Fukushima Fukushima -- possible alternate scenario?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FusionJim
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Accident Nuclear
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the possibility of using one operational reactor at Fukushima to power circulation pumps for the other reactors during the 2011 crisis. It highlights that while the tsunami disabled offsite power and diesel generators, the reactors themselves were not immediately incapacitated. However, the reactors were shut down automatically due to the earthquake, and significant inspections would have been required to ensure safety before restarting any units. The conversation also notes that by the time external power was restored, core damage had already begun in several reactors. Overall, the idea of using one reactor to support others raises questions about emergency protocols and the feasibility of such actions during the disaster.
FusionJim
Messages
56
Reaction score
11
Some time has passed since this accident happened but this morning I couldn't sleep and a though occurred. Back in 2011 when the tsunami flooded the diesel generators and knocked out offsite power to the Fukushima power plant, yet the reactors themselves were ok and their ability to work (at least before the meltdowns) wasn't crippled. Now they shut the reactors down according to rules, but this got me wondering. Given they probably quickly realized the dire situation that there is no offsite power and the diesels are dead and gone , couldn't they make a risk assessment and essentially shut down only 5 of the 6 reactors at the plant meanwhile use the sixth reactor (or whichever in number) at some minimal power level to keep generating electricity to be able to power the circulation pumps for the other shut down reactors?

Given the situation they faced, and I'm sure they understood it just as well back during when all of this was still unfolding, wouldn't it have been a an overall safer way to deal with the issue?

Sure I might not know some stuff related to how a nuclear plant must be dealt with during an emergency so please tell me what was there to stop them from doing this, but overall it seems like a legit idea.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
FusionJim said:
Some time has passed since this accident happened but this morning I couldn't sleep and a though occurred. Back in 2011 when the tsunami flooded the diesel generators and knocked out offsite power to the Fukushima power plant, yet the reactors themselves were ok and their ability to work (at least before the meltdowns) wasn't crippled.
The earthquake knocked out the transmission systems (transmission towers collapsed). The plant site suffered damage from the earthquake, the the tsunami did much more damage to the site, including flooding ot the basement, and not only the diesel generators, but also the circuits. The tsunami also destroyed the fuel supply for the diesel generators.

I'm not sure about a common bus, or distribution system within the Fukushima Daiichi site. However, Units 4, 5 and 6 were shutdown at the time of the accident. Unit 4 had been defueled (all fuel removed from core) pending some inspection and maintenance.

Unit 5 (a sibling 784 MWe unit to Units 2, 3 and 4) and Unit 6 were also shutdown at the time of the accident. The would have had to do a lot of inspection to ensure no damage to the various structuras and safety systems (days or weeks), and then startup would have taken several days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_units_4,_5_and_6#Units_5_and_6
Both reactors were offline at the time the earthquake struck (Reactor 5 had been shut down on 3 January 2011 and Reactor 6 on 14 August 2010), although they were still fueled,
. . . .
On 17 March, Unit 6 was reported to have a single operational air-cooled diesel-generator as well as dry switchgear (inside the only GE Mark II reactor building) and this was to be used to power pumps in Unit 5 to run the Make-up Water Condensate System (MUWC) to supply more water. Preparations were made to inject water into the reactor pressure vessel once external power could be restored to the plant, as water levels in the reactors were considered to be declining. NISA reported that connections from the grid to all units was complete 20 March through new cables and transformers.
Certainly 9 days was too late.

Core damage is believed to have started in Unit 1 after 4 hours from the earthquake. Units 2 and 3 had their core damage starting about 48 hours to 72 hours later. Unit 4 had the explosion and fire ostensibly from hydrogen leaking from Unit 3 through the shared ventilation system. Unit 4's core had been removed, but the spent fuel was in the spent fuel pool to the side of the reactor.

See - Event sequence following earthquake (timing from it: 14:46, 11 March)
https://world-nuclear.org/informati...y/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident

See also - https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/learning-from-fukushima-daiichi-factors-leading-to-the-accident
 
The operators didn't decide to shut the operating units down - they were tripped automatically due to the earthquake, as detected by seismic event monitoring equipment.

The IAEA report (start with the director general's report) is also a good source of information. The DG report and the five "technical volumes" are available as pdf files here:

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/new...generals-report-on-fukushima-daiichi-accident
 
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Hi everyone, I'm a complete beginner with MCNP and trying to learn how to perform burnup calculations. Right now, I'm feeling a bit lost and not sure where to start. I found the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) and was wondering if anyone has worked through this specific benchmark using MCNP6? If so, would you be willing to share your MCNP input file for it? Seeing an actual working example would be incredibly helpful for my learning. I'd be really...
Back
Top