Japan Earthquake: Nuclear Plants at Fukushima Daiichi

Click For Summary
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant is facing significant challenges following the earthquake, with reports indicating that reactor pressure has reached dangerous levels, potentially 2.1 times capacity. TEPCO has lost control of pressure at a second unit, raising concerns about safety and management accountability. The reactor is currently off but continues to produce decay heat, necessitating cooling to prevent a meltdown. There are conflicting reports about an explosion, with indications that it may have originated from a buildup of hydrogen around the containment vessel. The situation remains serious, and TEPCO plans to flood the containment vessel with seawater as a cooling measure.
  • #3,091
tadjik said:
Apparently, whatever phenomena increases pressure in reactor 1, it seems progressive.
http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/v6/plot-un1-full.png
Any hope this could just be some H2O vapor ?

And (if the question has not been raised yet) : 7 atm is a very high pressure, I thought the desin was for 4 atm ... why inject nitrogen under such circumstances ?

Hope this is not a stupid comment...

7 atm, isn't that the reading inside of the RPV!? And I thought the operating pressure in the RPV is something like 10 times that!?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #3,092
Thank you.
ps: I'm i the only one with the google doc linked in the article displaying upside down?
 
  • #3,093
Giordano said:
Hope this is not a stupid comment...

7 atm, isn't that the reading inside of the RPV!? And I thought the operating pressure in the RPV is something like 10 times that!?
If there is ample communication between the RPV and containment, then the pressure is more or less equal. The RPV is designed to handle much higher pressures (operational ~ 72 atm, but should withstand much higher) than containment (~ operating limit of 4 atm). The RPV is afterall a 'pressure vessel', and containment is only a low pressure container.
 
  • #3,094
|Fred said:
Thank you.
ps: I'm i the only one with the google doc linked in the article displaying upside down?
No - it's copied upside. Just print or flip the pages 180 degrees.
 
  • #3,095
Firework Colorants
 

Attachments

  • Capture10.JPG
    Capture10.JPG
    45 KB · Views: 549
  • #3,096
Has anyone seen an estimate of how much total radioactive material has leaked (or still is leaking!?) or been dumped into the sea? I suppose most interesting is the amount of Cs-137.

Maybe someone here would like to maka a personal estimate?

The ocean is vast but not infinite...
 
  • #3,097
new http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110406e23.pdf"

a lot of te-129m, but *no* te-129.

any explanation for that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3,099
Giordano said:
Has anyone seen an estimate of how much total radioactive material has leaked (or still is leaking!?) or been dumped into the sea? I suppose most interesting is the amount of Cs-137.

Maybe someone here would like to maka a personal estimate?

The ocean is vast but not infinite...
It's difficult to say at this point, because the source term (how much fuel has failed) is not well known. And there are 4 units with various degrees of damage.


As for fuel release, it would be useful to find out if there are any detections of:
Nd isotopes, and Ce144, Zr95, Ru103, Ru106, Ba140, Eu154 in addition to the volatile Cs isotopes, which are gamma emitters. Other than the Cs which can easily get out of the fuel because of low melting temperatures and solubility, the others are harder to get out and therefore their presence in the environment would support loss of fuel from damaged/breached fuel rods.
 
  • #3,100
bytepirate said:
new http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110406e23.pdf"

a lot of te-129m, but *no* te-129.

any explanation for that?
I expect it is because they are doing gamma spectroscopy to identify elements. Te-129m decays to Te-129 by gamma emission, which is easily detectable. Te-129 is a beta emitter, with lower energies of 540 keV (89%), 350 keV (9%), and others.
Ref: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/decaysearchdirect.jsp?nuc=129TE&unc=nds

Sb-129 beta decays to Te-129m/Te-129.
http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/decaysearchdirect.jsp?nuc=129SB&unc=nds
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3,101
Encapsulation? I can understand attempted purging using nitrogen but encapsulation due to leaks would have to be a continuous inputting, for months. Of course, what the hell do I know.
 
