Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants


by gmax137
Tags: earthquake, japan, nuclear
clancy688
clancy688 is offline
#6481
May10-11, 03:51 PM
P: 546
Quote Quote by MiceAndMen View Post
The odds are pretty good that they have imagery we have not seen.
Well, we only get grainy, low-res-low-bitrate videos of the plant (T-Hawk vids, fuel pool vids, etc.). I can't believe that their technical gear is so old that it can't do better than those horrible images.

This winter I went skiing in the alps. One guy had a little helmet camera with him. It fit into a closed fist, was waterproof up to several meters and could film 1080p on a 16gb flash card. Price: Only 300 Euros or so...

TEPCO is (or at least ist trying to) running nuclear power plants. If they don't even have gear on par to stuff which's available for little money to the public, they are the biggest morons I've ever seen. And as stupid as they appear to be, they can't be that stupid.

So they probably encoded those videos to be grainy. They probably have 1080p versions. And if that's the case, it's not surprising at all for them to hold back some photos as well.



Last year, we had the Loveparade disaster in Germany - a mass stampede with 20 dead. Afterwards, the organizer released 720p video footage from every security cam in the area, it must've been 20 gigabytes overall.
And now we get grainy, low res .mpg vids from TEPCO... it's a shame.
SteveElbows
SteveElbows is offline
#6482
May10-11, 04:08 PM
P: 630
Quote Quote by MiceAndMen View Post
They almost certainly have imagery we have not seen.
I worded my point badly. I dont mean to suggest that nobody in authority has seen anything we havent, only that perhaps we shouldnt be quite as much in the dark about this issue of unit 3 primary containment crack as we think we are.

I remember some confusion about how different entities referred to different layers of containment early on, so Im even left slightly vague about what would count as primary containment. Does the concrete around the containment vessel count?

When people imagine pictures of a primary containment crack, are they expecting something much more vivid and dramatic than the sort of thing I posted? Do we have any idea of how soon they may have determined there was damage based on visual evidence rather than pressure readings? Because the IAEA only recently started doing the more detailed reports Im not sure if I can tell when they were first ready to acknowledge openly that visual evidence of the crack existed. Was the evidence gleaned from outside the building, or from robots? So many questions. I guess we will find out eventually, but until then what do people think of the steam escaping from the area resembling one edge of the storage pool concrete gate, is there an innocent explanation for this?
Jorge Stolfi
Jorge Stolfi is offline
#6483
May10-11, 04:16 PM
P: 279
Quote Quote by SteveElbows View Post
Specifically, there was that Japanese defence force video taken in March, and one area where stuff was billowing out always caught my eye ...
Im talking about the attached image, which as best I can tell from watching the video several times, shows stuff emerging from the area where containment could be said to begin. Im pretty sure we are looking at the steam dryer separator storage pool, and the area where the large concrete 'gate' is located which connects it to the upper part of reactor containment.
http://www.youtube.com/user/modchann.../0/ZKFGavZ_rf4
Indeed that seems to be the south end of the steam-dryer storage pool, separated from the refueling pool (where the reactor opening is) by a gate consisting of several concrete blocks that slide into groves on each side. The gray horizontal band above the gate is the north longbeam of the overhead crane, now resting on the service floor roughly astride the refueling pool. (Other photos indicate that the west end of that beam sank into the service floor by a meter or so.) The steam is apparently coming from the refueling pool under the crane. Either the spent-fuel pool gate, on the other side of the refueling pool, is leaking, or the steam is coming from a leak in the primary containment (drywell or its yellow cap).

Do we know whether the shield plugs (the concrete half-discs that form the lid of the refueling pool) were in place at the time of the explosion?
SteveElbows
SteveElbows is offline
#6484
May10-11, 04:18 PM
P: 630
Quote Quote by jim hardy View Post
i've been trying to follow the posts so excuse me if i missed discussion of this one, linked yestarday i think.

http://i.imgur.com/IqCPH.jpg

wold imbed picture if knew how.

Anybody know source of the photo? Is it credible?

Can you photo capable guys offer an opinion on the snaggletooth round looking shape in the red rectangle connected by red line to reactor vessel head? It's way down in the shadows.
Well as you can tell from my recent posts, I've spent a while looking at footage of this part of reactor 3. All sorts of things jump out of the shadows, in a way that sometimes seems tantalisingly close to revealing a horror. So far none of its been enough to convince me, so I've concentrated on other areas where Im a bit more certain of what I am seeing. Even so, my stupid mistake earlier today with the live camera image, despite me being well aware of the dangers and moaning about them here several times, shows that I err when it comes to this stuff, and I am conflicted about this whole issue of overly analysing what little visual evidence we have.

