Photo showing decimated reactor building troubles me

In summary: That storage area up there was originally intended to serve as temporary storage for New Rods before they are put in and for Old Rods right after they are taken out. After the old rods are given an opportunity to cool down from use, the are supposed to be taken to a site away from the reactors.That storage area up there was originally intended to serve as temporary storage for New Rods before they are put in and for Old Rods right after they are taken out. After the old rods are given an opportunity to cool down from use, the are supposed to be taken to a site away from the reactors.Correct, but storing spent fuel rods in a densely populated area is not a good idea.
  • #1
FishmanGeertz
190
0
Look at this photo of the severe damage to one of the fukashima reactor buildings (I'm not sure which one) and tell me that the containment structure and/or reactor vessel have not been severely damaged? Judging from the photo, 3/4 of the reactor building has been obliterated. Nobody is saying anything about the condition of the reactor core of this unit. The other three reactor buildings appear to be in much better shape.

Apparently unit 4 is having the most trouble according to the news.

[PLAIN]http://www.panorama.com.ve/21-03-2011/avances/fotos/fukushima680.jpg [Broken]

They need to bury the reactors in boron, sand, and concrete immediately. Then build massive containment structures over the ruined reactors just like they did in Chernobyl. The Fukashima NPP and surrounding towns will have to be permanently abandoned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
I would say this picture is a poor representation of the condition of the reactor containment vessel. Yes the top of the building looks to have been blown off, but I'd say the RCV should have survived that. I would be more concerned about the spent fuel rods.

They need to bury the reactors in boron, sand, and concrete immediately. Then build massive containment structures over the ruined reactors just like they did in Chernobyl. The Fukashima NPP and surrounding towns will have to be permanently abandoned.

Why do you say this? Are you an expert in reactor design? Are you there with the current TEPCO workers attempting to completely end this incident
 
  • #3
Hi,

What you see as severly damaged is the upper structure above the containment building, not the reactor itself.

Here is a good starter on BWR reactors, and on page 16 you see a schematic of the building.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
FishmanGeertz said:
They need to bury the reactors in boron, sand, and concrete immediately.
I think this should have started already last week.
 
  • #5
My concern is not for the portion of the building that is exposed and damaged, but for the structure beneath the core itself. I am sure that it is several feet thick of steel and concrete but is there any possibility of there being small breaks in the structure that could allow contaminated water to leak into the groundwater? If that is the case could capping the reactor in boron/concrete resolve this or would the leak need to be sealed from below?
 
  • #6
When you compare this technical diagram of the Fukashima reactor to the image in the OP, the reactor containment building should be visibly sticking out of the center of that obliterated reactor building. But it is not, meaning that it has been severely damaged or even destroyed.

The other three reactor buildings are in much better shape.

FukushimaReactorDiagram.jpg
 
  • #7
FishmanGeertz said:
When you compare this technical diagram of the Fukashima reactor to the image in the OP, the reactor containment building should be visibly sticking out of the center of that obliaterated reactor building. But it is not, meaning that it has been severely damaged or even destroyed.

The other three reactor buildings are in much better shape.

FukushimaReactorDiagram.jpg

Yes, but comparing it doesn't mean anything if you aren't on the ground to see for yourself.
The pictures do not give an actual portrayal of what has happened to the RPV. Everything you're saying is pure speculation.
 
  • #8
Though encapsulation may be the end result, the primary goal is to get the status of the uranium and plutonium fuel settled. Once the fuel is no longer glowing, they can encapsulate One, Two and Three and possibly Four. The cement foundations of the building will act as partial filters for the heavier radioactive elements. The major concern right now as far as radioactive pollution of the environment is Cesium which is water soluble.
 
  • #9
Joe Neubarth said:
Though encapsulation may be the end result, the primary goal is to get the status of the uranium and plutonium fuel settled. Once the fuel is no longer glowing, they can encapsulate One, Two and Three and possibly Four. The cement foundations of the building will act as partial filters for the heavier radioactive elements. The major concern right now as far as radioactive pollution of the environment is Cesium which is water soluble.

