How will they end the Fukushima disaster?

[FishmanGeertz]

The scale of the Fukashima nuclear disaster was officially raised to a level 7, on par with Chernobyl.

How will they end this disaster? I know that a massive steel and concrete structure, or "sarcophagus" was erected over the shattered reactor at Chernobyl, costing the lives of many extremely courageous workers. Will similar structures be built over Fukashima units 1-4? What will the Japanese government do to finally put an end to this calamity? I saw they should flood the reactor buildings with concrete, then build enormous lead, steel, and concrete dome-like containment structures over the destroyed Fukashima reactors.

TEPCO should understand that it is far too late to salvage anything useful from the reactors. The reactors have already been destroyed, and their cores are probably giant piles of glowing, white-hot uranium lava sitting at the floors of the reactor buildings, probably burning their way into the water bed. The Fukashima Daiichi NPP can never be used again and will probably be left permanently abandoned like Chernobyl. The towns and cities surrounding the general area of the plant will also have to be left permanently abandoned.

I hope this teaches a lesson to the nuclear energy industry in Japan, and elsewhere, not to construct nuclear power plants on coastal areas which are vulnerable to earthquakes and tidal waves. Do you think nuclear power plants the world over be modified or upgraded to make sure that something like this can never happen again?

 

[Drakkith]

The reactors have already been destroyed, and their cores are probably giant piles of glowing, white-hot uranium lava sitting at the floors of the reactor buildings, probably burning their way into the water bed.

Are you sure about this? To my knowledge the core temps are stable. Have you even looked into the disaster at all, or are you just making this stuff up from heresay?

The Fukashima Daiichi NPP can never be used again and will probably be left permanently abandoned like Chernobyl. The towns and cities surrounding the general area of the plant will also have to be left permanently abandoned.

Half of the reactors are perfectly fine. Theres no reason NOT to use the power plant again. And no, the surrounding area will NOT have to be permanently abandoned. Almost the entirety of the radiation leaking from the plant is a result of radioactive water that has leaked into the sea or been pumped into it from storage tanks.

I hope this teaches a lesson to the nuclear energy industry in Japan, and elsewhere, not to construct nuclear power plants on coastal areas which are vulnerable to earthquakes and tidal waves. Do you think nuclear power plants the world over be modified or upgraded to make sure that something like this can never happen again?

Japan is an Island. There isn't anywhere to build it that is safe from earthquakes/tsunamis/typhoons. What would you like for them to do to get power?

I know that a massive steel and concrete structure, or "sarcophagus" was erected over the shattered reactor at Chernobyl, costing the lives of many extremely courageous workers.

The reactor at Chernobyl EXPLODED. This launched highly radioactive fuel, graphite rods, and other materials all over the place and completely exposed the core. The incident in Japan is NOTHING like this. While there are dangers, they aren't nearly as bad as Chernobyl was.

 

[Escapekey]

Core temps STABLE? What news are YOU reading. Nothing more to say about the rest of your post really. YOU clearly are not up on the news at all.

It astounds me that you would be so blase when all the evidence and data points to an ongoing, increasing disaster. And what about the potential damage to buildings from ongoing quakes?

Your thinking is very narrow and not looking at a BIG pictures. How can they even operate a plant that they cannot even be near for very long?!

 

[Escapekey]

And as to the question... they WON'T be able to end it. MAN does not have the capability. They will not be able to entomb it. They cannot tunnel beneath it (being as sea level and all). The ocean will continue to be polluted by contamination.

 

[jakekazoo]

the radiation readings outside the exclusion zone at Fukushima dai-ichi, are above the maximum readings at chernobyl. the area around Fukushima dai-ichi will have to be permanently abandoned, TEPCO has already stated they will scrap the reactors. there is nothing to save.

 

[Pengwuino]

Core temps STABLE? What news are YOU reading. Nothing more to say about the rest of your post really. YOU clearly are not up on the news at all.

You do realize the "news" is mainly speculation at this point right? The people reporting typically have as much of a science background as your average 9th grader.

 

[jhae2.718]

the radiation readings outside the exclusion zone at Fukushima dai-ichi, are above the maximum readings at chernobyl. the area around Fukushima dai-ichi will have to be permanently abandoned, TEPCO has already stated they will scrap the reactors. there is nothing to save.

