Japan Earthquake: Nuclear Plants at Fukushima Daiichi

Click For Summary
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant is facing significant challenges following the earthquake, with reports indicating that reactor pressure has reached dangerous levels, potentially 2.1 times capacity. TEPCO has lost control of pressure at a second unit, raising concerns about safety and management accountability. The reactor is currently off but continues to produce decay heat, necessitating cooling to prevent a meltdown. There are conflicting reports about an explosion, with indications that it may have originated from a buildup of hydrogen around the containment vessel. The situation remains serious, and TEPCO plans to flood the containment vessel with seawater as a cooling measure.
  • #871
It's high time that the US government got serious about long-term storage of nuclear fuel and waste. The decommissioned Maine Yankee plant has 64 dry storage casks on-site here. IIR, 60 of the casks are full of spent fuel and 4 have contaminated waste in them. This situation is playing out all over the country in a dangerous slow-motion dance. At least Maine Yankee's SFP and required active cooling systems have been mothballed in favor of the casks, but now the casks need to go somewhere.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110322/ap_on_bi_ge/us_japan_quake_us_spent_fuel;_ylt=AozyhDVciZHLnztIjgGVm62s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFoOTU5bTY5BHBvcwMxNwRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNhcGltcGFjdHVzc3A-
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #872
http://www.digitalglobe.com/downloads/featured_images/japan_earthquaketsu_fukushima_daiichiov_march14_2011_dg.jpg

From that layout it looks like the ground level in that area was significantly higher (guessing maybe 10 to 15 metres or so - see the man made escarpments around the south and west of the site) than it is now so when they were building the plant they must have decided to excavate right down to sea level possibly partly for ease of docking materials etc and possibly partly to limit the impact of the plant on the landscape. There are probably plenty of other reasons as well.

It's not a judgement on the original decision as no doubt they had their reasons but in an area of known tsunamis did they think that the plant wouldn't be affected by them otherwise the critical plant zones look as if they could easily have been built at a higher level.

I realize everything's easier in hindsight of course.

Is that the spent fuel rod common pool at centre bottom of that photo as it seems to have a similar layout to the schematics published.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #873
Arcer said:
http://www.digitalglobe.com/downloads/featured_images/japan_earthquaketsu_fukushima_daiichiov_march14_2011_dg.jpg

From that layout it looks like the ground level in that area was significantly higher (guessing maybe 10 to 15 metres or so - see the man made escarpments around the south and west of the site) than it is now so when they were building the plant they must have decided to excavate right down to sea level possibly partly for ease of docking materials etc and possibly partly to limit the impact of the plant on the landscape. There are probably plenty of other reasons as well.

It's not a judgement on the original decision as no doubt they had their reasons but in an area of known tsunamis did they think that the plant wouldn't be affected by them otherwise the critical plant zones look as if they could easily have been built at a higher level.

I realize everything's easier in hindsight of course.

Maybe when they built the plant 40 years ago nobody saw any reason for concern, but there was a prediction for a very large quake in the same area the quake took place. Emergency planning should have considered an extended complete power loss situation, considering the level of dependence on outside power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #875
M. Bachmeier said:
Maybe when they built the plant 40 years ago nobody saw any reason for concern, but there was a prediction for a very large quake in the same area the quake took place. Emergency planning should have considered an extended complete power loss situation, considering the level of dependence on outside power.

40 years ago - 1971. The year I graduated HS. I started college at an obscure engineering school -- GMI, working for a now defunct auto company -- Oldsmobile. My state of the art calculator was a Post Versalog slide rule. If I had had my current laptop and tower configuration computers (both Macs, BTW) complete with software and 32" hi-res color monitors, then I would have been considered a god-like figure from some planet far advanced over the mere Earthlings at the time, I suspect.

Just saying, technology has changed. The real danger to anyone fearful of nuclear power is, demonstrably, in NOT building new nuclear plants and adequate disposal facilities. And the cost of doing it is offset by the cost, for example, of the cleanup of a facility like Fukushima, not to mention that the return on investment for doing it correctly will be clean, safe power, independent of OPEC and oil spills, not a concrete sarcophagus to be monitored another few hundred years.

The current climate of fear of nuclear accidents and uncertainty about oil is, in fact, a golden opportunity to drive that point home to everyone who will listen!