The burning spent fuel rods pose a much greater radiological hazard than even if the reactor melted down completely. Some 600,000 spent fuel rods are cleverly (sarcasm) placed at the top floor of the reactor buildings.
 
  • #10
FishmanGeertz said:
The burning spent fuel rods pose a much greater radiological hazard than even if the reactor melted down completely. Some 600,000 spent fuel rods are cleverly (sarcasm) placed at the top floor of the reactor buildings.

That storage area up there was originally intended to serve as temporary storage for New Rods before they are put in and for Old Rods right after they are taken out. After the old rods are given an opportunity to cool down from use, the are supposed to be taken to a site away from the reactors. The Japanese were not very prompt in doing so and got caught with too many rods on the top of their reactor buildings.
 
  • #11
Joe Neubarth said:
That storage area up there was originally intended to serve as temporary storage for New Rods before they are put in and for Old Rods right after they are taken out. After the old rods are given an opportunity to cool down from use, the are supposed to be taken to a site away from the reactors. The Japanese were not very prompt in doing so and got caught with too many rods on the top of their reactor buildings.
Joe while I'm not defending the storage issue it evolved from the idea of containment. The idea of maintaining an uninterrupted path that the spent fuel could moved from a reactor to storage with minimal radiological consequences. At the time of conception it was considered brilliant, if not substantially clever. It had its basis in functional(+) core load, unload. What didn't happen is resolution of stored rods that could be placed in dry containment (casks) or permanent storage.

Robert A. Heinlein envisioned a (dirty) war to prevent the extinction of' "our form of life on this planet (pre a-bomb)", but he saw the war of words and the apathy (both political and social) as the real enemy of resolution. It seems we do all need to get along in order to make concerted efforts to correct maintain and move on. Joe if you are truly a writer of our age you must acknowledge that the simple people who have made your convenience possible are the real issue.
 
  • #12
With all of the violations of procedure that the Japanese have admitted to, does it surprise you that the "Plug did not fit?" When you run a tight ship, that kind of crap does not happen. All the mistakes that have obviously been made in Japan appear to me to be a failure to pay attention to detail. I don't know if Heinlein ever addressed that, but somebody in Japan should.
 
  • #13
I'm sorry, what exactly caused the reactor buildings to explode again?...
 
  • #14
Hi Fishman,

1. The reactor building itself did not explode.
2. The weather shell above the top of the reactor building was blown out.
3. Theory is that this was due to a hydrogen explosion on the upper level.
 
  • #15
1. The picture's contrast was turned way up (check the sky). That's unfortunate, we cannot tell whether the "smoke" is black, gray or white.
2. If any fuel is critical, it is because a substantial amount somehow collected somewhere, away from the control rods and/or boron-doped storage sleeves. To control it again one must get boron *inside* this mass, between the fuel bits. Boron on the outside has no effect at all. If the fuel is in a compact mass, I can't see how...
 
  • #16
Have any of the nuclear cores of Fukashima reactors 1-4 melted through the bottom of their reactor vessels?

I believe this has already happened to at least one reactor at the Fukashima NPP, and TEPCO is hiding it.

I hope it doesn't burn it's way through the containment vessel and drywell.
 
  • #17
I believe TEPCO have lost containment in at least two of the three reactors,and now they are using the Pacific ocean for toxic waste disposal purposes.

If they did plug the leak where was the radioactive water going to go?How can you dispose of or contain that much highly radioactive water for months on end?Its not feasible.

Has anyone got a recent radionuclide reading from the seawater around Fukushima?

What about the radiation levels around the buildings?

The lack of data available to the public isn't because there isn't any.

I feel that we're getting the wool pulled over our eyes.
 
  • #18
orndorf said:
I believe TEPCO have lost containment in at least two of the three reactors,and now they are using the Pacific ocean for toxic waste disposal purposes.