[citation needed]

 

[clancy688]

Core temps STABLE? What news are YOU reading. Nothing more to say about the rest of your post really. YOU clearly are not up on the news at all.

http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/Main.html

Check the core temperatures. And then come and post again.

It astounds me that you would be so blase when all the evidence and data points to an ongoing, increasing disaster.

It astounds me that you obviously don't even know the data you're citating.

 

[FishmanGeertz]

the radiation readings outside the exclusion zone at Fukushima dai-ichi, are above the maximum readings at chernobyl. the area around Fukushima dai-ichi will have to be permanently abandoned, TEPCO has already stated they will scrap the reactors. there is nothing to save.

I believe the radiation levels surrounding the Chernobyl plant were literally thousands of RADS per hour. A lethal dose of radiation is a few hundred RADS.

If the readings at the Fukashima plant is correct, then something VERY BAD has happened to the reactors.

 

[Dmytry]

I believe the radiation levels surrounding the Chernobyl plant were literally thousands of RADS per hour. A lethal dose of radiation is a few hundred RADS.

If the readings at the Fukashima plant is correct, then something VERY BAD has happened to the reactors.

That's just because in Chernobyl they had quite some fuel laying around. Ironically, the fuel laying on the ground did not contribute much to aerial release, as it could not get very hot (volume vs surface area issue)
In Fukushima they had some stuff that was given as >1Sv/h , how much greater than is still not known because apparently they haven't got high range meters on long cables.

 

[Escapekey]

http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/Main.html

Check the core temperatures. And then come and post again.



It astounds me that you obviously don't even know the data you're citating.

So let me get this straight, you are basing your comments on data from March? I am not seeing any revised April data on the link you provided.

From Yesterday:

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/85532.html

"Meanwhile, concern grew over the state of the No. 3 reactor at one point, as the agency said in the afternoon that the temperature of part of its reactor pressure vessel was found to be rising suddenly.

But TEPCO officials said the data were likely due to a glitch in a measuring instrument, because other temperature data related to the vessel has not shown a similar rise."

Oh, just another "glitch." So TEPCO's instruments are glitchy but somehow you all have access to accurate data from separate functioning instruments.



Right.

 

[Escapekey]

You do realize the "news" is mainly speculation at this point right? The people reporting typically have as much of a science background as your average 9th grader.

(Well, then you just confirmed my opinion of TEPCO. Ha, ha. ) I try to follow TEPCO's releases more than anyone else seeing as they have boots on the ground and this is their mess. And their news, when they dribble it out, has not been good in the past 24 hours regarding Reactor #3 and #4.

 

[FishmanGeertz]

http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/Main.html

Check the core temperatures. And then come and post again.



It astounds me that you obviously don't even know the data you're citating.

According to those charts, the reactors are relatively stable. That is, if those charts are accurate...

 

[Drakkith]

And as to the question... they WON'T be able to end it. MAN does not have the capability. They will not be able to entomb it. They cannot tunnel beneath it (being as sea level and all). The ocean will continue to be polluted by contamination.

What does sea level have to do with this? They could very well entomb the entire thing if they need/want to. We could disassemble the entire plant piece by piece if we need to, we DO have the capability.

 

[Drakkith]

Core temps STABLE? What news are YOU reading. Nothing more to say about the rest of your post really. YOU clearly are not up on the news at all.

It astounds me that you would be so blase when all the evidence and data points to an ongoing, increasing disaster. And what about the potential damage to buildings from ongoing quakes?

Your thinking is very narrow and not looking at a BIG pictures. How can they even operate a plant that they cannot even be near for very long?!

If you are going to call my post nonsense and such, at least explain WHY I am incorrect. I am thinking of the big picture, as my post explains.

Oh, just another "glitch." So TEPCO's instruments are glitchy but somehow you all have access to accurate data from separate functioning instruments.

No, but we can look at what's going on and make an informed prediction based on the data. As they said, ONE of their instruments showed a temp rise, but the other instruments did not. It is most likely due to a glitch in that one instrument.

And no one here is saying that the disaster is over, or isn't bad, or anything else like that. It is a disaster that is far from over. However I can say, based on my own knowledge, that this incident is not nearly as bad as so many people seem to think it is. As bad as Chernobyl was it actually wasn't nearly as bad as the average person thinks it is. I've seen the reports on cancer rises, immediate and non immediate casualties, ETC. It did have reprocussions, but nothing as bad as most people think.

