New Reply

Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants

 
Share Thread Thread Tools
Apr8-11, 04:12 AM   #3282
 

Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants


Quote by NUCENG View Post
Just found this today.
Yes that's the info that has been spread in the news from the past 2 days it was initiated (I believe) by a reuters Paper by Roberta Rampton and Ayesha Rascoe dated from the 6th http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/0...73540Y20110406

"(Reuters) - The core at Japan's Fukushima nuclear reactor has melted through the reactor pressure vessel, Democratic Congressman Edward Markey told a hearing on the nuclear disaster on Wednesday.

"I have been informed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the core of Unit Two has gotten so hot that part of it has probably melted through the reactor pressure vessel," said Markey, a prominent nuclear critic in the House of Representatives.
The leaked email originate directly from congressman Edward Markey's Office via a few forwarded mail by Neubauer (personal investigation)

http://markey.house.gov/docs/4-6-11m...ima_unit_2.pdf

http://markey.house.gov/docs/4-6-11....ima_unit_2.pdf

So we can hardly consider them as concurring evidence but rather direct sourcing of the reported information. The information being


Based on radiation readings in the drywell and the torus, the NRC staff speculates that part of the Unit 2 core may be out of the reactor pressure vessel and may be in the lower space of thedrywell. Lower radiation readings in the torus suggest that there is not core material in the torus.


Open to argumentation
Apr8-11, 04:18 AM   #3283
 
Originally Posted by Astronuc
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.
Quote by |Fred View Post
Unit 4 containment is the advanced type (this is not necessarily the case of the other BWR/4 unit in the plant, and likely not the case)
Concerning the discussion as to possible explosion paths or visible damage to unit 4.... Astronuc and Fred appear to have differences of opinion as to the containment types. Until we can be certain of the plan/layout of this building is it not difficult to understand what evidence we are seeing in the photo's?

EDIT Ok, it appears that its Astronuc who is correct about unit 4 containment, from the images in this linked METI document:
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/04/...10408004-3.pdf
Thank you to both for replying
Apr8-11, 04:22 AM   #3284
 
Quote by Krikkosnack View Post
Inside Fukushima Evacuation Zone

http://energheia.bambooz.info/index....mid=85&lang=it

Tetsuo Jimbo, founder of Video News Network, a TV broadcasting website, and a colleague ventured into the area on Sunday. Before setting out, Mr. Jimbo consulted a radiation expert, who advised he spend a maximum of two hours in the zone. The 49-year-old journalist stayed for two and a half. A face mask -- the kind worn to fend off hay fever -- was his only protective gear. He admits he and his colleague got "kind of scared" when a host of large dump trucks drove by and the drivers were covered in what looked like "full radiation-proof suits" and gas masks.


I have a question,... The reporter in the video gets to within a few km of the power plant, (can't tell but I think he's south of it) and the dosimeter reads 106uS/Hr. He's holding the dosimeter at chest height. Now will that be mainly gammas from wherever or airbourne particulates giving alpha and Beta? or could be a combination of both.
AND would a ground reading (putting meter on the ground) be significantly higher.

If he was told a max of two hours then two and a half then an extra half hour isn't going to make that much difference, unless that half hour was at the area of highest activity. Must say I really feel for the dogs.
Apr8-11, 04:23 AM   #3285
 
What this mean: radiation in drywell go from 30Sv (from previous nisa report) to 100Sv in newest report ?
source: http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/04/...10408004-3.pdf
Apr8-11, 04:37 AM   #3286
 
Quote by elektrownik View Post
What this mean: radiation in drywell go from 30Sv (from previous nisa report) to 100Sv in newest report ?
source: http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/04/...10408004-3.pdf
Unit#1 : Temperatures and Pressures quickly increasing too.
Attached Thumbnails
unit 1 2011 08 00h00.jpg  
Apr8-11, 04:42 AM   #3287
 
It look that N2 wasnt good idea... 100Sv wow
Apr8-11, 04:52 AM   #3288
 
Quote by |Fred View Post
If you are referring to the 1980's US mandatory Upgrade to Mark 1 design, I was stated on numerous occasion that Hitachi did implement those update on the Fukushima plant.
What exactly has been implemented? Do you have links?

