8.9 earthquake in Japan: tsunami warnings

[DevilsAvocado]

This looks really bad, definitely a bigger explosion than unit 1, + that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel" in unit 3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_N-wNFSGyQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL4bhit7Sc8


(Thanks Astro, I get back on your answer)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

As opposed to degenerate neutron matter and pixie dust?

With all due respect nismar, I have no idea what you are talking about?

It’s OK to talk about the "beautiful shore"? But NOT about the shortcomings in security, that could have prevented the catastrophe from ever happened?

That is WEIRD.

 

[rhody]

Looks like they are keeping a eye on Shinmoedake as well. Eruptions are common in the area, but this volcano erupted in January 2011, the first major seismic activity on the mountain in 52 years.

To all,

Let's add a pyroclastic ash cloud (in the event of a major volcanic eruption) to the equation as well. I would guess that such a cloud of sufficient volume lasting for a sufficient amount of time, would render the backup diesel generator's useless, setting the stage for the same scenario we see going on here at any nuc plant unfortunate enough to be caught in it. Not to be funny, but maybe a bunch of guys with firefighter like breathing apparatus, and some sort of ash clearing gear could keep it going, but that is just a guess.

Rhody...

nismara,

Hope your friend is ok over there...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Large image from DigitalGlobe showing the devastation at Fukushima I plant.

http://www.digitalglobe.com/downloads/featured_images/japan_earthquaketsu_fukushima_daini_march12_2011_dg.jpg

 

[fuzzyfelt]

I hope nismar's friend is ok, too.

Has there been mention of rod exposure here, yet?
e.g,
"The fuel rod exposure at Fukushima Daiichi number 2 reactor is potentially the most serious event so far at the plant.

A local government official confirmed the fuel rods were at one point largely, if not totally exposed; but we do not know for how long. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12733393

 

[Astronuc]

I hope nismar's friend is ok, too.

Has there been mention of rod exposure here, yet?
e.g,
"The fuel rod exposure at Fukushima Daiichi number 2 reactor is potentially the most serious event so far at the plant.

A local government official confirmed the fuel rods were at one point largely, if not totally exposed; but we do not know for how long. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12733393

I don't see how the fuel exposure at Unit 2 is necessarily worse than for Unit 1 or 3, however, that means they've had 3 loss of coolant accidents at 3 units. One is bad enough, three is just three times worse.

The use of MOX fuel is not significant. UO2 fuel essentially becomes MOX toward end of life because all LWRs produced Pu in the fuel as a result of the conversion of U238 to Pu239, Pu240, Pu241, with some Am and Cm isotopes depending on burnup.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Thanks very much for the explanation, Astro.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Yes, thanks very much Astro for explaining these things.

Just one question: I read more about MOX, and there’s only small amount (7%) plutonium in the fuel. The 'risk' with plutonium is that it’s a radioactive poison that can spontaneously ignite when exposed to moist air. All uranium isotopes are only weakly radioactive. To me this means – if all the fuel in the three reactors is 'old'; then there is no bigger 'security difference'. It the fuel is 'new'; there could be some difference in possible 'risks'...

Correct?

 

[nismaratwork]

With all due respect nismar, I have no idea what you are talking about?

It’s OK to talk about the "beautiful shore"? But NOT about the shortcomings in security, that could have prevented the catastrophe from ever happened?

That is WEIRD.

I can't think of a breakwater that could have stopped that volume of water and the energy involed from either backing up and passing around it behind the plant, destroying everything between the pylons, or what it did... passed right over it.

This is why I'm so dismayed by the placement of the plant.

@Rhody: Thanks man.

@Fuzzyfelt: Thank you too.

 

[dlgoff]

Thank you Astronuc for being here for us on these reactor issues. I for one am learning a lot.

 

[Astronuc]

Yes, thanks very much Astro for explaining these things.