If they did plug the leak where was the radioactive water going to go?How can you dispose of or contain that much highly radioactive water for months on end?Its not feasible.

Has anyone got a recent radionuclide reading from the seawater around Fukushima?

What about the radiation levels around the buildings?

The lack of data available to the public isn't because there isn't any.

I feel that we're getting the wool pulled over our eyes.

Some TEPCO employees whom have threatened to tell the whole truth about the Fukashima disaster claim that "they fear for their safety." Probably in fear of violent retribution from the deeply corrupt TEPCO corporation.

Apparently TEPCO has a very long history of cutting corners in the design and construction of nuclear power plants, skipping inspections, threatening employees from speaking about amoral corporate practices, and even covering up serious accidents. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of how corrupt the Japanese nuclear energy industry is. I guess this greed and corruption has finally backfired on them.

Profits before health and safety.

I believe this disaster has been nothing but lies right from the very beginning. It is MUCH worse than the government and media says it is. The EPA has been caught lying about radiation levels over the pacific ocean, and even deactivating powerful and accurate radiation monitors in the mainland United States.

I hope the Tokyo Electric Power Company, or "TEPCO" faces corporate extinction over this catastrophe.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
FishmanGeertz said:
Have any of the nuclear cores of Fukashima reactors 1-4 melted through the bottom of their reactor vessels?

I believe this has already happened to at least one reactor at the Fukashima NPP, and TEPCO is hiding it.

I hope it doesn't burn it's way through the containment vessel and drywell.

There have been many statements that allude to severe meltdown and other statements that imply only partial meltdowns.

I was absolutely positively convinced that Reactor Three had melted into the wetwell and that was what caused the massive explosion two weeks ago. There were even statements from TEPCO officials that seemed to confirm that to me. Statements like, "There is no way that we will be able to enter the reactor building to clean it up." helped me think that way.

Now, I am not so convinced, because the contamination readings that should have been there to indicate that was a corium explosion when it hit the water are simply not there to substantiate my initial impression. If I were to still believe that, then I would have to make the assumption that the radiation energy readings are all being faked. That is too much of a reach for me, so I have been posting less and less and observing more and more as people far smarter than me are trying to piece together the information and make sense out of it..
 
  • #20
I wanted to write to Fairwind Associates and ask them to cover the following:

1: If the Spent Fuel Pools have Boron built into their structure could the melting of those rods after the water boiled out of them in the first few days have damaged the means by which the boron was held in place? If so, and the Boron was exposed, could the addition of water have washed the boron out of the tank and created those criticality spikes that have been reported?

2: As the news was reported, there were the flood of reports that the Japanese were flooding the reactors with sea water. Initially I did not see any mention of the addition of Boron. I asked about that on this board and had three messages pointed out to me that confirmed that Boron was injected into the reactors in question. One of the news releases said that the Boron was injected AFTER the sea water. That again suggests that by flooding the reactor with sea water they were flushing the boron out of the reactor (Creating a criticality situation and then adding boron). At the very least they were accelerating the melt down via their actions.

(Once the fuel rods melt, it is assumed that the Boron control rods would have melted, too and that the boron would go into solution in the reactor water where it still might scarf up fast neutrons to prevent criticality. Flush that water with sea water, and you dilute the amount of boron in the reactor. Add boric acid after the flush, and you are too late to have undone the damage that you did by adding the sea water.)

I still question how effective boron is when it is in solution and the uranium is in a puddle at the bottom of the reactor. Very little boron is in solution in close proximity to the uranium.
 
  • #21
Joe Neubarth said:
I wanted to write to Fairwind Associates and ask them to cover the following:

1: If the Spent Fuel Pools have Boron built into their structure could the melting of those rods after the water boiled out of them in the first few days have damaged the means by which the boron was held in place? If so, and the Boron was exposed, could the addition of water have washed the boron out of the tank and created those criticality spikes that have been reported?