Nuclear power is already with us. So, we can either keep driving a 1971 Oldsmobile Cutlass, which was a great vehicle for its day, and hope it doesn't break down, or, we can buy a new 2011 Honda Accord (or, I guess, walk). But however we choose to travel, we still have a long road to travel, just with different destinations.

I know which trip I have in mind and I know what I would rather be riding in, and which my kids and grandkids would be safer riding in. It's time to decommission some old plants, build some much better new ones and to cut the political crap and deal effectively with the safe storage and reprocessing of nuclear waste. We have the technology at hand. We seem to lack the political will.

What a dismal history for technology that our generation spent all the time, effort and risk to amass nuclear arsenals that no sane person would ever use and that we politically hamstring something less risky, like nuclear power, with such a wonderful return on investment, if we just have the political will to do it.
 
  • #877
The light's on at reactor 3's control room, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12825342" .

In the article they say that "Meanwhile, the UN's nuclear watchdog says radiation is still leaking from the quake-hit plant, but scientists are unsure exactly where it is coming from."

But they are walking right there, see picture
_51794833_011591960-1.jpg

How could they not be able to ascertain where the radiation is coming from?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #878
AntonL said:
filling of unit 4 SFP by concrete lifter
[PLAIN]http://bilder.bild.de/BILD/news/fotos/2011/03/22/japan-ticker/SONDERKONDITIONEN__20257190__MBQF-1300804062,templateId=renderScaled,property=Bild,height=349.jpg

I am amazed by the protection suits, two piece, open collar, construction helmet ...
Compare to clothing in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aprycG9mlZc&feature=relmfu

and workers/inspectors then drive home in their cars, I presume after a hosing down, but is that effective?

Since, the radiological protection staff at the reactors and emergency center are very competent, and you or I do not know the radiological situation being shown...then what you see is appropriate. Quit slamming stuff you probably know nothing about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #879
A new video - spraying closeup to #3:
http://video.asahi.com/viewvideo.jspx?Movie=48464141/48464141peevee378318.flv
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #880
Hi all, I'm new on this forum and have been following this thread for several days now (I have still some pages to read!), a thread where i found some valuable and interesting info and reflexions on what's going on there...

I'm a mechanical engineer (I'm from France) and as many of you, I'm seeking to understand what happened and is still happening in Fukushima plant. I' have several elements/questions or sources to bring to the discussion hoping to contribute to it as I've been doing intensive search and "digest" of information on this event since the very beginning, as i did 25 years ago when i was a student willing to fully understand what happened in Tchernobyl (and as you know probably, at that time, information was scarce and disinformation here in France has been blatant from autorities and nuclear regulation agencies and lobbies (a trial is still going on on this matter).

At first, i' would like to react to the recent posts concerning the general layout of the plant and more particularly the low altitude of the platform on which it is built regarding to the proximity of the sea level. We all understand how critical this point has been regarding to the tsunami and the cause of loss of power on site due to flooding of the backup generators.

I would like to draw your attention to a TEPCO document that i found today in which this company reassessed in 2010 the "safety" of its plants regarding to tsunamis, especially after the Chile tsunami the 28th of February 2010. I give the direct link to where to find this document (I plan to send this info to several medias here in France):

http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/presentationdata/3_sessionB/B-11.pdf

It is a presentation of a Tepco study (see logos on the doc) done in 2010, and its conclusions were presented by a certain Andou Hiroshige at a symposium held the 24th to 26th of November 2010 - SO PRETTY RECENTLY- at Niigata Institute of Technology, Kashiwazaki, Niigata, Japan ( see the site here http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/ ).

The document is called Tsunami Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants in Japan and include a study for the Fukushima Daiichi power plant.

Conclusions of the study are, based on this presentation (see page 15):

"We assessed and confirmed the safety of nuclear power plants based on the JSCE method which was published in 2002".

The simulation done relates to hypothesis ending up with a maximum tsunami wave height at Fukushima plant of... 5,7m, to be compared to the actual height mesured on site by Tepco after the disaster (on the walls of the buildings) of 14 METERS! This is JUST a 145% underestimation...