Just one question: I read more about MOX, and there’s only small amount (7%) plutonium in the fuel. The 'risk' with plutonium is that it’s a radioactive poison that can spontaneously ignite when exposed to moist air. All uranium isotopes are only weakly radioactive. To me this means – if all the fuel in the three reactors is 'old'; then there is no bigger 'security difference'. It the fuel is 'new'; there could be some difference in possible 'risks'...

Correct?

The fuel in the core is in the form of oxide, usually UO2, or (U,Pu)O2 in MOX, and the fission products produced during the course of operation. An oxide will not combust. In contact with high temperature water, the UO2 and MOX can oxidize to higher order oxides, M3O8, M4O9, or MO3, where M = U,Pu, or a hydrated oxide, or hydroxide, which is soluble.

At beginning of cycle, a reactor core contains fresh fuel (no irradiation), one-cycle fuel, two-cycle fuel, and perhaps three-cycle fuel. At end of cycle, we refer to once-burned (one-cycle), twice-burned, thrice-burned, or whatever, depending on the number of cycles used.

We measure utilization of fuel in terms of burnup, e.g., GWd/tU, or GWd/tHM (HM = heavy metal = U or Pu), which is just energy per unit mass. For consumption of 1% of the initial U (U235+U238), the equivalent burnup is about 9.7 GWd/tU.

The question is however, how much of the fuel cladding reacted with the steam, or how much of the fuel failed, and we will not know for months until they open the core, which they can't do with fission gases or fission products in the coolant.

The damaged/destroyed equipment, e.g., upper containment structure, overhead crane, fuel handling equipment will have to be replaced. They will likely have to construct some special containment to replace that which has been destroyed. That will take a lot of time.

And because of the radiation field, any inspection of the damage cores will be done remotely.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Many thanks Astro.

 

[rhody]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-quake-volcano-20110314,0,2486939.story"

The volcano is on Kyushu island, about 950 miles from the epicenter of Friday's magnitude 9.0 earthquake, which devastated much of the country's northeastern coast.

Photos: Scenes of earthquake destruction

It was unclear if the eruptions were linked to quake, officials said. Japan lies on the "ring of fire," a seismically active zone where earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are common.

and

Sunday's eruption, which was the biggest volcanic activity in Shinmoedake in 52 years, caused widespread destruction and panic. The blast could be heard for miles, and shattered windows four miles away, the BBC reported. Hundreds of people fled the area as the volcano spewed debris, including hot ash and rocks, more than 6,000 feet in the air, according to BBC reports.

You all know my next question after this report, right ? Where is the nearest Nuc Power Plant ?

Rhody...

Here is a selection of http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&...aq=2&aqi=g5g-s1g4&aql=&oq=Kyushu&safe=active"

 

[DevilsAvocado]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-quake-volcano-20110314,0,2486939.story"

wow

Where is the nearest Nuc Power Plant ?

[PLAIN]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/a/a1/AKWs.japan.png

EDIT:
That would be Genkai and Sendai.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-quake-volcano-20110314,0,2486939.story"

grief! waiting on reports of godzilla now!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

grief! waiting on reports of godzilla now!

Greg, time to cancel the trip?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I can't think of a breakwater that could have stopped that volume of water and the energy involed from either backing up and passing around it behind the plant, destroying everything between the pylons, or what it did... passed right over it.

This is why I'm so dismayed by the placement of the plant.

Okay, now when you say what you mean it all make sense!

(sort of )

 

[nismaratwork]

Great... juuuuuust great. I'm going to clean my p229, and head to the range... I have stress to relieve.

 

[turbo]

I can't think of a breakwater that could have stopped that volume of water and the energy involed from either backing up and passing around it behind the plant, destroying everything between the pylons, or what it did... passed right over it.

This is why I'm so dismayed by the placement of the plant.