However I will go back and review some footage again with the graphic you posted in mind. I can see perfectly well why a lot of people have likely thoroughly discounted all theories to do with caps flying off reactor 3 and/or its containment. Personally Im keeping a slightly more open mind, despite the evidence, simply because of how dramatic the explosion was, and because I have yet to see for myself what lurks under the debris of that part of reactor 3 building.
jim hardy
jim hardy is offline
#6485
May10-11, 04:18 PM
Sci Advisor
jim hardy's Avatar
P: 3,134
Mice & Men guess i shoulda been a bit more exact, i had seen 6454 and ignored it because he had reactor in wrong spot way off to one side..
so i brushed by the rebuttals of it.
i had dismissed it late last night as clutter, just my memory isn't great. Shoulda told you.

This image puts reactor exactly centered under middle roof beam, where it belongs.
[image]http://i.imgur.com/IqCPH.jpg[/image]
http://i.imgur.com/IqCPH.jpg

It is a collage - overview in center with insets around edge. At first glance it looks like a mess and is easy to dismiss as i did at first...
but it also shows the steam separator laydown and spent fuel pools in more believable locations, and at first glance the laydown area in the fellow's collage looks a lot like SteveElbows photo of it....

maybe take a second look? I wasn't referring to post 6454's photo, it's clearly way off.
This one's too foggy under roof beams to be certain of anything , just wanted to rule it out as fraud if anybody knows for sure.. look close.

And Jorge - i think a real high tide might do it. I am still needing a mechanism for slosh in the pool though.
The most recent #3 pool video looks to me like rubble piled in on top of orderly racks, an explosion in the racks should blow rubble away i'd think. If the pool looked like it was recently steam cleaned with fuel strewn about i'd be with you.
That's just my thoughts.
TCups
TCups is offline
#6486
May10-11, 04:18 PM
TCups's Avatar
P: 494
Quote Quote by SteveElbows View Post
Can we bring the reactor 3 talk down to earth?

Specifically, since the talk of a crack in containment appears to have been confirmed in an IAEA presentation some days back, are we entirely sure that these people have seen images we havent?

Specifically, there was that Japanese defence force video taken in March, and one area where stuff was billowing out always caught my eye. I was not on this forum back then and although I did wade through many of the early pages, I do not recall whether this avenue of enquiry was picked up on at the time.

Im talking about the attached image, which as best I can tell from watching the video several times, shows stuff emerging from the area where containment could be said to begin. Im pretty sure we are looking at the steam dryer separator storage pool, and the area where the large concrete 'gate' is located which connects it to the upper part of reactor containment. Could this count as the crack that has been described, is it reasonable evidence of containment damage, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Its taken from this video, where this scene shows up briefly at around 3 mins 8 seconds, and again at approx 3 mins 23 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/user/modchann.../0/ZKFGavZ_rf4
The steam is coming from the "north" gate area of the equipment pool (yes, there is a gate on that end too). At the same time, steam can also be seen escaping from the region of the fuel transfer chute on the south side of the upper primary containment, though it has never been clear to me that the gate for the fuel transfer chute or the chute itself were clearly visible as they are obscured by debris.

IMO, either or both would qualify as "cracks" given the escaping steam which has to be originating from the primary containment.

Addendum:

For clarity, two files are added -- both technical drawings. The first screenshot is my "alteration" of the original to show the equipment pool re-oriented 90 deg on its long axis and with color emphasis -- blue for the pools and red for the gates. The original document is also included. Sorry, I don't remember the original source for the technical drawings. Clearly they are just a bit different from Unit 3, but I suspect they are very close.
Attached Thumbnails
Screen shot 2011-05-10 at 5.28.07 PM.jpg   ikum3Eb.jpg  
jim hardy
jim hardy is offline
#6487
May10-11, 04:22 PM
Sci Advisor
jim hardy's Avatar
P: 3,134
Thank you Steve you posted while i was typing.

i have not ruled out a neutron boost for that explosion for exact same reason as you. Something looked wrong. But i expect to find just the bolts stetched and it's still in place.

'...cold reason will prevail. ' A lincoln
jim hardy
jim hardy is offline
#6488
May10-11, 04:27 PM
Sci Advisor
jim hardy's Avatar
P: 3,134
"""at which point the zircalloy has probably been corroded and so the core collapses. """
...or turns into a crumbly pile with shape resembling a reactor. Remember Arnie's blowtorch on the zirconium tube, he had to hit his oxygen handle to melt it. What he didnt melt he crumbled away with his fingers.
ascot317
ascot317 is offline
#6489
May10-11, 04:33 PM
P: 65
Quote Quote by TCups View Post
IMO, either or both would qualify as "cracks" given the escaping steam which has to be originating from the primary containment.
.
Or could be leaking water from the SFP that is getting boiled off of the containment cap.
MiceAndMen
MiceAndMen is offline
#6490
May10-11, 04:34 PM
P: 276
Quote Quote by SteveElbows View Post
Page 6 of this:

http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/techn...iefing-11-0505

In the containment integrity row and the observation column, the last point thing it says is:

'Images of Unit 3 show crack in the primary containment and steam released from the reactor building.'