  • #3,102
Meltdown?
"The fuel rods remain nearly half exposed as the coolant water inside the reactor has not yet risen high enough"
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/07_01.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3,103
bytepirate said:
new http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110406e23.pdf"

a lot of te-129m, but *no* te-129.

any explanation for that?

But another new weird one: Be-7 at 32 kBq/kg.
http://nucleardata.nuclear.lu.se/nucleardata/toi/nuclide.asp?iZA=040007

I would not trust that result. Natural levels in soil can be a picocurie/cm3 (37 Bq/liter), produced by cosmic radiation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3,104
|Fred said:
I found this one http://forum.atominfo.ru/index.php?showtopic=575 It's in Russian.. could not make much of it .. but I don't think they conjectured anything like aou Fuel Handling Machine bullet. (speaking of witch we can identify above SFP roof debrit on the ground between unit 3 and 4.

Now my small visit to the Russian board concurred that the blueprint I found on a patent site match Fukushima plant ..

Yahoo Babel Fish will translate the text from Russian to English quite well if you paste in the http address.

(I've only read a few of their threads, but someone there states that only Fuku 1 is if GE mk1 design and Fuku 2,3 and 4 are of GE mk2 design. Here on PF its been established that all Fuku units are of GE mk1, correct?)
 
  • #3,105
Astronuc said:
I expect it is because they are doing gamma spectroscopy to identify elements. Te-129m decays to Te-129 by gamma emission, which is easily detectable. Te-129 is a beta emitter, with lower energies of 540 keV (89%), 350 keV (9%), and others.

thanks for the explanation.
this means, that if SR-90 would be present, it would not show up. right?
 
  • #3,106
|Fred said:
Now my small visit to the Russian board concurred that the blueprint I found on a patent site match Fukushima plant .. as they were able to get the file.. 69Megapixel ... I'll just link you to the scaled down version 2mo 17Mega pixel
http://min.us/mvbsHCv

Thank you!
I was looking for such a blueprint for long time.
It is very helpful identifying the crap lying around in the damaged reactor buildings.

bytepirate said:
thanks for the explanation.
this means, that if SR-90 would be present, it would not show up. right?

Some elements spread better by air than water because of insolubility. Afaik Sr belongs to them, like Pu. Both also have in common that most of the emissions fall down in the near vicinty, little of it travels long distances. But, long term spreading eventually occurs through erosion and wind.

Giordano said:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11040613-e.html
"Injection of nitrogen to reactor containment vessel of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 1"

Thanks, the text explains the negative pressures observed in the reactors with production of hydrogen.
I fear that there will be worrying hydrogen bubbles in the containment for long time, as the schematic does not show where the hydrogen should be vented off.
And they must also take care of not blowing the vacuum breakers...

TEPCO said:
... atmosphere susceptible to reach combustible limit...
Cherry blossoms fireworks?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3,107
jensjakob said:
Meltdown?
"The fuel rods remain nearly half exposed as the coolant water inside the reactor has not yet risen high enough"
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/07_01.html

explanation to water level -1600 to -2300 which is -62 to -88inches
which is well above active fuel level according to diagram below
(interesting it corresponds to an outlet port of the reactor vessel)

core is exposed at 158" = -4013

Clip.jpg


http://min.us/mvbjpP8/gallery.zip"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3,108
I apologize for a newbee question, but could somebody clarify what is behind Minimum Debris Retention Injection Rate (MDRIR) from NRC report ?
 
  • #3,109
|Fred said:
some one mentioned looking to see if other group of reflexion came up with different ideas..
I found this one http://forum.atominfo.ru/index.php?showtopic=575 It's in Russian.. could not make much of it .. but I don't think they conjectured anything like aou Fuel Handling Machine bullet. (speaking of witch we can identify above SFP roof debrit on the ground between unit 3 and 4.

