed to stop radiation leaks when they happened. The NPP never came close to meeting western standards of safety.

Janey's Breaking News doesn't count as a reliable source...

Alternately for the adults among us an explanation from one who knows:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/22/ch...n-away-as-qui/

And a detailed IAEA explanation of the current state of play

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/...iupdate01.html

And neither suggest it will be as bad as Chernobyl.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Educate yourself, SCRAM is not a panacea; re-criticality is a possibility.

Can you even imagine how much power 10 MW is? Denial, stay in it.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The report linked there actually looks like a feasible and reasonably common sense solution to getting water to the specific needed locations.

http://olarislab.com/report11.pdf

For the attention of StalkerGB who seems somewhat unaware of the risks of re-criticallity after a SCRAM.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp;jsessionid=326E4A90768D743B2181314E816CF8FA?purl=/5642843-WEBy3N/

http://bibliothek.fzk.de/zb/berichte/FZKA6427.pdf

Of course the really frightening prospects are re-criticallity in the wide open No.4 Reactor "Spent" Fuel pool which is overburdened with both spill over "spent" fuel rods and the active fuel taken from the reactor for maintenance and that were heavily re-racked and may have been displaced in the fire and explosions. And the much higher propensity for re-criticallity inherent in the plutonium fuelled No.3 reactor as it is a MOX reactor.

I also should point out that even Japanese sources and the IAEA admit there has been a partial meltdown in at least two reactors which of course means that re-criticallity must have taken place, despite SCRAM.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 22, 2011 by walker

[ziiip 1]

One nuclear plant semi-fails after a big ass natural catastrophy and you ask whats next for nuclear power? Well...it goes on as usual.

[STALKERGB 6]

Educate yourself, SCRAM is not a panacea; re-criticality is a possibility.

And at no point did I say SCRAMming was but the mere fact that the reactors are "off" at least means that over the course of the last week and a half they haven't been spewing out the maximum amount of radioactive material possible.

If this had been like Chernobyl then the reactors would have been leaking as much radioactive material as was possible. We all know that this wasn't the case, for a start all the reactors containments at least delayed any leaking unlike Chernobyl where there was no delay. If it had been like that then there would be lots of people with acute radiation sickness.

One nuclear plant semi-fails after a big ass natural catastrophy and you ask whats next for nuclear power? Well...it goes on as usual.

This ^

Can you even imagine how much power 10 MW is? Denial, stay in it.

I can, I live next to a Coal Fired station that has four 500MWe units.

@walker, I understand the concept and threat of re-criticality, even so it would not make it like Chernobyl.

Anyway, to steer back to the focus of the topic, I think nuclear power is a necessity, at least until we find another mass-produced energy source. I have nothing against renewables such as wind and solar but the mere space the would require makes it hard to actually get them built anywhere.

Edited March 22, 2011 by STALKERGB

[walker 0]

Hi all

STALKERGB you also seem not to be aware that a chemical fire can shift radioactive materials. Eg. Burning Fuel rods. Or that said burning fuel rods, when they are not oxidising and floating away across the outside world in clouds of smoke, yield molten, uranium, plutonium and other transuranics as well as a whole host of very high neutron emitting isotopes that all fall to the bottom of the open container, note not a containment, where they merrily all get together in a great cosy neutron bath, happily going critical and possibly prompt critical.

And you can not SCRAM the stupidly open "Spent"(but not really) fuel rod pools of the moronic and worse than Chernobyl storage method used here in the west because they have not got a SCRAM system in them!

Reactor No.4s fuel rods are open to the air and inside ZERO containment. As are those in Reactor No.1. While those that were in Reactor No.3 are scattered across the plant.

You get my point.

Because of the complacency and miss placed national/western pride of people like your self. Western "Spent" Fuel storage is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl. The sheer tonnage of radioactive crap in these open pools at this one western plant dwarfs Chernobyl.

This in Japan has been compounded by Industry fears about criminally protecting assets and investments over safety and a general attitude of: making money is more important than obeying regulation.

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 22, 2011 by walker

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Some people can only be spoon-fed by ABC agencies, but this is Reuters and have great respect for their service:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/japan-quake-snapshot-idUSL3E7EF28320110322

* Nuclear plant still emitting radiation but source unclear, says IAEA. The UN atomic watchdog says Japan has not given some information relating to one reactor.

* Smoke and steam seen rising from two of the most threatening reactors, No.2 and No.3, denting hopes of immediate progress in bringing them under control.

* Core of reactor No. 1 also a worry with temperature touching 380-390 Celsius (715-735 Fahrenheit), plant operator says. Reactor built to run at a temperature of 302 C (575 F).

Gee, I wonder what that might be ten day on - nuclear fission.

No. 1 on the right:

Edited March 22, 2011 by Iroquois Pliskin

[STALKERGB 6]

STALKERGB you also seem not to be aware that a chemical fire can shift radioactive materials. Eg. Burning Fuel rods. Or that said burning fuel rods yield molten, uranium, plutonium and other transuranics as well as whole host of very high neutoron emmiting isotopes that all fall to the bottom of the open container where they merrily all get together a great nuetron bath going happily critical and possibly prompt critical.

I am well aware of the result of fuel rods burning walker.

moronic and worse than Chernobyl storage method used here in the west

I assume from that you mean the position of the storage rather than the method itself? Even if it was positioned 300m away from the reactors, after a number of earthquakes and a tsunami the result would probably be the same.

