Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants

mscharisma

Quote by AntonL

This livecam is some 13 km away from fukushima, very strong telephoto lens is used and these do tend to show barrel or pin-cushion distortion. You have just re-discovered the pin-cushion phenomena. Once you factor away the distortion of the lens then you can make a judgement on the verticality of the building,

Even in the live web cam, the left side towers are perfectly straight, whereas the building towards the right are leaning to the right. Hope this doesn't win the "dumbest question of the day" prize, but wouldn't the distortion go from the center (not distorted) of the picture towards both sides equally?

*AntonL*

Quote by mscharisma

Even in the live web cam, the left side towers are perfectly straight, whereas the building towards the right are leaning to the right. Hope this doesn't win the "dumbest question of the day" prize, but wouldn't the distortion go from the center (not distorted) of the picture towards both sides equally?

correct, unless electronic zoom or electronic selection of a part of the complete frame is transmitted

EDIT: correction, I took another frame of the TBS/JNN feed and drew some lines
looks OK to me

Dmytry

Quote by jlduh

As general information about currently discussed safety policies evolutions in case of nuke accidents, i post this translation of a french article from 5th of May. Today have been hold auditions at the french parliament to discuss how to adress in the future, and after Fukushima, "unthinkable scenarios of accidents". "Thinking the unthinkable" is the main goal of a kind of task force that has been put in place after Fukushima where a succession of events ended up in a scenario that was never foreseen by plant designers nor self defense forces who had to cope with the desaster. They ARE NOW CLEARLY RECOGNIZING THAT CRISIS AND RISKS SCENARIOS ARE OFTEN TOO SIMPLISTIC AND DO NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE DOMINOS EFFECTS (I mentioned this recently concerning the NRC SFP risk reassessment study, which never adressed the possibility that the reactor below the SFP could explode or trigger an explosion devastating the pools placed on the "attic"!).

Note they are also seriously considering the need to develop ressources able within 48 hours to be sent on site (with helicopters) with all the means necessary to provide an effective mobile backup of power AND water to deal with a total blackout situation in a NPP for all the reactors (loss of cold source and loss of power, from primary AND from onsite backup).

http://translate.google.fr/translate...aginable,23027

Great to see sane approach. Just what I wanted to see. Complete with helicopter delivery. I wonder if they will also add helipads to the roofs (those that can withstand weight) . Thinking the unthinkable approach should include backup landing zones, as in the event of flooding there may be a problem, and it needs to be known in advance which roofs can and can't be landed onto, and where. Such things IMO are a proxy whenever there's any new thinking or it is same old doing just the absolute bare minimum.

yakiniku

Long time lurker here. I enjoy the open discourse. I haven't really had anything to contribute until now. My partner who is Japanese brought this blog post to my attention. It is from Taro Kono, who is in the house of representatives (LDP, opposition to current government):

http://www.taro.org/2011/05/post-996.php

In particular this section:

"エネ庁の若手官僚から添付ファイルが３通ついたメールが来た。

その一
５月１日の政府・東電統合本部全体会合の議事録。
『このままいくと８日にも高濃度の放出が行われる。』
『細野補佐官から，本件は熱交換機の設置といった次のステップに進む上で非常に重要である，また，（今後，放射性物質が外に排出され得るという点で，）汚染水排出の際の失敗を繰り返さないよう，関係者は情報共有を密に行い，高い感度を持って取り組んで欲しい，とする発言があった。』"

Translation (non-literal and our understanding):

I received 3 emails with attachments from junior government officials in the energy department.

The first email:
Minutes of meeting between TEPCO and the government on the 1st May.
"If the current situation continues, high density radiation will be released on the 8th May."
"Mr Hosono said: It is very important to go to the next step regarding the installation of the heat exchanger machine. For the concerned parties, be careful of the sharing of information with high sensitivity so that the same mistakes aren't made again like the release of the radiated water previously.

The second and third emails aren't related so we didn't translate it. It isn't clear from the text the way the radiation will be released. ie airborne or via water.