The lack of detail is what has caused me to have room to wonder whether the images I just mentioned could be what they refer to, or whether I am looking at the right part of the building at all. For now I'd say the footage I refer to is a potential candidate, but I would welcome lots more opinion on this matter.
My bad, I did download that document but hadn't gotten around to reading it yet.

The NYT had an online article on 25 March that said the same thing. They later changed the story to remove the part about the cracked reactor. Here's the story as it appears today: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/wo...a/26japan.html

Before they changed it, the story got picked up by other news agencies and you can still find the unaltered versions on the web, such as this one from NDTV:http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/ja...ews+-+World%29

Part of the text they removed reads as follows:
A senior nuclear executive who insisted on anonymity but has broad contacts in Japan said that there was a long vertical crack running down the side of the reactor vessel itself. The crack runs down below the water level in the reactor and has been leaking fluids and gases, he said.

The severity of the radiation burns to the injured workers is consistent with contamination by water that had been in contact with damaged fuel rods, the executive said.

“There is a definite, definite crack in the vessel — it’s up and down and it’s large,” he said. “The problem with cracks is they do not get smaller.”
To be fair, however, in the original story when the "senior nuclear executive" says the "reactor vessel" is cracked he must have been referring to the primary containment shell because nobody has laid eyes (or a camera) on the actual pressure vessel since the accident. At least not that I know of. On the other hand, he says the crack "runs down below the water level" and the drywell containment vessel normally doesn't have a water level. There it seems he must be talking about the RPV itself. So maybe the NYT had some doubt about what he was saying. On the other hand, maybe he was exactly right and the original story was correct and they censored that part for reasons unknown.
ascot317
ascot317 is offline
#6491
May10-11, 04:34 PM
P: 65
Quote Quote by jim hardy View Post
Thank you Steve you posted while i was typing.

i have not ruled out a neutron boost for that explosion for exact same reason as you. Something looked wrong. But i expect to find just the bolts stetched and it's still in place.

'...cold reason will prevail. ' A lincoln
There was likely a gamma burst during/after the explosion of #3, since Tepco has talked about 12x normal radiation peak in the control bunker.
SteveElbows
SteveElbows is offline
#6492
May10-11, 04:44 PM
P: 630
Quote Quote by MiceAndMen View Post
Part of the text they removed reads as follows:

To be fair, however, in the original story when the "senior nuclear executive" says the "reactor vessel" is cracked he must have been referring to the primary containment shell because nobody has laid eyes (or a camera) on the actual pressure vessel since the accident. At least not that I know of. On the other hand, he says the crack "runs down below the water level" and the drywell containment vessel normally doesn't have a water level. There it seems he must be talking about the RPV itself. So maybe the NYT had some doubt about what he was saying. On the other hand, maybe he was exactly right and the original story was correct and they censored that part for reasons unknown.
Ah yes I remember seeing that at the time, but had since forgotten all about it. I suppose my main beef with the original wording is that the word containment is not used, leaving some ambiguity about exactly what he is talking about, just as you suggest.
TCups
TCups is offline
#6493
May10-11, 04:54 PM
TCups's Avatar
P: 494
Quote Quote by MiceAndMen View Post

Part of the text they removed reads as follows:

To be fair, however, in the original story when the "senior nuclear executive" says the "reactor vessel" is cracked he must have been referring to the primary containment shell because nobody has laid eyes (or a camera) on the actual pressure vessel since the accident. At least not that I know of. On the other hand, he says the crack "runs down below the water level" and the drywell containment vessel normally doesn't have a water level. There it seems he must be talking about the RPV itself. So maybe the NYT had some doubt about what he was saying. On the other hand, maybe he was exactly right and the original story was correct and they censored that part for reasons unknown.
Or, perhaps, the "crack" was in the primary containment and the water level referred to the water level in the SFP. I seem to recall concern that a crack might be causing water leakage from the SFP (but was that at SFP4?).
Jorge Stolfi
Jorge Stolfi is offline
#6494
May10-11, 05:02 PM
P: 279
Quote Quote by TCups View Post
The steam is coming from the "north" gate area of the equipment pool (yes, there is a gate on that end too).
Maybe I am using the wrong names. The steam-dryer storage pool is the narrower pool on the north side of the reactor, opposie to the spent-fuel pool. Its north end is flush (or almost flush) against the north outer wall of the building. AFAIK it has only one gate, on the south side, leading to the reactor pool (which I have been calling "refueling pool" but perhaps that is the wrong name).