Some people can only be spoon-fed by ABC agencies, but this is Reuters and have great respect for their service:

*sigh* I know who Reuters are, I use their services most days for work. As well as IRN. The fact that I use Aljazeera/Sky/CNN/BBC/NHK to read about Fukushim Daiichi is neither here nor there. Just because they are larger News Networks does not make them "ABC agencies". In fact as I'm sure you know, they often use Reuters and similar news wires to lead a story.

Industry fears about criminally protecting assets and investments over safety and a general attitude of: making money is more important than obeying regulation.

Unfortunately this seems to just be the way the world works which is a shame...

EDIT: My point is that although it *is* like Chernobyl because they are both nuclear disasters on large scales, the specifics of the Fukushima Daiichi as well as the timeline of events make it inherently different.

Edited March 22, 2011 by STALKERGB

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I was implying that Reuters was not ABC soup. On storage: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/uploadedImages/wnn/Images/bwr%20cutaway.jpg

SNF pool right below the unloading crane, were they positioned elsewhere, you wouldn't have... let's see...

806 fuel assemblies, 170 kilos each of Spent Nuclear Fuel irradiating into the clear skies of the Pacific.

[walker 0]

...I assume from that you mean the position of the storage rather than the method itself? Even if it was positioned 300m away from the reactors, after a number of earthquakes and a tsunami the result would probably be the same...

Hi STALKERGB

I mean both.

The problem is that people get fooled by the PR speak that "Spent" means the fuel rods are not as active, when in reality they are more reactive and more prone to causing prompt criticallity, and that is the reason they are withdrawn from use. A proper name for them rather than "Spent Fuel Rods" might be "Too dangerous to put in the reactor fuel rods"

1) The case with both the PWR and MOX reactors at this plant as well as many reactors still used in the west; of storing the "spent" (they are not really spent) fuel rods above the reactor which could have a hydrogen gas release and explode or any of a whole bunch of other scenarios such as prompt critical event, is clearly stupid.

2) So we all across the west happily leave them lying around in open pools where one power outage can do what we see here. In fact we have so many that we do not know what to do with them. To the stage where the western nuclear power industry is re-racking them to; as at Reactor No.4, and at Triga; the point of criticallity.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=264332

http://www.dcbureau.org/201103141303/Natural-Resources-News-Service/fission-criticality-in-cooling-ponds-threaten-explosion-at-fukushima.html

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 22, 2011 by walker

[STALKERGB 6]

I was implying that Reuters was not ABC soup.

And I was implying that most major news networks aren't either :p

My point about the position of the storage was that even if they were in a separate building (as with a number of modern NPPs) the fact that a tsunami/earthquake combo hit the plant would still have compromised them. All it would have taken is the mechanism to keep them cool failing and the result would be largely the same wouldn't it?

power outage can do what we see here

I'd assume that like with Fukushima Daiichi the cooling systems do not need power to operate but it is when the system itself is damaged or fails that problems arise.

The problem is that people get fooled by the PR speak

I think that there is in general a lack of understanding of NPPs (PR speak or not to be honest :) ). ANother example is the huge swathes of people who believe a meltdown creates a nuclear bomb like explosion.

Edited March 22, 2011 by STALKERGB

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I'd assume that like with Fukushima Daiichi the cooling systems do not need power to operate but it is when the system itself is damaged or fails that problems arise.

So you want the truth? EQ sensors triggered, Reactors in shutdown - scrammed, tsunami comes along, take out 2 diesel fuel storage tanks directly East of Unit 1, situated on the wave barrier; further floods disable diesel generators that are located further into the plant.

The result of the above is thermal imagery I've been showing you. The end.

P.S. Portable U.S. Navy nuclear reactors have bootstrap capability, they can cool themselves as long as heat is generated.

[STALKERGB 6]

So you want the truth? EQ sensors triggered, Reactors in shutdown - scrammed, tsunami comes along, take out 2 diesel fuel storage tanks directly East of Unit 1, situated on the wave barrier; further floods disable diesel generators that are located further into the plant.

The result of the above is thermal imagery I've been showing you. The end.

P.S. Portable U.S. Navy nuclear reactors have bootstrap capability, they can cool themselves as long as heat is generated.

The comment was aimed at the storage rather than the reactor itself.

BWR's also have the capability to cool themselves with steam. This is the case with all boiling water reactors. So seeing as all the reactors at the plant are BWR's they could cool themselves without power. The actual water pumps must have suffered damage for this not to have been the case.

Would I be right in thinking most Navy reactors are PWR's?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

The comment was aimed at the storage rather than the reactor itself.

BWR's also have the capability to cool themselves with steam. This is the case with all boiling water reactors. So seeing as all the reactors at the plant are BWR's they could cool themselves without power.

That is negative void coefficient, steam acts like a moderator, but there comes a point where that pressure becomes detrimental. And you saw BOTH examples on tape for the history books. ;)

On Naval propulsion yes, it's a PWR: both size and safety are key.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Iroquois Pliskin

[walker 0]

Hi all

The effect on public acceptance of Nuclear Power has been quite Widespread.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0322/Nuclear-power-in-US-public-support-plummets-in-wake-of-Fukushima-crisis/(page)/2

There appears to be growing proof that Fukushima is already comparible to Chernobyl.

http://www.canada.com/news/Japan+nuclear+plant+released+half+many+radioactive+isotopes+Chernobyl+data/4486227/story.html

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 22, 2011 by walker