Look at page 21 at the Areva Document http://fairewinds.com/sites/default/...0Fukushima.pdf
There you can see venting into the containment. And you can read "Release of unfiltered venting?"

Does Dr. Matthias Braun from the French-German nuclear power firm Areva not know for sure what is in Fukushima plant or was is not there?
Apr8-11, 04:57 AM   #3289
 
Quote by elektrownik View Post
It look that N2 wasnt good idea... 100Sv wow, in Chernobyl, after explosion in reactor core was 50Sv...
Nitrogen or earthquake ?

Temperature & Activity trend inversion looks simultaneous to N2 injection, which started 24 hours before the quake. (April 07 01h31 JST from Tepco)

100 Sv is what they had in Units #2 & #3 drywells on 15/18 March, now 3 weeks ago.
Attached Thumbnails
unit 123 2011 08 00h00.jpg  
Apr8-11, 05:09 AM   #3290
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Quote by |Fred View Post
If you are referring to the 1980's US mandatory Upgrade to Mark 1 design, I was stated on numerous occasion that Hitachi did implement those update on the Fukushima plant.
One of the things I am watching is how we are getting information and how reliable sources are. Can you tell me what posts and sources contained that info? I did a search and saw some speculation both ways (including mine), but did not find a reference to official released information. Thanks.
Apr8-11, 05:14 AM   #3291
 
Quote by denislaurent View Post
Nitrogen or earthquake ?

Temperature & Activity trend inversion looks simultaneous to N2 injection, which started 24 hours before the quake. (April 07 01h31 JST from Tepco)

100 Sv is what they had in Units #2 & #3 drywells on 15/18 March, now 3 weeks ago.
if you look at the last weeks readings for dry and wet wells, reactor one has been acting oddly for at least a week.
Apr8-11, 05:30 AM   #3292
htf
 
Quote by Giordano View Post
Thank you for the updated estimates. ZAMG:s upper boundary is still less than the total Chernobyl emissions of the same isotopes (from the great source of Wikipedia).

Yes, I know, I haven't seen any total estimations of emission of any nuclide directly to the sea. That is one of the reasons I myself dared the task.
They also estimate the uncertainty of their simulation between 10 to 1000, depending on the location of the measured data. And their estimation is based on the emission only to the atmosphere.

You made a simple estimation of the amount of radioactivity released to the ocean by one(!) leakage. It is probably an overestimation but nevertheless it shows that we have to expect a huge amount of radioactivity released to the ground and the ocean. I don't think anybody can quantify this amount at the moment.

There was a report in the news of a simulation done by French scientists (not the Areva thing, that analysis was performed by the German division of Areva). The analysis was performed and published a few days after the accident and they reported that ~10% of Chernobyl accident has been released in the first days of the Fukushima accident.

But it could be much more in my opinion: what damage was done by the earth quake? You wouldn't expect the leakage in the cable channel from a "normal" accident. And what about the fuel pools? There are now speculations that a part of the core has melted through the RPV. ....

I think it cannot be excluded the we already exceeded Chernobyl. The impact on the people is less severe because only a minor part was deposited to populated areas.

So there is plenty of room for speculations!
Apr8-11, 05:42 AM   #3293
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Quote by Jorge Stolfi View Post
Sorry, I may not be able to update my plots of Fukushima Daiichi vars until next tuesday.
(However the scripts and files are availabe at the site, if anyone cares...)
http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXP...ima/plots/cur/
While you are away, people may use these monitor fies (pressure, waterlevel, temperature and major events):
http://www.gyldengrisgaard.dk/fukmon/

I attempt to keep these data sets updated with the most recent data from the Japanese METI site:
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/
Apr8-11, 05:42 AM   #3294
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uo07Qf6F7E

Another interesting video inside the zone, if a bit over the top at the end.
Apr8-11, 05:52 AM   #3295
 
Quote by ian_scotland View Post
Concerning the discussion as to possible explosion paths or visible damage to unit 4.... Astronuc and Fred appear to have differences of opinion as to the containment types.
Hi, Ian

I do not believe we have different opinion , as Astroduc pointed out according to the Japanese released information Units 2-5 are based on GE MK1 BWR/4.
I have no reason do dispute this information.

having said that Unit 4 GE MK1 BWR/4 used the advanced primary containment, this information was hinted by a Japanese engineer (who's name I've currently forgot but did mentioned in a previous post) Engineer who toke part in the built of the Unit 4 (and only 4).