As you maybe know, the european authorities have decided to conduct "stress tests" (like for the banks!) on all the nuclear plants in europe but i would like to ask this question:

What kind of science is it when you end up with calculations that fall 145% under the reality that happens a few months after? The order of magnitude of error is enormous, and this is even more obvious when you take into account the fact that the highest tsunami waves in history have even been bigger than 35 meters it seems.

5,7m seems very very low, even after "torough computerized" calculations...

Questions:

1) Is it that kind of science that is supposed to justify pre-determined decisions (the plant was built for a long time!) after the fact, where somebody has to "fine tune" the inputs so the output fits the political or economical goals determined by others (which are maybe your boss?)?

2) If yes, can it be called "risks assessement"? Or should it be called "cost optimization by redefinition of what natural catastrophes SHOULD BE" (instead of WILL BE)?

3) Is it normal that this assessment is only done by the company (which tends to naturally apply "point 2 science") and not the autorities or any "regulation" or "safety" agency? (As you see, we are not far from the banks situation... with other consequences of course).

Further trial will (hopefully) give some comprehensive answers. As you probably know, we learned today or yesterday that TEPCO didn't insure its Fukushima plant for its own degradation after August 2010 because TEPCO found the insurance cost too high (and by law there are not obliged to get an insurance for themselves). They are still responsible for degradations to "others" but there is an exclusion case when related to "natural disasters" ( see this article in French for further info: http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/20...09-fukushima-site-plus-assure-depuis-2010.php ).

If you link this info to the point above, one question arises: does a "natural disaster" starts with a wave (under) estimated at 5,7m or should it be at more than 14m? Because in the first case, why not assess the worst case scenario at 2 meters and then regular high tides will probably become a natural disaster?

This point of discussion is critical in all industries, but obviously even more in the nuclear one as we see it now...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #881
5.7m vs 14m is a factor of about 2.5, not "an order of magnitude" or 10X, right?

Would everyone feel better if they had accurately calculated the possibility of 14m wave a few months earlier, as the outcome would very likely be no different?

It was a big mistake, yes, first made 40 years ago, and it was another big mistake not to have corrected it. But even if they had, the death toll of the natural disaster that struck Japan would be very little affected.

Thank goodness all the reactor sites in France are probably better engineered and better risk assessed against any such disaster, we shall hope.

I predict Japan and Japan's nuclear energy industry will recover and that they will build a higher sea wall next time, and have better designed reactor facilities. Then, a volcano will probably erupt and back-fill the sea wall with hot lava, most likely.

The history of mankind tells me that as a species, we have never been very good at any point in history at predicting the worst case scenario of any potential natural disaster, be it plague, volcano, ice age or meteor impact (except maybe for Noah, and he had God to tell him how big an ark he should build for the coming flood).

PS: Mankind's history of major success from the "well-intended" interventions of authorities, regulatory bodies, and safety organizations has not always been that great either, IMO.

PPS: Is 9.0 on the Richter Scale 10X larger than an 8.0 earthquake? If so, then, logarithmically speaking, maybe they only missed it by a couple of decimal points.

But your point is well made and acknowledged. Something to think about.
 
Last edited:
  • #882
Sorry, i misused the terms "order of magnitude" (from a scientific stand point) but it's more a french to english translation mistake from me i think (because "ordre de grandeur" in french doesn't necessarily mean factor x10 in common language). Sorry again for the bad expression.

Would everyone feel better if they had accurately calculated the possibility of 14m wave a few months earlier, as the outcome would very likely be no different?

My answer to this question relates to how this happened to be so severely underestimated...

If it's a mistake, i think it's a "big" mistake if i only judge the "calculation to experience inaccuracy". If it ends up not to be a mistake but "something else" (inquiry will tell, hopefully), then this is even more problematic because anyone can then doubt of safety policy in general... (case one ends up with the same questions and doubts, but mistakes are socially more understandable -and maybe correctable- than lies or fraud for example, IMO).

Concerning earthquakes magnitudes (correct me if I'm wrong) a 9 magnitude earthquake involves 30 times more energy and 10 times more displacement than an 8.

So of course one can always say that the mistake is maybe only 1 out of 8 of course, but...
 