2: As the news was reported, there were the flood of reports that the Japanese were flooding the reactors with sea water. Initially I did not see any mention of the addition of Boron. I asked about that on this board and had three messages pointed out to me that confirmed that Boron was injected into the reactors in question. One of the news releases said that the Boron was injected AFTER the sea water. That again suggests that by flooding the reactor with sea water they were flushing the boron out of the reactor (Creating a criticality situation and then adding boron). At the very least they were accelerating the melt down via their actions.

(Once the fuel rods melt, it is assumed that the Boron control rods would have melted, too and that the boron would go into solution in the reactor water where it still might scarf up fast neutrons to prevent criticality. Flush that water with sea water, and you dilute the amount of boron in the reactor. Add boric acid after the flush, and you are too late to have undone the damage that you did by adding the sea water.)

I still question how effective boron is when it is in solution and the uranium is in a puddle at the bottom of the reactor. Very little boron is in solution in close proximity to the uranium.

If the fuel melted it would come into contact with the borax mix either in the bottom of the core or in the primary containment which has been flooded in excess, to be sure; Shilo didn't hit the fan. That's why they pushed the pressure on external cooling. This leaves an environmental mess, but people live. Make sense?
 
  • #22
M. Bachmeier said:
If the fuel melted it would come into contact with the borax mix either in the bottom of the core or in the primary containment which has been flooded in excess, to be sure; Shilo didn't hit the fan. That's why they pushed the pressure on external cooling. This leaves an environmental mess, but people live. Make sense?

What borax mix in the bottom of the reactor? They flushed the reactor with sea water first.

If the boron is ineffective because it is not in proximity to the Uranium as I have posted, you can have brief criticality transients as I have posted.

If the boron has been flushed from the fuel pools, because the heat generated by the rods in some way removed the boron's cladding (or whatever it is positioned in), the douching of the pools would have washed the boron away. I suspect that they have "heated up' the Uranium by washing boron away. (i.e. there is a lot less in solution than there shoud be because they are not adding enough to replace that which was lost.) Think about it, those fire hoses spraying up into the air probably did not have boron solution in them.

The seawater they were adding to the reactor by their own admission did not have boron in it. They added "some" as an after thought based upon their own news release. In both cases they removed boron from proximity to the Uranium. And then they wonder why they have their blue glow in the sky above the reactors. Hummmmmmm?

Each time they pulled a stunt like that, they probably generated a blue glow somewhere. In addition to that, they were reheating the melted core so that it could possibly advance further through the reactor and the cement containment.
 
  • #23
Joe Neubarth said:
What borax mix in the bottom of the reactor? They flushed the reactor with sea water first.

If the boron is ineffective because it is not in proximity to the Uranium as I have posted, you can have brief criticality transients as I have posted.

If the boron has been flushed from the fuel pools, because the heat generated by the rods in some way removed the boron's cladding (or whatever it is positioned in), the douching of the pools would have washed the boron away. I suspect that they have "heated up' the Uranium by washing boron away. (i.e. there is a lot less in solution than there shoud be because they are not adding enough to replace that which was lost.) Think about it, those fire hoses spraying up into the air probably did not have boron solution in them.

The seawater they were adding to the reactor by their own admission did not have boron in it. They added "some" as an after thought based upon their own news release. In both cases they removed boron from proximity to the Uranium. And then they wonder why they have their blue glow in the sky above the reactors. Hummmmmmm?

Each time they pulled a stunt like that, they probably generated a blue glow somewhere. In addition to that, they were reheating the melted core so that it could possibly advance further through the reactor and the cement containment.

Joe would you add pure water without some form of moderator?
 
  • #24
Can they flood the core with liquid nitrogen?
 
  • #25
M. Bachmeier said:
Joe would you add pure water without some form of moderator?


Water is the moderator (in the technical term as it slows down the fast neutrons to slow neutrons. I think your question should have been, "would I add water without boron?"