That's part of the quandary of plant-siting. Do you site a plant near the sea where you have practically unlimited water for cooling, or in a place safer from tsunamis (farther inland) where you have to use less-reliable rivers and/or lakes that are susceptible to drying up or getting overly warm due to droughts and heat waves? If your country has temperature standards that you can violate with cooling water discharges in the summer, you have to cut back power production to avoid violating those standards.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's part of the quandary of plant-siting. Do you site a plant near the sea where you have practically unlimited water for cooling, or in a place safer from tsunamis (farther inland) where you have to use less-reliable rivers and/or lakes that are susceptible to drying up or getting overly warm due to droughts and heat waves? If your country has temperature standards that you can violate with cooling water discharges in the summer, you have to cut back power production to avoid violating those standards.

You don't use a WR, instead you look to modern plant designs that rely on gasses to dissipate waste heat, and minimize it to begin with using novel fuel arrangements and types.

Given the age of so many of our current facilities, it's time to rebuild anyway. Still... better to centralize production in some of the states which frankly, could lose a few dozen miles to an exlusion zone.

 

[Astronuc]

That's part of the quandary of plant-siting. Do you site a plant near the sea where you have practically unlimited water for cooling, or in a place safer from tsunamis (farther inland) where you have to use less-reliable rivers and/or lakes that are susceptible to drying up or getting overly warm due to droughts and heat waves? If your country has temperature standards that you can violate with cooling water discharges in the summer, you have to cut back power production to avoid violating those standards.

One doesn't put fuel storage tanks on the oceanside for one, and one doesn't put electrical equipment on the lowest level where they will get knocked out by tsunami.

 

[rhody]

Astro just reported this in the other thread: Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants, latest post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3187449&postcount=88"

Apparently the US 7th Fleet has detected radiation at sea and are moving out of the area.

Any sustained activity offsite is a bit worrisome because it means radioactivity is getting of site in significant (not quantified) amounts.

Rhody...

P.S. I will be checking both threads from now on, because bits and pieces of the same story are to be found in both.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

One doesn't put fuel storage tanks on the oceanside for one, and one doesn't put electrical equipment on the lowest level where they will get knocked out by tsunami.

I don’t know how many times I have said this, but again – Thanks Astronuc! For being here and sorting out the obvious for the "self-proclaimed experts" (= laymen guessing = includes me).

I don’t know what we would do without you...

 

[nismaratwork]

I don’t know how many times I have said this, but again – Thanks Astronuc! For being here and sorting out the obvious for the "self-proclaimed experts" (= laymen guessing = includes me).

I don’t know what we would do without you...

We'd be terrified, and ignorant, but then, we have Astronuc, and now this in the permanant record of this site.

I love how knowledge builds on the internet... it rarely fades.



Oh yes, and my friend somehow managed to get a friend of a friend of a friend's relative to send a text, he's alive, his family is alive, but their homes are destroyed. Thanks for the concern all who expressed it. I admit, this is a relief.

@Astronuc: How can that be overlooked, I mean, the placement? It makes no sense as corruption, and makes no sense as an oversight. I can believe it's just an error that we see in hindsight for the simple reason that there's no reason to ignore safety like that, is there?

Still, it sound like the disaster here is not a radiological release of any significance, but the destruction of generation, and the loss of face.

 

[Astronuc]

Oh yes, and my friend somehow managed to get a friend of a friend of a friend's relative to send a text, he's alive, his family is alive, but their homes are destroyed. Thanks for the concern all who expressed it. I admit, this is a relief.

I am glad one's friend is OK.

@Astronuc: How can that be overlooked, I mean, the placement? It makes no sense as corruption, and makes no sense as an oversight. I can believe it's just an error that we see in hindsight for the simple reason that there's no reason to ignore safety like that, is there?

Still, it sound like the disaster here is not a radiological release of any significance, but the destruction of generation, and the loss of face.