Last edited:
  • #883
jlduh said:
Sorry, i misused the terms "order of magnitude" (from a scientific stand point) but it's more a french to english translation mistake from me i think (because "ordre de grandeur" in french doesn't necessarily mean factor x10 in common language). Sorry again for the bad expression.

jlduh - No worries, friend. Everyone understands your feelings and thoughts you expressed here. And I understand the concerns you correctly express. Know that it is just my - there must be a French word for it - "wry" sense of humor coming through in the post. Heaven knows I myself have made a lot of big mistakes and massive misjudgments these last 40 years. Attempting to translate my thought in French would surely be one of them. You know what they say -- a person who speaks more than one language = multilingual. A person who speaks only one language = American.

PS: welcome to the forum, and I did remember the French word -- something like merde, I believe.
 
Last edited:
  • #884
jlduh said:
So of course one can always say that the mistake is maybe only 1 out of 8 of course, but...

jlduh: many years ago, when I first studied engineering before I switched to medicine, the terms we used to apply to such calculations and errors were "WAG" and "SWAG", if you know those.
 
  • #885
jlduh said:
We all understand how critical this point has been regarding to the tsunami and the cause of loss of power on site due to flooding of the backup generators.

I would like to draw your attention to a TEPCO document that i found today in which this company reassessed in 2010 the "safety" of its plants regarding to tsunamis, especially after the Chile tsunami the 28th of February 2010. I give the direct link to where to find this document (I plan to send this info to several medias here in France):

http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/presentationdata/3_sessionB/B-11.pdf

It is a presentation of a Tepco study (see logos on the doc) done in 2010, and its conclusions were presented by a certain Andou Hiroshige at a symposium held the 24th to 26th of November 2010 - SO PRETTY RECENTLY- at Niigata Institute of Technology, Kashiwazaki, Niigata, Japan ( see the site here http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/ ).

The document is called Tsunami Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants in Japan and include a study for the Fukushima Daiichi power plant.

Conclusions of the study are, based on this presentation (see page 15):

"We assessed and confirmed the safety of nuclear power plants based on the JSCE method which was published in 2002".

The simulation done relates to hypothesis ending up with a maximum tsunami wave height at Fukushima plant of... 5,7m, to be compared to the actual height mesured on site by Tepco after the disaster (on the walls of the buildings) of 14 METERS! This is JUST a 145% underestimation...

As a skeptic - In 2010 TEPCO financed study estimated tsunami heights to values that will prove that the nuclear power plants are safe. If TEPCO simply listed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunamis" wave heights they would have been forced to close down. Further, the standard Tsunami was estimated in a 2002 why was this not updated with the 2004 indian ocean tsunami experience which had a wave height of 33 meters.

Interesting would be to know if the design level of the NPP was dictated by operational needs such as basements, natural fall of outlet water, etc or a Tsunami study.

Economics dictates reason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #886
"Economics dictates reason"

No, economics IS reason, it's just that its basic assumptions and hypotheses are rather iffy.
I'd agree that an empirical approach to recorded tsunami heights would appear to have been a sounder route, although I haven't read that report. Nevertheless, the way I understand it, the current problems would have been mitigated if only the emergency power supplies would have been constructed to withstand the extra tsunami height over the design assumptions.
A nuclear power plant designed to withstand an earthquake would no doubt structurally resist the additional loading caused by a 14 meter instead of a 6 meter tsunami. It appears that it is the relatively "soft" infrastructure that was the culprit here.
 
  • #887
Reno Deano said:
AntonL said:
filling of unit 4 SFP by concrete lifter
[PLAIN]http://bilder.bild.de/BILD/news/fotos/2011/03/22/japan-ticker/SONDERKONDITIONEN__20257190__MBQF-1300804062,templateId=renderScaled,property=Bild,height=349.jpg

I am amazed by the protection suits, two piece, open collar, construction helmet ...
Compare to clothing in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aprycG9mlZc&feature=relmfu

and workers/inspectors then drive home in their cars, I presume after a hosing down, but is that effective?
Since, the radiological protection staff at the reactors and emergency center are very competent, and you or I do not know the radiological situation being shown...then what you see is appropriate. Quit slamming stuff you probably know nothing about.
A site cleared a day earlier by military armoured vehicle, heavy steel protecting the operator

and compared to this
[URL]http://www.datapple.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/05990_radiation-check-japan.jpg[/URL]


amazed skeptic using common sense
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #888
T-Cups and Antoni must be auditioning for Fox or one of the other news groups. Using limited knowledge, convoluted science, and conjucture. BTW, radiologically clearing a place and entering a cleared place are to diametrically opposites. Evidently you have not worked in contaminated areas or had to cleared them. Pictures do not always tell the whole story...that is how Fox news and others get attention. Have you got enough yet?
 