Furthermore when looking at the blue print that I found I can not help but notice that those blue print seems to fit better unit 1 and 3 but less so 4( no proper analysis is possible on 2). As mentioned earlier I'll gladly assume similarity until better material is provided
Apr8-11, 06:12 AM   #3296
 
Quote by Emreth View Post
You are a new poster here and i understand you havent gone over the thousands of posts. All the things you mention were discussed here a while ago and debunked basically.
Reactor 3: The big blast is not directly related to the destruction of the top parts of the reactor, there were images posted here that show it's still there, with a crane collapsed over it, and steam escaping from the connection chute between that and the SFP. Also notice that the truss structure over the containment is intact unlike over the SFP. The thermal imagery, somehow surprisingly paints a rather rosy picture, with nothing substantially warm. A lot of seemingly hot spots arise from changes in the range of the IR measurements, with debris lying around at essentially ambient temperature. There are hot spots (70degC) over the SFP and the leaking parts from the PCV but that's about it, the rest are more or less cooler than a human being (less than 36degC), if a person was there it would be glowing red.
I haven't read physicsforums during this three-week period, instead I was in a company of Russian nuclear engineers & Chernobyl liquidators, and you better take my word for it, when I say that they are still scarred by the accident of April, 1986 and wouldn't want the events that I've mentioned to have taken place.

There was steam, as well as black & grey smoke coming out directly from the RPV during the first week, much later the SFP South of it began to give off steam. The "(70degC)" figure you're quoting is from the Ministry of Defense of Japan operation with CH-47 hovering 3000 feet above the plant, facing West and taking those thermal images - their press releases contain those figures with hilarious arrows pointing who-knows-where, they might as well be pointing to a bucket full of liquid nitrogen.

First week photo Unit 3:


Second week


No water in the containment or RPV on the 2.5-3rd week inside reactor 3, SPF steaming, tho:


Fred, N-S line runs along the coast, please sort out your directions, before replying.

Unit 4 blown hole: http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/810/unit4sfp.jpg

There was a lot of insider information not available to the general public, but you can't hide contaminated soil out to 50 km for long.

Quote by shogun338 View Post
Broken pieces of fuel rods have been found outside of Reactor No. 2, and are now being covered with bulldozers, he said. The pieces may be from rods in the spent-fuel pools that were flung out by hydrogen explosions. Looks like we where right about fuel rods blown out of spent fuel pools .
Those are from Unit 3.
Apr8-11, 06:12 AM   #3297
 
Quote by ohohohoh View Post
What exactly has been implemented? Do you have links?
One of the things I am watching is how we are getting information and how reliable sources are. Can you tell me what posts and sources contained that info?

I don't write down my sources I got those information from a page somewhere one Hitachi web site, and a concurring hint on GE web page . could not find the Hitachi page .. managed to google the GE


All of the modifications were made in accordance with regulatory requirements. In the United States, for example, the NRC issued a generic industry requirement in 1980 for the Mark I containment that the industry used to make modifications.

We understand that all of the BWR Mark I containment units at Fukushima Daiichi also addressed these issues and implemented modifications in accordance with Japanese regulatory requirements.

The modifications made to Mark I containments include:
“Quenchers” were installed to distribute the steam bubbles in order to produce rapid condensation and to reduce loads on the unit. In a reactor, exhaust steam is piped into a suppression chamber, which is known as the torus and is a large, rounded suppression pool that sits next to the reactor core. It is used to remove heat when large quantities of steam are released from the reactor. In the torus, the steam bubbles go under water. With the modification to the Mark I, the quenchers, which are also underwater, make steam bubbles smaller by breaking up the larger bubbles. This in turn reduces pressure.

Another modification is the installation of deflectors inside the torus. When that steam goes in, the water level rises. The deflectors that were added break up the pressure wave that is produced and help relieve pressure on the torus.

A further modification was made to the “saddles” on which the torus sits — basically the series of leg-like structures that support it. The con
Apr8-11, 06:52 AM   #3298
 
fascinating Tokaimura accident (INES level 4) which I don't remeber so can't have been highly publicised?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accident
New Reply

Tags
japan, nuclear
Thread Tools


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