 

[clancy688]

So let me get this straight, you are basing your comments on data from March? I am not seeing any revised April data on the link you provided.

Excuse me for being blunt, but in that case, you're blind. The three plots clearly go from 3/11 to 4/13.

 

[Dmytry]

How will they end Fukushima disaster? Before you propose something at Chernobyl cost level, look at the Chernobyl history - 3 volunteers diving into radioactive water to open the valve, 2 of them dying, the frantic efforts to drill under reactor and freeze the ground with liquid nitrogen, ALL the liquid nitrogen of western soviet union thrown at this, mining equipment, oil drilling equipment, mining crews, all to prevent second steam explosion. In what timeframe? First week.
Look at the Chernobyl vehicle graveyard. Look at those enormous helicopters. Look how much was thrown at this to end the disaster. The 'sarcophagus' is the result - it may not look too shabby, but the cost was enormous.

Now look at Fukushima. Not even the spent fuel fire in reactor 4 spent fuel pool was averted. Not a single hydrogen explosion was prevented (by removing part of roof). Ten or so workers died in the explosions.
The sea water cooling was done very late due to concerns for the billion dollar reactors (now the government says TEPCO delayed this and disobeyed direct order to do that).
The loop cooling was never established. The sea water cooling was not flow through, but boil off cooling (clogging reactors with salt).
Look at the radioactive water problem. Soviets could of thrown every spare cistern truck at this in a week. It could of reused this radioactive water that leaks out for cooling. It could of manufactured some crude filters, or had every chemical research centre in the whole union devising a way to get those radioactive elements out of the solution. Something very simple could of worked, like adding a lot of clay.

I'm not trying to blame anyone. I'm just pointing out the enormous difference in the available resources. Japanese also had the tsunami and the earthquake to deal with, of course, but even when it is over the resources are not similar. If it was in US then you could fantasise of sufficient resources and giant projects. It is not in US. It is not 1 reactor.

So you ask, "How will they end the Fukushima disaster?" . I do not know, the only thing I know is that they got 3 reactors and 4 spent fuel pool, and far, far less resources for ending it.

 

[FishmanGeertz]

How will they end Fukushima disaster? Before you propose something at Chernobyl cost level, look at the Chernobyl history - 3 volunteers diving into radioactive water to open the valve, 2 of them dying, the frantic efforts to drill under reactor and freeze the ground with liquid nitrogen, ALL the liquid nitrogen of western soviet union thrown at this, mining equipment, oil drilling equipment, mining crews, all to prevent second steam explosion. In what timeframe? First week.
Look at the Chernobyl vehicle graveyard. Look at those enormous helicopters. Look how much was thrown at this to end the disaster. The 'sarcophagus' is the result - it may not look too shabby, but the cost was enormous.

Now look at Fukushima. Not even the spent fuel fire in reactor 4 spent fuel pool was averted. Not a single hydrogen explosion was prevented (by removing part of roof). Ten or so workers died in the explosions.
The sea water cooling was done very late due to concerns for the billion dollar reactors (now the government says TEPCO delayed this and disobeyed direct order to do that).
The loop cooling was never established. The sea water cooling was not flow through, but boil off cooling (clogging reactors with salt).
Look at the radioactive water problem. Soviets could of thrown every spare cistern truck at this in a week. It could of reused this radioactive water that leaks out for cooling. It could of manufactured some crude filters, or had every chemical research centre in the whole union devising a way to get those radioactive elements out of the solution. Something very simple could of worked, like adding a lot of clay.

I'm not trying to blame anyone. I'm just pointing out the enormous difference in the available resources. Japanese also had the tsunami and the earthquake to deal with, of course, but even when it is over the resources are not similar. If it was in US then you could fantasise of sufficient resources and giant projects. It is not in US. It is not 1 reactor.

So you ask, "How will they end the Fukushima disaster?" . I do not know, the only thing I know is that they got 3 reactors and 4 spent fuel pool, and far, far less resources for ending it.

Do you think the cores of reactors 1-4 will melt through their vessels, through containment, and into the waterbed directly beneath the reactor buildings, causing giant radioactive steam explosions?

 

[Dmytry]

Do you think the cores of reactors 1-4 will melt through their vessels, through containment, and into the waterbed directly beneath the reactor buildings, causing giant radioactive steam explosions?

