Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Have they located the melted fuel at Fukushima?

  1. Feb 13, 2013 #1
    Have the TEPCO workers found the precise location of the melted fuel at the affected Fukushima NPP nuclear reactors? If not, have they at least hypothesized where it might be?

    Cameras have been inserted into the reactor pressure vessel, but the footage hasn't revealed very much in terms of the integrity and location of the core...

    Has it been concluded whether or not the cores burned through the steel and concrete base of the reactor building and into the Earth in a "melt-through?"
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 14, 2013 #2
    No, they have not. Cameras have been inserted into the PCVs alone (and not all the PCVs at that) with less than enlightening results.
    There is a gigantic dedicated thread here
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=480200
    that you may wish to peruse
     
  4. Feb 14, 2013 #3
    Are you talking about this?



    The footage did not reveal the location of any of the melted fuel or core material.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  5. Feb 14, 2013 #4

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The video was uploaded on Jan 20, 2012 according to that page, so it is very old. Note the white noise in the video. This is attributed to the high radiation levels in the vicinity of the CCD in the camera.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  6. Feb 14, 2013 #5
    Have they inserted a camera into the reactor pressure vessel itself yet?
     
  7. Feb 14, 2013 #6

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Not yet in the RPV, or underneath it (I'm assuming that if Tepco has, they would share that information). It will be a BIG story when Tepco finally looks at the damaged core and fuel.

    As far as I know, they have lowered cameras to the torus of one or more units.

    Tepco is busily building a structure over unit 4 that will enable them to remove the fuel from the spent fuel pool.
     
  8. Feb 14, 2013 #7

    etudiant

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It seems to be a pretty peripheral issue.
    The workers on the site are tweeting that the job will take decades.
    Tepco is currently working on clearing the decks, removing spent fuel, enclosing the damaged reactors and dealing with issues such as the disposal of the decontaminated water.
    It is not clear what knowledge of the melted fuel's status would add. There is no way to deal with it as yet.
     
  9. Feb 14, 2013 #8

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    They will likely end up like TMI-2, which still has contaminated water in containment and is sealed off.

    Aug. 1993 At TMI-2, the processing of accident-generated water was completed involving 2.23 million gallons. Accident was March 28, 1979. I was there during the early 90s for a project at TMI-1, and as IIRC, the water was still in containment of Unit 2.

    Sept. 1993 NRC issued a possession-only license.

    Dec. 1993 Monitored storage began.

    Ref: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

    Twenty years later, I expect it's still in monitored storage.

    In 2010, the generator from TMI-2 was sold by FirstEnergy to Progress Energy for an upgrade at Shearon Harris.
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf36.html
     
  10. Feb 14, 2013 #9

    etudiant

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Fascinating and vaguely disquieting.
    I have no idea what the 'monitored storage' amounts to in practice.
    Is it that a guy checks for drips once a year or is it something more substantial?
    In a prior life in the aerospace industry, I did not get a good impression of government monitored storage, but maybe the nuclear industry is different.
     
  11. Feb 15, 2013 #10
    I thought that TMI reactor #2 was removed and replaced with a working reactor?
     
  12. Feb 15, 2013 #11

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No. TMI-2 still exists in a condition known as 'post-defueled, monitored storage (PDMS). The older sibling unit continues to operate.

    Ref: http://www.nei.org/filefolder/TMI_2_Accident_Aug_2010.pdf [Broken]

    TMI-1's license has been renewed for 20 years and will expire 04/19/2034.
    http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/tmi1.html

    If TEPCO has keeped the generators and turbines in good condition, they could in theory be sold for other generation and the utility could recover some cost. However, maintaining a large turbine means that they have to keep the shaft rotating otherwise it will deform under its own weight. A warped shaft is scrap.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  13. Feb 15, 2013 #12
    Why not all water was pumped out?
     
  14. Feb 15, 2013 #13
    Due to these "anti-economy-of-scale" effects, why do power plants opt for using one huge turbine instead of a few smaller ones?
     
  15. Feb 15, 2013 #14

    jim hardy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    As Astronuc said the turbine must be rotated else the shaft will warp. That's because of uneven temperature in the casing as it cools down.
    To that end there's a "turning gear" motor that rotates it very slowly. We had a backup DC turning gear motor in case of station blackout, and a place for a handcrank.

    Once it's reached ambient temperature you can stop it.
    Here's a photo of a small one apart for maintenance.
    http://www.biztrademarket.com/User/8794/bb/200773014471292994.JPG
    picture courtesy these folks.. http://www.biztrademarket.com/User/8794/bb/200773014471292994.JPG

    and a bigger one from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine.
    250px-Dampfturbine_Montage01.jpg

    It takes no more people to operate a large one than a small one.
    And as Lindbergh observed when choosing a single engine airplane to cross the Atlanic,
    with just one there's fewer things to go wrong.

    old jim
     
  16. Feb 15, 2013 #15

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I only know of one PWR that has twin turbine trains, Sizewell B in the UK.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizewell_nuclear_power_stations#Design_2

    Sizewell B is similar in design to Wolfcreek and Callaway units in the US, except, like US plants, they have one turbine set.

    I don't know. I'll have to do some investigating.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2013
  17. Feb 16, 2013 #16
    So TMI has two reactors but only one of them works?

    I thought that the damaged reactor #2 had been completely removed and replaced with a working one.

    Umm.. I assume that the energy production of the plant is halved?
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013
  18. Feb 16, 2013 #17
    Sure, I understand the basic idea of economies of scale.

    However, scaling up things tends to bump into various obstacles at some point.

    If you go from 1 ton to 2 ton piece of machinery, it's usually not a big deal, but when you go from 20 tons to 40 tons it sometimes is.

    Just off the top of my head:

    * larger objects are not road-transportable
    * very heavy objects need specialized cranes
    * disassembly and repair work becomes harder, because even individual parts need lifting equipment, they can't be handled just by hands.

    So, why bother and torture yourself with one humongous turbine instead of having two smaller, but still quite large ones?

    Also, this gives redundancy.
     
  19. Feb 16, 2013 #18
    Reactor RBMK has 2 turbines.
     
  20. Feb 17, 2013 #19
    You're right, having multiple smaller turbines is probably better than just one giant one for the reasons you stated.
     
  21. Feb 17, 2013 #20

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Large equipment is transportable by road. That's usually how it gets to (of from) the plant. Each steam generator at San Onofre was about ~400 tons, ~65 feet in height and about 17 feet at maximum width.
    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/san-376670-onofre-generators.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/san-onofre-nuclear-generator_n_2077732.html
    (turn down the volume and ignore that advertisements)

    Two 600 MWe turbines still need specialized cranes/equipment, and each turbine rotor and the casings cannot be lifted by hand. Most people cannot lift and carry an object of their body weight very well. There are usually limits on what people lift, <25 kg.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Have they located the melted fuel at Fukushima?
  1. Fukushima. Decision. (Replies: 1)

Loading...