| New Reply |
Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants |
Share Thread |
| Apr18-11, 12:54 AM | #4047 |
|
|
Japan Earthquake: nuclear plantsIt was the first picture released by TEPCO. |
| Apr18-11, 01:14 AM | #4048 |
|
|
|
| Apr18-11, 01:41 AM | #4049 |
|
|
|
| Apr18-11, 01:59 AM | #4050 |
|
|
|
| Apr18-11, 02:47 AM | #4051 |
|
|
My experience with BWRs including refueling outages is that there is no internal source that could justify the kind of damage I see. Acetylene is used for cutting, but in small tanks brought to each work site. Most welding is arc welding. There are lubricants, but not in confined containers that could develop the kinds of forces evident in the damage. I agree there are pictures showing the damage to Unit 4 was after the explosion of unit 3. But there seem to be significant differences between those picture of unit 3 and pictures taken after unit 4 showed damage. The early pictures show parts of the third and fourth floors still standing on Unit 3. Current pictures show only 2nd and part of 3rd floors. My focus was the area at the wall of unit 4 which appears to be bent inwards. That is my evidence of the direction of force. I'm looking for a set of photos of unit 3 that can prove the timeline, but so far have problems with confirmed times for the photos. |
| Apr18-11, 03:11 AM | #4052 |
|
|
Radiation levels are at 10-49 mSv/h in Unit 1 and 28-57 mSv/h in Unit 3. Why are they not checking Unit 2? As far as I know, the only difference between Unit 2 and the other Units is, that Unit 2s secondary containment has been flooded. Does that mean that they send these robots into the secondary containments of Units 1 and 3? And then do these radiation levels imply, that there the RPV has not been breached? (Aside from ruptured valves and such) |
| Apr18-11, 03:19 AM | #4053 |
|
|
|
| Apr18-11, 03:30 AM | #4054 |
|
|
The way I'm picturing the cores and cooling is that there are leaks so whatever water level that can be maintained is the same level the rods will melt down to even if they have to flood the whole basement to get the water level constant. In the meantime, fluctuating water levels cause fuel to react to the environment besides the constant bleeding of contaminated water while waiting for a cool down(s).
From a previous posted link CHAPTER 2: HYDROGEN, RADIONUCLIDES AND SEVERE ACCIDENTS. MODULE A: HYDROGEN. MODULE which is in .pdf format, the author notes steam is a better coolant but when nitrogen is injected (to displace hydrogen) it causes core temperature to rise. This is the same paper that tries to cover all possible angles during a nuke accident but in hindsight omits seawater ramifications when used as coolant. Also, how can you stop the contaminated seawater from entering and contaminating the ground water table as the ocean permeates the shoreline esp. during tidal movements? |
| Apr18-11, 03:42 AM | #4055 |
|
|
AtomicWombat, crane as is crane truck or as in crane equipment from the Nuk Building ? I think I missread you you were speaking of crane truck but since so far we were talking about crane equipment.. |
| Apr18-11, 03:53 AM | #4056 |
|
|
The same website reports 270 mSv at the gateway to Unit 1. That implies that the radiation is higher inside the gateway than inside the reactor building. Make your conclusions please. http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/18_03.html |
| Apr18-11, 03:53 AM | #4057 |
|
|
|
| Apr18-11, 04:46 AM | #4058 |
|
|
|
| Apr18-11, 05:42 AM | #4059 |
|
|
![]() I simply said that I wanted to estimate its mass if we were able to calculate the energy involved during the explosion as I know the height at which these items have gone up. If you do not want to contribute, you are not required to do so.. |
| Apr18-11, 05:46 AM | #4060 |
|
|
Apparantly NISA announced that the reactor builing No 4 is now flooded in 5 meters of water. Anyone to explain this? Do they mean the SFP?
|
| Apr18-11, 06:16 AM | #4061 |
|
|
Thank you very much for that information. Very much looking forward to your analysis and what you can tell us about the various events at each of the buildings! It is hard to escape the conclusion that water flashing to steam occurred at Bldg 3 and that the source of the explosion in Bldg 4 had to ultimately be the spent and un-spent fuel in the SFP. Thank you also for the detailed drawings of the reactors. The last in particular gives some excellent details on the "likely" construction of the upper containment including the shield plugs (which as it turns out) are clad in carbon steel -- at least at the Oyster Creek facility. As above, flashing of water to steam seems at least to me to be what occurred in part at Unit 3. It also seems likely that the initiating event was an explosion occurring in the primary containment. How to get from "A" to "B" is a question that I don't think has been answered fully. As for Unit 4, the shattered upper mast of the FHM seems to indicate a violent event in the SFP with lots of energy transferred to the mast, but perhaps not so much damage to the remainder of the FHM. And additional plans detailing what might have been directly behind the blown out panels at the north and south face of Bldg 4 would be most interesting. @all: Coming at the explosion in the lower building, here's a hypothetical question for someone who knows reactors: In the myriad of pipes, tanks and accessories hooked up to the RPV and primary containment and housed outside of the RPV and primary containment, in the lower building (other than the torus suppression pool), are there any of them that might explode as a direct result from over-pressure, steam or hydrogen accumulation inside the primary containment or RPV? |
| Apr18-11, 06:18 AM | #4062 |
|
|
Nice one! not read the last 20 pages but there's a good situation update here:- http://cryptome.org/0003/daiichi-assess.pdf I know there are translation problems, but I just love the way they say "unit one is relatively stable"!!!! Relatively! ................ to what!! |
| Apr18-11, 06:23 AM | #4063 |
|
Admin
|
I suggest you open a new thread in the General Physics subforum, as this discussion is OT here. |
| New Reply |
| Tags |
| japan, nuclear |
Similar discussions 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 | ||