Are the Japanese Nuclear plants melting down?

[Guest]

Just got this from a friend of mine. Looks like I was wrong about the explosion. The source of the hydrogen was zirconium oxidation.

I just read an IAEA report saying the same that the problem was with the zirconium oxidation.

Also, the largest unit on site (Unit 6) was in a forced outage - good thing or else there would likely be more issues.

Finally, I also read that the grid there is 500 kv and that they were completely knocked offline AND fuel supplies were cutoff from the diesel generators. The only release so far has been tritium (hydrogen gas) and that has been pretty low level. Indications are that reactor core and primary containment are both intact, so primary concern is reducing heat and overpressure. Estimates place it at two weeks for things to cool off.

JR

 

[willsee]

I need updates from educated people on the matter...not media hype.

 

[ALBin517]

I need updates from educated people on the matter...not media hype.

Or in the absence of educated people, the men and women of EngineerBoards.com

 

[willsee]

I need updates from educated people on the matter...not media hype.

Or in the absence of educated people, the men and women of EngineerBoards.com

Beggars can't be choosers

 

[Dleg]

Absolutely. This is an excellent thread, but why hasn't it been updated? We need updates from all you nukes. I know just enough to be dangerous when it comes to exposure measurement and calcualtions, but nothing at all when it comes to figuring out what the hell is actually happening, and what the risks are.

Can you change the title of the thread so it makes more sense and attracts more attention? (and so I don't forget where it is?)

 

[Dleg]

Jesus.

From CNN:

The water in the fuel pool served to both cool the uranium fuel and shield it. But once the uranium fuel was no longer covered by water, the zirconium cladding that encases the fuel rods heated, generating hydrogen, said Robert Alvarez, senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and a former official with the Department of Energy.
That caught fire, resulting in a situation that is "very, very serious," he told CNN.

He said the next step may involve the remaining 180 nuclear plant workers taking heroic acts.

"This is a situation where people may be called in to sacrifice their lives," Alvarez said. " It's very difficult for me to contemplate that but it's, it may have reached that point."

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Can you change the title of the thread so it makes more sense and attracts more attention? (and so I don't forget where it is?)

Done.

Also, keep in mind that this isn't nearly as bad as Chernobyl, and only 86 people died there. Cancer rates were only 2% higher than normal as well.

Compare that to the number of people killed or injured in traffic accidents each year.

 

[willsee]

Can you change the title of the thread so it makes more sense and attracts more attention? (and so I don't forget where it is?)

Done.

Also, keep in mind that this isn't nearly as bad as Chernobyl, and only 86 people died there. Cancer rates were only 2% higher than normal as well.

Compare that to the number of people killed or injured in traffic accidents each year.

Or how many die in coal mining

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Can you change the title of the thread so it makes more sense and attracts more attention? (and so I don't forget where it is?)

Done.

Also, keep in mind that this isn't nearly as bad as Chernobyl, and only 86 people died there. Cancer rates were only 2% higher than normal as well.

Compare that to the number of people killed or injured in traffic accidents each year.

Or how many die in coal mining

That's an even better point.

 

[roadwreck]

Can you change the title of the thread so it makes more sense and attracts more attention? (and so I don't forget where it is?)

Done.

Also, keep in mind that this isn't nearly as bad as Chernobyl, and only 86 people died there. Cancer rates were only 2% higher than normal as well.

Compare that to the number of people killed or injured in traffic accidents each year.

Or how many die in coal mining

That's an even better point.

or how about the earthquake and tsunami which last I heard had claimed over 4000 lives?

 

[Flyer_PE]

If we're comparing relative risk here, I read a news story recently stating that the quake took out a dam/hydro plant. When the dam let loose, 1800 homes were swept downstream. Not much in the news about the dangers of hydro-electric power.

 

[willsee]

If we're comparing relative risk here, I read a news story recently stating that the quake took out a dam/hydro plant. When the dam let loose, 1800 homes were swept downstream. Not much in the news about the dangers of hydro-electric power.

Doesn't have the same ring to it/movies behind it as "nuclear"

 

[Master slacker]

I have a Powerpoint presentation of the systems and whatnot, but can't upload it because it's a powerpoint file, I guess. I also have some feedback on the file from a VERY big wig in the international atomic community (brother of a co-worker). Nothing too big, but interesting nonetheless. Any help here?

 

[willsee]

I have a Powerpoint presentation of the systems and whatnot, but can't upload it because it's a powerpoint file, I guess. I also have some feedback on the file from a VERY big wig in the international atomic community (brother of a co-worker). Nothing too big, but interesting nonetheless. Any help here?

Can you convert the slides to PDF and post?

 

[Dleg]

I'd like to see that.

As for the relative death tolls etc. - I agree, but you can't deny the particular horror of a big nuke accident and the possibility of poisoning hundreds or thousands of square miles of land (not to mention the current recommendation to evacuate within 50 miles). That's just simply a different kind of accident than any of the others mentioned.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

The great irony of the total nuclear meltdown that the media would love is that it isn't as big of a disaster as they want it to be. Three Mile Island is inevitably brought up as evidence of the dangers of nuclear power, but if my sources are correct, NOBODY died as a result of that partial meltdown. Chernobyl is undoubtedly the worst nuclear meltdown ever, and it claimed 86 lives. Fer God's sake, they were still running the other reactors at Chernobyl until 2000 (14 years after the meltdown). Not to mention the fact that TMI, Chernobyl, and the Fukushima plant that is currently damaged were all built in the 1970's. Safety systems and procedures are now much better than they were back then due to TMI and Chernobyl.

 

[snickerd3]

they have begun opening parts of chernobyl back up...albeit limited to guided tours, but they are letting people in again.

 

[Master slacker]

Can you convert the slides to PDF and post?

Good suggestion. It's attached.

Here is the feedback. FYI, River Bend is a nuke plant about 20'ish miles north of me.

Mostly accurate. The German plant is a newer design/model (BWR 5 or 6) than the Japanese model (BWR3 with a Mark 1 containment). HPCI/HPCS is not a backup to RCIC. RCIC is about 1/10 the size of HPCS/HPCI, and is for a different purpose (Isolation cooling instead of emergency injection). HPCS is motor driven; HPCI is turbine driven. River Bend is a BWR 6 with a Mark 3 containment. At least one of the Japan units has an isolation condenser system instead of a RCIC. Can't vouch for the accuracy.

 

[Guest]

Good stuff Master Slacker.

Reuters offered up a chronology/risk assessment pdf also ...

Japan's Race Against Time

JR

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Thanks, MS. pretty good coverage.