I don't think that is going to happen. Didn't happen in Chernobyl either, they prevented this.
There, the drywells are flooded, at least, so the fuel can't melt through pressure vessel even if the water stops getting inside pressure vessel.
Also, the fuel lava... it has low thermal conductivity. I just can't imagine it steam-exploding as it goes through sand etc going into more and more wet sand. What I think would happen, it'd just freeze on the bottom and that's it.

 

[GJBRKS]

" RPV temperatures remain above cold shutdown conditions in all Units, (typically less than 95 °C). In Unit 1, the temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV is 197 °C and at the bottom of the RPV is 119 °C. In Unit 2, the temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV is 150 °C. In Unit 3 the temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV is 91 °C and at the bottom of the RPV is 121 °C. "

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushimafull.html

So the aim is to reach ' cold shutdown temperature condition '

 

[Drakkith]

So you ask, "How will they end the Fukushima disaster?" . I do not know, the only thing I know is that they got 3 reactors and 4 spent fuel pool, and far, far less resources for ending it.

I agree Dmetrey. Also, with Chernobyl it was immediately clear that they needed to throw everything they had at this and completely seal it. The reactor exploded! There wasn't any need for cooling attempts with working reactors and such. In Japan, there was NO immediate danger when the quake happened, nor when the tsunamai hit. Everything took hours to days to develop. You don't enclose a reactor in concrete unless you HAVE to. The reactors aren't completely breached with fuel thrown out everywhere. The situation is entirely different and must be handled differently.

 

[FishmanGeertz]

I agree Dmetrey. Also, with Chernobyl it was immediately clear that they needed to throw everything they had at this and completely seal it. The reactor exploded! There wasn't any need for cooling attempts with working reactors and such. In Japan, there was NO immediate danger when the quake happened, nor when the tsunamai hit. Everything took hours to days to develop. You don't enclose a reactor in concrete unless you HAVE to. The reactors aren't completely breached with fuel thrown out everywhere. The situation is entirely different and must be handled differently.

It may be over a year before this disaster has been fully rectified. I'm just wondering if any of the cores have melted through the reactor vessel, or through containment.

 

[jakekazoo]

It may be over a year before this disaster has been fully rectified. I'm just wondering if any of the cores have melted through the reactor vessel, or through containment.

i wonder that myself. i have read reports that there seems to be a lot of radioactive water in buildings hundreds of yards from the failed fukushima reactors.

 

[Dmytry]

i wonder that myself. i have read reports that there seems to be a lot of radioactive water in buildings hundreds of yards from the failed fukushima reactors.

tbh I'm not sure how much difference would it make if it melted through. When fuel melts through stuff, the lava mixes with concrete, etc, gets diluted, and is less hot than it could've been. That so called 'containment' is being vented and doesn't hold water, so whatever leaves the fuel to large extent gets washed out. The steam explosion, well, uranium oxide / corium / etc has very low thermal conductivity... if it just drop into water suddenly, maybe it'd steam-explode some, but if it falls onto wet concrete i'd guess it'd not deliver a lot of heat to water, due to low thermal conductivity. The very reason we're 'wondering' about that i think is that it wouldn't make a lot of difference either way.

 

[daumphys]

It would be very difficult optimization problem. First we must know the reactor condition exactly. If we can control the reactor temperature, cease radio active material emission and maintain safely the vessel long, we do not have to demolish the reactor so fast. But If we can not control the reactor temperature and not stop much active material emission, we have to decide immediate demolish the reactor with little sacrifice--radio active material emission, radiation exposure. It is very difficult to say.

 

[minerva]

Not even the spent fuel fire in reactor 4 spent fuel pool was averted.

As far as I'm aware, that has not actually happened.

 

[Drakkith]

Minerva did you just get back from a vacation or something? I've seen you all over threads that haven't been replied to in months today!

 

[Morbius]

Do you think the cores of reactors 1-4 will melt through their vessels, through containment, and into the waterbed directly beneath the reactor buildings, causing giant radioactive steam explosions?

FishmanGeertz,

NOPE - that didn't happen at Chernobyl, and it doesn't happen in the computer simulations of meltdown accidents.