Considering that adding water would dilute the boron in the reactor in a bleed and feed situation (especially in a reactor that has been breeched where it automatically bleeds by itself), doing so could cause a criticality transient. People could turn blue before your eyes.
Not a good idea unless you like high doses of radiation.
 
  • #26
FishmanGeertz said:
Can they flood the core with liquid nitrogen?

An interesting question. I doubt that they would, as you might flood Uranium Lava with a liquid gas and end up with a gas layer between the uranium and the liquid. Supposition only on my part, but it might retard the cooling down of the Uranium.

Liquid Nitrogen might also not carry boron in it, thus removing boron from the presence of the Uranium Lava and that could invite another criticality transient hiccup within the Lava. Not good if you are trying to cool it down.
 
  • #27
The courageous workers at the Fukashima plant, most of whom will die from cancer in the coming years, are now extremely desperate to stop total meltdowns of all four reactors.

Desperate to the point of trying to plug leaks with newspapers and trash bags.

I think they should just entomb the reactors with concrete, then build giant towering steel, lead, and concrete containment structures over them just like they did with Chernobyl.

Apparently the deeply corrupt "TEPCO" corporation is actually trying to salvage what's left of the reactors. Which is why efforts like encasing the reactors with concrete to permanently end this disaster, have been delayed. I think TEPCO should finally realize that it is impossible save the plant, and it should just be left forever abandoned like Chernobyl.

I hope the Japanese people and their government should sue TEPCO into bankruptcy and criminally prosecute some of the executives for gross negligence, and putting profits before health and safety.

My main concerns are how much plutonium-contaminated water has been leaked into the pacific ocean. If the smallest imaginable amount of plutonium is consumed, it will cause cancer with almost 100% certainty. This could devastate the fishing industry in the pacific ocean. There isn't any way of telling how far this contaminated water will spread. Possibly even to the beaches of the coastal states here in the US. Fish caught from the pacific should be screened for trace amounts of radiation.

A large percentage of the fish sold in grocery stores in the United States and abroad are fished out of the pacific.

Allegedly some of this radioactive water was dumped into the pacific ocean intentionally by TEPCO (illegal dumping of toxic waste.)
 
Last edited:
  • #28
They can't entomb 4 unstable reactor buildings,they need to try and regain control.That is all they can hope for.
 
  • #29
Fishman, there are only three reactors that are at risk. I believe that all three have had partial to full meltdowns. The cores need continued cooling until there is no risk of them melting through from wherever they are at present to the actual ground underneath them. To walk away not might assure a massive steam explosion if the Uranium Lava reaches the water table under the sea coast. In that case we might see a steam fissure for a long time that emits radioactive particles with it.

Plutonium has such a long half life that it emits little radiation. It it is scattered around the bed of the ocean as small particles its weight will result in it sinking into the sand or between the pebbles on the ocean floor. Short of somebody picking up a slab or Plutonium and licking it over and over and over and over again, it does not pose a health threat as a solid piece of metal. If it is finely ground, and you inhale the dust of that "powder" it can kill you. I strongly recommend not grinding it and snorting it as then it can be very injurious to your health.
 
  • #30
Joe Neubarth said:
Water is the moderator (in the technical term as it slows down the fast neutrons to slow neutrons. I think your question should have been, "would I add water without boron?"

Considering that adding water would dilute the boron in the reactor in a bleed and feed situation (especially in a reactor that has been breeched where it automatically bleeds by itself), doing so could cause a criticality transient. People could turn blue before your eyes.
Not a good idea unless you like high doses of radiation.

Your are quite correct. A layman's misuse of the term moderator.
 
  • #31
FishmanGeertz said:
...When you compare this technical diagram of the Fukashima reactor to the image in the OP, the reactor containment building should be visibly sticking out of the center of that obliterated reactor building...
The photo you used of the destroyed unit 3 that looks like it's burned to the ground is an optical illusion. The brown ground in the photo is actually a hill that obscures the lower part of the building. (I was fooled by this myself and thought the same as you. I thought the reactor had been blown to hell, judging by that photo.)