  • #889
Off topic: fuzefiz you wrote: "I was once a research physicist (not nuclear). Now I am particularly interested this problem because I am an investor in would-be uranium miners (at least, since last week when their stock prices fell, I am an investor)."

IMO, you need to be careful because (especially in small cap stocks): massive illegal naked bear co-ordinated short attacks can and do occur and the SEC does not have (or refuses to deploy) the resources to combat them. I don't think they will attack uranium miner stocks because the bear raiders are more likely to attack green energy stocks (due to the nature of their political beliefs--although nuclear power is in a sense green energy if contained properly and the waste issue is resolved). I have been in contact with the SEC and with one Senator's office regarding one of the illegal attacks (although many are on going at any moment in time).
 
  • #890
I wanted to post a second contribution consisting of a link towards a video (quite long because of translation, but detailed) that i don't think has been posted here and that may be very valuable from several points of view to understand what's going on in the reactors.

It's on the CNIC site (which is a Citizens' Nuclear Information Center) and is a press conference (Archive link to March 18, 2011) and explanation (Japanese and English) by nuclear engineer Mitsuhiko Tanaka who worked on design of pressure vessel of Fukushima Daiichi Reactor 4, and then (after 1h35) by Dr Masashi Goto who worked on design of containment vessels of Mark 1 BWR reactors like the ones used at the Fukushima Daiichi.

It seems these are guys who know about what they are talking about.

You will also have the occasion to review various schematics and pictures of the actual installations, especially a picture of the internal top floor of reactor n°6 (if my understanding is right) which is shown from the very beginning of the conference. The picture was taken 25 years ago during a periodic inspection (below is an image copied from the video with the printscreen key of my laptop):

http://www.netimago.com/image_181276.html

Link to video: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13410573

You have other links to videos of conferences (not always translated/interpreted from japanese) on the main page:

http://www.cnic.jp/english/topics/safety/earthquake/fukushima.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #891
Reno Deano said:
T-Cups and Antoni must be auditioning for Fox or one of the other news groups. Using limited knowledge, convoluted science, and conjucture.

LOL -- you mean "WAG's & SWAG's", right? OK, I get your drift, sir.

Later all, and thanks to everyone for the info, insight and critique. I learned a lot, even if I failed the audition, Reno. Sorry if I became tiresome.

Respectfully, etc.
 
  • #892
_51794833_011591960-1.jpg
I guess that the dirty dark brown wavy line on those cream coloured buildings in the background might be a tsunami tidemark (or it could be explosion dust or debris or something else but the wavy dark brown stuff doesn't seem to be that deep elsewhere - for example on the roofs behind) maybe giving an indication of the eventual water level within the site although the water could have gone even higher and left that debris on what, at distance, appears to be a ledge or a roof? as the water receded.

If that's what it is it's a bit puzzling why there doesn't seem to be any visible water marking on the nearby taller buildings as the tsunami water was supposed to be metres deep. Is there any other evidence elsewhere of how high the tsunami was within the site.

I imagine at that sort of height the water as well as getting into the reactor buildings it could have backed up into all sort of site pipes and site tunnels etc causing all sorts of blockages to whatever was supposed to be flowing along them.
 
Last edited:
  • #893
AntonL said:
As a skeptic - In 2010 TEPCO financed study estimated tsunami heights to values that will prove that the nuclear power plants are safe. If TEPCO simply listed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunamis" wave heights they would have been forced to close down. Further, the standard Tsunami was estimated in a 2002 why was this not updated with the 2004 indian ocean tsunami experience which had a wave height of 33 meters.

Interesting would be to know if the design level of the NPP was dictated by operational needs such as basements, natural fall of outlet water, etc or a Tsunami study.

Economics dictates reason.
Well, perhaps there will be some kind of investigation as to why better tsunami defense was not provided, or at least, why the EGDs and supporting systems were placed in such a vulnerable location. Those decisions were made about 45 years ago. It's quite common for an institution and affiliates to continue an operation without re-visiting the original bases of the operation. If something has worked for 40+ years, why change?