To the best of my knowledge, that photo you posted was taken from the north side of the building, looking south into the south end of the steam-dryer pool.

Quote Quote by TCups View Post
For clarity, two files are added -- both technical drawings
Thanks! Indeed they do not seem to match F-I #3 and #4. The steam-dryer pool is rotated 90 degrees, as you say. Also I have yet to see where the cask-loading enclosure is located inside the spent-fuel pool of #4; but there have been claims that it is flush against the NW corner, and not centered on the W side as your blueprint shows.
SteveElbows
SteveElbows is offline
#6495
May10-11, 05:08 PM
P: 630
Quote Quote by TCups View Post
Addendum:

For clarity, two files are added -- both technical drawings. The first screenshot is my "alteration" of the original to show the equipment pool re-oriented 90 deg on its long axis and with color emphasis -- blue for the pools and red for the gates. The original document is also included. Sorry, I don't remember the original source for the technical drawings. Clearly they are just a bit different from Unit 3, but I suspect they are very close.
Thanks for your thoughts on this, they match my understanding of the layout. The diagrams you linked to may be Oyster Creek ones, as I've spent a while looking at those in the past and their D/S pool was indeed oriented differently to what we know of Fukushima's.
SteveElbows
SteveElbows is offline
#6496
May10-11, 05:10 PM
P: 630
Quote Quote by Jorge Stolfi View Post
Maybe I am using the wrong names. The steam-dryer storage pool is the narrower pool on the north side of the reactor, opposie to the spent-fuel pool. Its north end is flush (or almost flush) against the north outer wall of the building. AFAIK it has only one gate, on the south side, leading to the reactor pool (which I have been calling "refueling pool" but perhaps that is the wrong name).

To the best of my knowledge, that photo you posted was taken from the north side of the building, looking south into the south end of the steam-dryer pool.
I think it was a case of them using a description that was open to this misunderstanding. They meant north gate as in north of the reactor, not north of the dryer pool.
SteveElbows
SteveElbows is offline
#6497
May10-11, 05:12 PM
P: 630
Here is a much simplified diagram which features the gate we are talking about, courtesy of a 2007 earthquake incident that caused pool spills:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/niigata/plant/jisho02-e.html
ihatelies
ihatelies is offline
#6498
May10-11, 05:18 PM
P: 45
I've lurked here from the beginning of Fukushima.

I've posted on a few other forums, been kicked off one, and been universally shouted down at Blue Marble on their similar thread, and on a couple other forums. It may happen here too.

So I will make my claim and back it up with Facts and leave it at that.

I believe that the #3 reactor did indeed blow it's top on March 14th. I see in these latest posts someone says that idea was shot down in March. I can find a lot of people trying to shoot it down. I can find no evidence where it's been shot down. If someone here can negate it, that makes me happy, as I've been very worried about it for two months.

I will provide two initial pictures which, along with the "collage" described above, will give you a pretty good visual that something large and round was ejected through the roof of Reactor 3 building.

I have gotten most of these photos from Nancy's site - which is excellent, and I see she is posting here.

The first picture is taken from above Reactor 4 toward reactor #3. What you will see is the wreckage of the roof laying over the building as it has for awhile. You can see the spent fuel pool with some steam or mist above it. In the roof beams, you can see an unmistakable large round hole that has been formed in a couple of large steel beams.

But the hole is in the wrong place, you say?

Nope, that hole was previously excactly above the reactor core. Now take a look at the second picture I show, which is a view of the same wreckage looking from west to east.

You can clearly see the roof beams laying across the wreckage. Look to the far left and you see a couple of wall beams still attached at the bottom and to the roof structure, but laying at an angle over the wreckage. When you spot them, you can see that the entire roof beam structure shifted to the south when it fell back down.

If you shift the whole structure back to the left in picture #2 then it puts the big round hole precisely over the reactor core from picture #1.

I believe that not only did the top of the reactor blow, but possibly the entire RPV ejected and landed in a few places around the plant, but a bunch of it landed on the north end of the wreckage of reactor #3.

For any of you that have been following me elsewhere, I've got a ton of supporting evidence, but I'll leave it at that now....
Attached Thumbnails
LARGE3_4.jpg   LARGE3_5.jpg  


Register to reply

Related Discussions
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