[PLAIN]http://news.sirfpaisa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Fukushima-Daiichi-nuclear-power-plant.jpeg [Broken]Here's a different angle:

[URL]http://images.publicradio.org/content/2011/03/16/20110316_fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-complex02_33.jpg[/URL]

Notice the height of Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 appear to be the same accounting for the angle that the photo was taken and such.

It also appears that Units 3 and 4 weren't built exactly like Unit 1 or like the cutaway diagram of a BWR Mark 1. Notice Unit 1 on the left in the photo above. It's got the blowout panels for the top two or three floors sort of like the cutaway diagram. Steel girders and metal panels.

[URL]http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/general-electric-boiling-water-reactor-mark-I.jpg[/URL]

Yet the top floors of Unit 4 have concrete posts:

[URL]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ca-0hEixr4Q/TZfRXsrkq2I/AAAAAAAAAzg/PWaH4D9OFT4/s1600/fukushima.jpg[/URL]

That's definitely the top since the bridge crane would have to be under those roof supports.

So it looks like Unit 3 was built like 4 and the top floors would be where the bridge crane was.

[URL]http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20110322/600_fukushima_unit_3_reactor_ap_110322.jpg[/URL]

Still, you look at this next photo and you have to wonder what damage the reactor vessel took:

[PLAIN]http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2011/04/01/81459-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-plant-aerial-view.jpg [Broken]

Too bad Tepco hasn't released, to my knowledge, any detailed schematics of their plant. It would end speculation such as this.

(Disclaimer: I'm just a layman. All of the above could be a crock.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
NonScientist said:
general-electric-boiling-water-reactor-mark-I.jpg


Yet the top floors of Unit 4 have concrete posts:

fukushima.jpg


That's definitely the top since the bridge crane would have to be under those roof supports.
i agree that is very troubling.
 
  • #33
FishmanGeertz said:
Have any of the nuclear cores of Fukashima reactors 1-4 melted through the bottom of their reactor vessels?

I believe this has already happened to at least one reactor at the Fukashima NPP, and TEPCO is hiding it.

I hope it doesn't burn it's way through the containment vessel and drywell.

There was no core in Reactor Four so that one is out.

There is enough admission to conclude that there was reactor core damage in Units One, Two and Three. Authorities who are not part of Tepco or the Japanese government have stated that Reactor two has breached the reactor vessel. That has not been confirmed by TEPCO or the Japanese government as far as I know right now. Until that is confirmed, it has not officially happened.
 

1. What does it mean for a reactor building to be decimated?

A decimated reactor building refers to a building that has been severely damaged or destroyed, typically due to a catastrophic event such as a nuclear accident or natural disaster.

2. What kind of troubles can be seen in a photo of a decimated reactor building?

The specific troubles that can be seen in a photo of a decimated reactor building may vary, but some common issues may include structural damage, radiation leaks, and debris scattered throughout the area.

3. How does a decimated reactor building impact the surrounding environment?

A decimated reactor building can have a significant impact on the surrounding environment. This can include contamination of the air, water, and soil with radioactive materials, as well as potential health risks for both humans and wildlife in the area.

4. What safety precautions should be taken when viewing a photo of a decimated reactor building?

When viewing a photo of a decimated reactor building, it is important to take safety precautions to avoid exposure to any potential hazards. This may include wearing protective gear, such as a mask and gloves, and staying at a safe distance from the building.

5. What steps are typically taken to address the issues shown in a photo of a decimated reactor building?

The steps taken to address the issues shown in a photo of a decimated reactor building will depend on the specific circumstances and severity of the damage. In general, efforts may be made to contain and clean up any radioactive materials, secure the building to prevent further damage, and implement safety measures to protect the surrounding environment and population.

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
2
Replies
38
Views
14K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
21
Views
21K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
109
Views
53K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
10
Views
8K
Back
Top