Apparently, 40+ years ago, some folks convinced themselves that the current configuration of the plant would suffice. A colleague informed me that he heard (so treat this as hearsay or unverified), that the breakwaters and site were designed assuming a 6.5 or 7 m tsunami. Whatever tsunami hit them, it was beyond the design capacity of the site.

Somewhere is a document that indicates the rationale behind the design in terms of earthquake magnitude/seismic activity and associated tsunami. I would like to read that document. I did a search on NEIC and NGDC databases and found the occurrence of quakes greater than mag 8 and greater the mag 7 around Japan since 1900. I would like to compare that data with the assumptions used in the FK plant design.

 

[nismaratwork]

I am glad one's friend is OK.

Apparently, 40+ years ago, some folks convinced themselves that the current configuration of the plant would suffice. A colleague informed me that he heard (so treat this as hearsay or unverified), that the breakwaters and site were designed assuming a 6.5 or 7 m tsunami. Whatever tsunami hit them, it was beyond the design capacity of the site.

Somewhere is a document that indicates the rationale behind the design in terms of earthquake magnitude/seismic activity and associated tsunami. I would like to read that document. I did a search on NEIC and NGDC databases and found the occurrence of quakes greater than mag 8 and greater the mag 7 around Japan since 1900. I would like to compare that data with the assumptions used in the FK plant design.

That makes a kind of sense... it's the mistakes I expect; those that compound over the years without adequate review. The good news is that it sounds like this isn't a universal problem, but grist for a review of plant placements?

Wouldn't it be great if we could actually form a national policy of nuclear development, maybe by executive order? I can practically hear the coal/LNG industry licking its chops over this, which is the worst outcome IMO.

Thanks for the well wishes too Astronuc.

 

[rhody]

According to this article and so far not been discussed in this thread, what about the spent fuel contained in holding ponds or pools, in the reactor building or on the grounds ? From the article:

http://www.dcbureau.org/201103141303/Natural-Resources-News-Service/fission-criticality-in-cooling-ponds-threaten-explosion-at-fukushima.html"

The same diagram appears in the Sunday New York Times, pA11, with the uppermost rectangular chamber just to the left of the reactor top identified as the spent fuel storage pool, but the accompanying article does not discuss it.

Donnay said, “If these pools are breached (as could have happened in the explosions, Fukushima #3 looks worse than #1) and can no longer hold water, the spent fuel racked inside them will start to overheat, and eventually melt and burn. And since there is no longer any roof above these pools in reactors 1 and 3, all the radioactivity they contain is directly open to the atmosphere.”

According to a Defense Department source, the cesium detected in the atmosphere around the plant could be coming from the spent fuel pools.

and

According to NIRS (Nuclear Information Resource Service) at http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/brownsferryfactsheet.pdf"In the GE Mark I design, the irradiated fuel pool, containing billions of curies of high-level atomic waste, sits atop the reactor building, outside primary containment and vulnerable to attack, according to both NRC documents (2001) and the National Academy of Sciences (2005)."

It appears that spent fuel presents a threat as well, not just the fuel loaded in the reactor pressure vessel.

Astro, your take on this ?

Rhody...

P.S. The source of the story appears to be credible: www.dcbureau.org[/URL]

 

[turbo]

Thanks, Rhody. I have been chasing down that angle all day, and have been getting blogs and fear-mongers (I hope they are fear-mongers) and asked Astro for clarification in the other thread.

 

[dlgoff]

Just heard about this.

TOKYO — Japan’s nuclear safety agency says an explosion has been heard at Unit 2 of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/japanese-nuclear-safety-agency-says-explosion-heard-at-unit-2-of-fukushima-dai-ichi-plant/2011/03/14/ABbuCXV_story.html"

Edit: This just happen. By The Associated Press, Monday, March 14, 7:10 PM

 

[nismaratwork]

It seems there was a minor radiation release, and it also seems that some crewmembers of The Reagan (19 I think) were exposed to a fair (but nothing like a truly dangerous) dose.

Lets just hope the fuel stays submerged...