The aforementioned energy department English homepage is this:
http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/english/index.htm

Perhaps those who are following the work and/or parameters of the reactors could hypothesise what they are thinking about doing.

etudiant

Quote by yakiniku

Long time lurker here. I enjoy the open discourse. I haven't really had anything to contribute until now. My partner who is Japanese brought this blog post to my attention. It is from Taro Kono, who is in the house of representatives (LDP, opposition to current government):

http://www.taro.org/2011/05/post-996.php

In particular this section:

"エネ庁の若手官僚から添付ファイルが３通ついたメールが来た。

その一
５月１日の政府・東電統合本部全体会合の議事録。
『このままいくと８日にも高濃度の放出が行われる。』
『細野補佐官から，本件は熱交換機の設置といった次のステップに進む上で非常に重要である，また，（今後，放射性物質が外に排出され得るという点で，）汚染水排出の際の失敗を繰り返さないよう，関係者は情報共有を密に行い，高い感度を持って取り組んで欲しい，とする発言があった。』"

Translation (non-literal and our understanding):

I received 3 emails with attachments from junior government officials in the energy department.

The first email:
Minutes of meeting between TEPCO and the government on the 1st May.
"If the current situation continues, high density radiation will be released on the 8th May."
"Mr Hosono said: It is very important to go to the next step regarding the installation of the heat exchanger machine. For the concerned parties, be careful of the sharing of information with high sensitivity so that the same mistakes aren't made again like the release of the radiated water previously.

The second and third emails aren't related so we didn't translate it. It isn't clear from the text the way the radiation will be released. ie airborne or via water.

The aforementioned energy department English homepage is this:
http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/english/index.htm

Perhaps those who are following the work and/or parameters of the reactors could hypothesise what they are thinking about doing.

Perhaps this is related to the temperature rise discussed earlier in reactor 3.
TEPCO on Wednesday has increased the flow of water to that reactor to 9 tons/hr from 7 tons/hr.
Clearly the situation remains far from stable.
With the water in the plant and the reactor temperatures both rising, maybe there should be a reappraisal of the strategy.

razzz

Only Unit 1 is capable of holding any pressure. Unit 2 & 3 are at ambient air. How they expect to do a closed loop heat exchange recirculating contaminated water in Unit 1 is beyond me. Sounds desperate. Maybe they will figure that out if they can get close enough to look at the plumbing.

If the readings are to be believed, guys here keeping track of the pressures should be able to predict a likely overpressure suspect.

Unit 3 had a well formed mushroom cloud which takes a lot of heat to accomplish, while both events are happening i.e. hydrogen explosion with water flashing to steam, something else is also going on. Units 1 & 4 frameworks performed as intended with typical pent up hydrogen explosions. Unit 1 was venting radioactive wastes amongst the hydrogen release emanating from core as was Unit 3's venting.

Rust looking areas on steel was aided with saltwater dumping and pumping and part of the roofing material is likely galvanized corrugated steel plates and not aluminum.

jim hardy

Triumph

i was sloppy in my wording a few pages back regarding yellow object in video.

I said "right next to", i should have said "adjacent to left " and if that's where you looked you have the right object. It's the video recorded from inside a vehicle, they drive up by the reactor building and stop to film a red fire truck spraying water. i lost the link, sorry... but sounds like you found it.

old jim

yakiniku

Quote by yakiniku

"If the current situation continues, high density radiation will be released on the 8th May."

In reply to myself and clarification regarding the translation, this sentence implies that the radiation will be released intentionally and not unintentionally (due to a consequence of some event that might happen) on the 8th May.

jim hardy

I agree with you guys, something was different about unit 3. Way more energetic.

I too have looked for a mechanism to cause criticality in the pool but cant find one. It'd take something to remove the poison to let it go critical. and they weren't spraying the pools yet i believe.
I even looked into fission cross sections for fast neutrons on premise boron is transparent to them and maybe removing moderator by uncovering half the fuel made it into a fast reactor,
but decided that to best of my meager understanding the cross sections are a decade too low even at 3n per fission Pu ~5%.

Maybe one of you heavy duty reactor physics guys can confirm? Just an "Are you crazy?" would suffice. i'm asking because i dont know for sure, not to make points.

i had one course in it and that was over forty years ago and i struggled then. my field was PWR instruments not BWR nucleonics.
but it'd be intuitive to somebody who does it every day.

so i am watching you folks brainstorm.

will be quiet now. old jim

michael200

H2 detonation at u3 caused the fuel pool to go critical?? About as likely as caused by aliens with death rays. Why are people giving credence to this nonsense.