One would have to review the FSAR or equivalent document, and the supporting documentation, e.g., a licensing topical report or equivalent, in order to determine the rationale behind the design basis. Then one can look at relevant events occurring in and around the time of the established design, and events since.

In 1964, there was a substantial earthquake and corresponding 8+ m tsunami event. Was that addressed in the Fukushima Daiichi design basis? If so, how?

How should a utility use relevant events after the design basis is accepted, the plant constructed and placed in operation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #894
TCups said:
Thank goodness all the reactor sites in France are probably better engineered and better risk assessed against any such disaster, we shall hope.
We are getting off topic pointing finger...

But as far as goodness is concerned.

According to French Nuclear Authority Fukushima situation could not happen in France because of better risk assessment: Break down of French risk assessment = [ Estimated Highest intensity recorded in the area (base an historical speculation)] x5 (factor five) (applied to an epicenter below the station..)
In other word if they assume that on a Richter scale they do not expect more than 7 , the power plant should be able to sustain a earthquake 7.2 in order to pass French safety guideline.
Reassured now, are we ?

Perspective:
I've read (but I have no evidence) that Fukushima NPP was build to sustain a 7.8 seismic event.. something as little about 40 time stronger hit it and it is still standing.. The reactor did shutdown, emergency cooling powered by batteries worked while they had juice..

@jlduh
Further more, tsunami's risk under assessment in Japan, really ? Are you having a laugh ? More that 100 000 Japanese experienced it first hand, I can not see Tepco as the odd one out on this one.
Mind your "Is it normal that this assessment is only done by the company (which tends to naturally apply "point 2 science") and not the autorities or any "regulation" or "safety" agency?" ... They all got it wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • #896
Some question about the design limit for earthquakes: When they say that the reactors had been designed to resist an earthquake of magnitude 8, but the current earthquake had magnitude 9 there seems some information missing to me. Namely the earthquake did not occur directly under the reactor. IMO the design limits should refer to the amplitude of the seismic waves measured locally, not to the total energy released in a quake at some arbitrary location. What were the concrete limits? How strong were the seismic waves at the reactor site?
 
  • #897
jensjakob said:
A new video - spraying closeup to #3:
http://video.asahi.com/viewvideo.jspx?Movie=48464141/48464141peevee378318.flv
Nice to see more vid jens. I hear this morning there's a new plume of black smoke... which sounds very ominous. The working teams were then evacuated but I haven't heard if they've gone back in yet.
By the looks of their protection they can't be THAT concerned about radiation levels, which is a good sign.
I sincerely hope they get good cooling soon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #898
They are currently holding a press conference , where they express concern about the temperature in the core vessel

Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency announced in its news briefing held around 10:00 AM on March 23 that the core temperature exceed design value of 302℃ and reached almost 400℃ at Unit-1. Core cooling function was enhanced through increasing number of injection lines, given this s
 
Last edited:
  • #899
And here they say it's the SFP that has reached 400C:
http://wallstreetpit.com/68105-fukushimas-reactor-1-core-reaches-400-degrees-celsius

"Another negative development in the world’s worst nuclear crisis in a quarter of a century is that the temperature at the spent fuel pools at Reactor No. 1 has reached 400 degrees celsius. This was at 380-390 degrees a few hours back."
(bold by me)

400C in an open water pool means no water
 
  • #900
Wallstreetpit got it Wrong (would not be the first time)

400° degree is the temp of the core temperature design was made to sustain 302°
Curent temp is 330°
 

Similar threads

Fukushima Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster discussions
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
49K
Ukraine nuclear power plant Zaporizhzhia on fire
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Fukushima Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants Fukushima part 2
  • · Replies 2K ·
60
Replies
2K
Views
450K
Fukushima Are US Nuclear Power Plants Prepared for Earthquakes?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
Fukushima Critiques of Fukushima Thyroid-Cancer Study
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
What if a nuclear power plant loses outside electricity?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
20K
Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects
  • · Replies 763 ·
26
Replies
763
Views
274K
Fukushima How will they end the Fukushima disaster?
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
16K
Thoughts on nuclear power and disasters [long, rant/tangenty]
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Fukushima The geological issues of the Fukushima Daiichi
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K