Now my small visit to the Russian board concurred that the blueprint I found on a patent site match Fukushima plant .. as they were able to get the file.. 69Megapixel ... I'll just link you to the scaled down version 2mo 17Mega pixel
http://min.us/mvbsHCv
Could be the print for unit 1

Unit 2,3,4 as well as unit 5 re improved Mark1 1100MW design and
Unit 6 is a Mark 2
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/imBdts.JPG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3,110
AntonL said:
explanation to water level -1600 to -2300 which is -62 to -88inches
which is well above active fuel level according to diagram below
(interesting it corresponds to an outlet port of the reactor vessel)

core is exposed at 158" = -4013

Clip.jpg


http://min.us/mvbjpP8/gallery.zip"

The schematic shows the active core is 150" tall. This is almost 4 meters.

If "half covered" means a water level of 1600-2300mm (equivalent to mentioned 62-88"), then could this mean that Tepco counts "water level" from top of active zone down?

And, this and the melting of the upper core in mind, could this mean that in fact most of the fuel is now underwater, in form of a melt cake as it happened in TMI?

A melt cake lying on the RPV floor?
Well insulating its liquid, convecting violently hot corium by a fragile ceramic crust from the water?
And so creating the imminent danger of steam explosion if the crust cracks and tons of liquid corium and water get in touch?
Or softening, eroding and bulging the steel RPV until failure point is reached?
Maybe already corium already began dripping/flowing thru control rod borings into the containment vessel causing this mysterious pressure increase observed?

What happens if this mass breaks through the RPV floor?

Remember, in TMI the RPV cracked and almost broke at a hot spot, as you can verify impressive photo on page 30 on this interesting presentation: http://www.tec-sim.de/images/stories/severe-accident-phenomenology.pdf (Very interesting link, I think i found it about 1000 posts earlier in this thread)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3,111
I'll give you some what ifs...I live near a shipyard (worked there once for a month) and the noise(s) on that Unit 3's launch soundtrack (even though I can't confirm it to be the matching soundtrack), before the flash and after the fallout, has the same sounds that emanate from a shipyard. I guarantee that a shipyard has metal structures make dwarf this nuclear contraption...with that in mind, first sounds on video are after our pressure capsule has/is venting to oversize metal doughnut echoing inside metal voids, water flashing to steam taking place, more venting then a explosion (probably hydrogen) releases any captured water bound nuke particles in the doughnut to air which gets caught in the updraft. Flash in video doesn't necessarily have to be an explosion, could be a burn. More water to steam flashing until water source is exhausted (take that both ways, up and sideways through constrictions). Finally last metallic sounds (lack of a better description) on video is either the crane beam landing or vessel and torus interacting or both. When I mention red cloud, I think you know what I mean. Our capsule survives but resembles a sieve, flight time unknown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw2Aw3komgc"

Thanks for the tolerance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3,112
AntonL said:
explanation to water level -1600 to -2300 which is -62 to -88inches
which is well above active fuel level according to diagram below
(interesting it corresponds to an outlet port of the reactor vessel)
Yes. The RST assessment believes that recirculation pump seals may have failed.
 
  • #3,113
AntonL said:
explanation to water level -1600 to -2300 which is -62 to -88inches
which is well above active fuel level according to diagram below
(interesting it corresponds to an outlet port of the reactor vessel)

core is exposed at 158" = -4013

Clip.jpg


http://min.us/mvbjpP8/gallery.zip"

Based on footnote 2 for RPV water level in the status updates: http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110404-5-1.pdf
it seems to indicate that the zero reference is at the top of the fuel strings and thus anything negative means exposed fuel elements?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3,114
ian_scotland said:
Yahoo Babel Fish will translate the text from Russian to English quite well if you paste in the http address.

(I've only read a few of their threads, but someone there states that only Fuku 1 is if GE mk1 design and Fuku 2,3 and 4 are of GE mk2 design. Here on PF its been established that all Fuku units are of GE mk1, correct?)
FK-I Units 1-5 are MK I containment, but FK-I Unit 6 is Mk II.