TCups

Quote by TCups

FORCE OF EXPLOSION AT UNIT 3?

Does anyone have a source for seismographic recordings at the time of the explosion at Unit 3? If so, it may be an objective way to assess the size of the explosion relative to, perhaps, the explosion at Unit 1.

see post #817 and following.

Azby

Quote by PietKuip

Brilliant idea! I am very curious.

Quote by yakiniku

In reply to myself and clarification regarding the translation, this sentence implies that the radiation will be released intentionally and not unintentionally (due to a consequence of some event that might happen) on the 8th May.

I deduce that he is referring to opening the Unit 1 airlock as part of installing the air filter system, as shown on the repair schedule posted earlier. See slide 16 of "Improvement of the environment within the Reactor Building of Unit 1," released by TEPCO onMay 4, 2011

yakiniku

Quote by Azby

I deduce that he is referring to opening the Unit 1 airlock as part of installing the air filter system, as shown on the repair schedule posted earlier. See slide 16 of "Improvement of the environment within the Reactor Building of Unit 1," released by TEPCO onMay 4, 2011

Would opening the airlock of unit 1 release sufficient radiation that it may raise concerns such like those when radioactive water was released to the sea?

Azby

Quote by yakiniku

Would opening the airlock of unit 1 release sufficient radiation that it may raise concerns such like those when radioactive water was released to the sea?

That's a good point, of course. I'm just looking at the other slides like "Monitoring of Radiation Dose when opening the airlock to implement the work" and "Environmental Impact Assessment caused by opening the airlock to implement the work," and sensing that the officials are covering their hindquarters with the anouncement. Plus the "opening of airlock" is the only thing marked in red on the schedule!

Of course I hope it's nothing worse than this....

Original attachment (I've retitled it):

*AntonL*

@Jorge Stolfi

somehow we missed the following correction by tepco of 24 April, this explains the 10 fold fall of the radiation in torus of unit 3. Maybe you can correct your graphs accordingly when time is on hand

I think we cannot say often enough thanks for your studious work in updating the graphs, I certainly would not have the commitment and patience to do this, so again my many thanks.

triumph61

Inside Unit1

rowmag

Quote by pdObq

Quote by rowmag

Updated sub-drain isotope measurements through 5/3:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/betu...es/110503o.pdf

(For criticality-watch fans.)

I guess the only one going up is the unit 3 sub-drain. Iodine increase seems to slow down, but Cs isotopes are increasing. So, what does that change in the ratio of Iodine vs Cesium mean?
I.e. recriticality or just the slow inflow of more contaminated water with Iodine starting to decay away?

As the experts have pointed out, it is a complicated situation with water from different sources being mixed and added to and drained from at various rates, and with various transport and filtering mechanisms in play, in some configuration that is not well understood because it is all happening underground and out of sight... BUT, what I am naively hoping to see is that the long-term trend of the I-131/Cs-137 ratio is going down. There seem to be hints that Unit 2 and/or Unit 3 is making at least sporadic efforts to be difficult (from a simple-minded reading of these plots, and with no knowledge of typical measurement errors).

And here's the sub-drain isotope update through 5/5:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp.../110505e13.pdf

Similar Threads for: Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants
Thread	Forum	Replies
8.9 earthquake in Japan: tsunami warnings	Current Events	671
New Nuclear Plants	Nuclear Engineering	9
Gen IV Nuclear Plants	Nuclear Engineering	10
New Nuclear Plants	Nuclear Engineering	14
Astronomer Predicts Major Earthquake for Japan	General Discussion	65

michael200	H2 detonation at u3 caused the fuel pool to go critical?? About as likely as caused by aliens with death rays. Why are people giving credence to this nonsense.

AntonL	@Jorge Stolfi somehow we missed the following correction by tepco of 24 April, this explains the 10 fold fall of the radiation in torus of unit 3. Maybe you can correct your graphs accordingly when time is on hand I think we cannot say often enough thanks for your studious work in updating the graphs, I certainly would not have the commitment and patience to do this, so again my many thanks.