The only place where molten fuel melts through the containment into the water table and causes steam explosions is in the unscientific propaganda of the anti-nukes

Greg

 

[clancy688]

The only place where molten fuel melts through the containment into the water table and causes steam explosions is in the unscientific propaganda of the anti-nukes

Then where does the need for Core Catchers come from? If it's unlikely for Corium to penetrate normal reactor basements, building Core Catchers would be a gigantic waste of money. Since most companies are profit oriented, they'll only build something expensive if they get something valuable in return, in that case better security. But security from what?

 

[nikkkom]

Then where does the need for Core Catchers come from? If it's unlikely for Corium to penetrate normal reactor basements, building Core Catchers would be a gigantic waste of money. Since most companies are profit oriented, they'll only build something expensive if they get something valuable in return, in that case better security. But security from what?

"Having Core Catcher" more properly means "having fuel melt scenario anticipated and designed for, instead of hoping that it won't ever happen". Which is a good thing IMO.

 

[NUCENG]

How will they end Fukushima disaster? Before you propose something at Chernobyl cost level, look at the Chernobyl history - 3 volunteers diving into radioactive water to open the valve, 2 of them dying, the frantic efforts to drill under reactor and freeze the ground with liquid nitrogen, ALL the liquid nitrogen of western soviet union thrown at this, mining equipment, oil drilling equipment, mining crews, all to prevent second steam explosion. In what timeframe? First week.
Look at the Chernobyl vehicle graveyard. Look at those enormous helicopters. Look how much was thrown at this to end the disaster. The 'sarcophagus' is the result - it may not look too shabby, but the cost was enormous.

Now look at Fukushima. Not even the spent fuel fire in reactor 4 spent fuel pool was averted. Not a single hydrogen explosion was prevented (by removing part of roof). Ten or so workers died in the explosions.
The sea water cooling was done very late due to concerns for the billion dollar reactors (now the government says TEPCO delayed this and disobeyed direct order to do that).
The loop cooling was never established. The sea water cooling was not flow through, but boil off cooling (clogging reactors with salt).
Look at the radioactive water problem. Soviets could of thrown every spare cistern truck at this in a week. It could of reused this radioactive water that leaks out for cooling. It could of manufactured some crude filters, or had every chemical research centre in the whole union devising a way to get those radioactive elements out of the solution. Something very simple could of worked, like adding a lot of clay.

I'm not trying to blame anyone. I'm just pointing out the enormous difference in the available resources. Japanese also had the tsunami and the earthquake to deal with, of course, but even when it is over the resources are not similar. If it was in US then you could fantasise of sufficient resources and giant projects. It is not in US. It is not 1 reactor.

So you ask, "How will they end the Fukushima disaster?" . I do not know, the only thing I know is that they got 3 reactors and 4 spent fuel pool, and far, far less resources for ending it.

"Ten or so workers died in the explosions." That sounds like an estimate. Have you seen any actual reports of deaths other than the crane operator at Daini, the two workers killed during the tsunami, and the heart attack during cleanup?

 

[clancy688]

There are rumours that six JSDF soldiers died in the Unit 3 explosion. But there never was an official confirmation.

 

[NUCENG]

There are rumours that six JSDF soldiers died in the Unit 3 explosion. But there never was an official confirmation.

I understand there have been rumors and some exagerations that show up, but never can be attributed to a source and no confirmation exists. Sometimes you can judge a rumor from things that haven't happened. How has the media missed the opportunity to exploit the families of "6 dead SDF soldiers?"

 

[clancy688]

Well, here's the article that triggered this rumour:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nami-Fukushima-Fifty-the-first-interview.html

(Oh, and don't understand me wrong... I don't believe it either. I came over a couple of reports during the last weeks which stated that there were indeed soldiers arriving, when Unit 3 blew up. But they escaped with minor injuries. Can't find these reports now, though...)

 

[NUCENG]

Well, here's the article that triggered this rumour:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nami-Fukushima-Fifty-the-first-interview.html

(Oh, and don't understand me wrong... I don't believe it either. I came over a couple of reports during the last weeks which stated that there were indeed soldiers arriving, when Unit 3 blew up. But they escaped with minor injuries. Can't find these reports now, though...)

Here is what I found looking into that:

Blogger attributed to Japan Times:
http://k.lenz.name/LB/?p=3161

Another news story:
http://www.japanupdate.com/?id=11060

A colonel with the unit describes injuries not deaths:
http://fukushimanewsresearch.wordpr...-fearing-for-life-in-fukushima-reactor-blast/

And here is Japan Times:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110607a5.html

Injuries are confirmed, not deaths.