Unit 1 is a BWR/3, Units 2-5 are BWR/4 and Unit 6 is a BWR/5.
 
  • #3,115
denislaurent said:
I apologize for a newbee question, but could somebody clarify what is behind Minimum Debris Retention Injection Rate (MDRIR) from NRC report ?
I believe that MDRIR is the minimum flow rate to keep the bottom plenum of the RPV flooded such that any core debris does not melt the RPV shell. I'll try to confirm that.
 
  • #3,116
RealWing said:
... zero reference is at the top of the fuel strings and thus anything negative means exposed fuel elements?

That is my understanding too.
 
  • #3,117
|Fred said:
some one mentioned looking to see if other group of reflexion came up with different ideas..
I found this one http://forum.atominfo.ru/index.php?showtopic=575 It's in Russian.. could not make much of it ..

I also found that one : http://www.tiede.fi/keskustelut/geologia-maa-meri-ja-ilma-f7/japanin-tsunami-ja-ydinvoimalaonnettomuus-sen-jatkona-t50031-2415.html which is in Finnish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3,118
I was talking somewhere else about control rods, in other designs I was reading if the power is cut as the control rods are attached at the top by electromagnets, the rods will fall back into the reactor and shut the reaction down, whereas on BWR's the rods are inserted from underneath by gas pressure. I assume that the control rods must be mounted fairly rigidly to enable them to line up with the fuel assemblages. If these things are true, let us say you have a partial core meltdown, now I was reading somewhere else that the melting point of the fuel rods is about 1800 C whereas the melting point of the control rods is around 2500 C, So in another type of reactor, the detached control rods would fall into the molten fuel mix as the structure of the rods melted and collapsed. but in A BWR if all is as I've put together, as the fuel melts you'd get less and less of the control rods moderating the reaction as the fuel slumps around the vertical rods.

Am I missing something obvious? or will the molten fuel start to react more readily as the moderation gradually disappears due to height and distance?
 
  • #3,119
tsutsuji said:
I also found that one : http://www.tiede.fi/keskustelut/geologia-maa-meri-ja-ilma-f7/japanin-tsunami-ja-ydinvoimalaonnettomuus-sen-jatkona-t50031-2415.html which is in Finnish.
"Tsernobyl muuten oli reaktori joka pystyi tuottamaan aseplitoniumia."

Yep, that is Finnish alright. They are behind this board in summation. Above, I can easily identify Chernobyl...Reactor...Plutonium.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3,120
razzz said:
I'll give you some what ifs...I live near a shipyard (worked there once for a month) and the noise(s) on that Unit 3's launch soundtrack (even though I can't confirm it to be the matching soundtrack), before the flash and after the fallout, has the same sounds that emanate from a shipyard. I guarantee that a shipyard has metal structures make dwarf this nuclear contraption...with that in mind, first sounds on video are after our pressure capsule has/is venting to oversize metal doughnut echoing inside metal voids, water flashing to steam taking place, more venting then a explosion (probably hydrogen) releases any captured water bound nuke particles in the doughnut to air which gets caught in the updraft. Flash in video doesn't necessarily have to be an explosion, could be a burn. More water to steam flashing until water source is exhausted (take that both ways, up and sideways through constrictions). Finally last metallic sounds (lack of a better description) on video is either the crane beam landing or vessel and torus interacting or both. When I mention red cloud, I think you know what I mean. Our capsule survives but resembles a sieve, flight time unknown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw2Aw3komgc"

Thanks for the tolerance.

Fascinating!
1) those three bangs are definitely not echoes, and
2) the sound track contains more information than the video.
Thank you for the post, very much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
49K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2K ·
60
Replies
2K
Views
451K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
20K
  • · Replies 763 ·
26
Replies
763
Views
274K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
16K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K