zapperzero
- 1,045
- 2
default.user said:
Yep. http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/04/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-ishikawa-of-jnti.html" did.
Last edited by a moderator:
default.user said:
zapperzero said:Yep. http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/04/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-ishikawa-of-jnti.html" did.
zapperzero said:Can't be. The number of channels in the core where bundles (assemblies) go is fixed, no?
It was March 11th, at approximately 16:00. It is a frame from the video shot from a helicopter shortly after the tsunami, see for example this version of the video:Jorge Stolfi said:Well, the mystery thickens.<..>
What was the date of the photo showin the Mickey Mouse ears?
elektrownik said:No way it would be extream radioactive, and it would melt without cooling.
About unit #4. This is possible that they were repleacting core shroud, reactor 4 was shout down and defueled becouse there was some crack in core shroud, so this would be possible that they were repleacing it. There is no much space, but look on this photo:
![]()
~kujala~ said:As for the route from unit 2 to the waste treatment facility...
From these pictures one can see that the route from unit 2 trench to the facility goes through/near 2, 3 and 4 turbine buildings:
http://varasto.kerrostalo.huone.net/pump_route.jpg
http://varasto.kerrostalo.huone.net/pump_route_2.jpg
Here is the text related to these pictures:
http://www.ordons.com/asia/far-east/24807-tepco-to-accelerate-transfer-of-radioactive-water.html
So if the hoses are leaking you never know where the water is going to end.
~kujala~ said:Also these might have caused the http://varasto.kerrostalo.huone.net/sub_drain_spike.png" on the 20th of April in units 1, 3, 4 and 6:
http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110430-3-2.pdf
As for the route from unit 2 to the waste treatment facility...
From these pictures one can see that the route from unit 2 trench to the facility goes through/near 2, 3 and 4 turbine buildings:
http://varasto.kerrostalo.huone.net/pump_route.jpg
http://varasto.kerrostalo.huone.net/pump_route_2.jpg
Here is the text related to these pictures:
http://www.ordons.com/asia/far-east/24807-tepco-to-accelerate-transfer-of-radioactive-water.html
So if the hoses are leaking you never know where the water is going to end.
About the radiation in the number 6 building:
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/01_15.html
Is the number 6 leaking also?![]()
MadderDoc said:It was March 11th, at approximately 16:00. It is a frame from the video shot from a helicopter shortly after the tsunami, see for example this version of the video:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhsf3e_new-film-of-tsunami-aftermath_news
There's perhaps disappointingly little mystery in it. If one takes account of the poor quality of the video from March 11th, and its being shot in a more oblique angle, it appears to be showing the same as the photo we have from March 12th:
![]()
Note: The image in the center has been subjected to the shearing/perspective tools of Gimp, in order to correct for the more oblique angle it was taken, so as to ease comparison.
No malice was intended. I honestly don't think it is possible to get the replacement core shroud through that hole in the wall in one piece. And even if you managed to do so, the troubles getting it to the service floor would not end there ..MiceAndMen said:Nice try. According to this http://www.irpa.net/irpa10/cdrom/00584.pdf the core shroud is approximately 4.5 meters in diameter and about 7 meters high. So it would more closely resemble the attached pictures.
View attachment 35063View attachment 35064
It's almost a perfect fit.
The amount of room to work between the wall and the SFP could be a problem for this arrangement. That is certainly true. Thus, my thirst for more and better blueprints. I was frankly surprised when I quickly whipped up the core shroud cylinder and placed it on the low roof. There could be other reasons why they needed a 5 x 5 m opening (or whatever it is).
The scariest thing is I-131 steadily increasing under reactor 3.~kujala~ said:I noticed yesterday there was this spike in the sub-drain radiation of the unit 4 on the 20th of April.
Now when examining more closely the sub-drain data the same kind of spike can be seen in the unit 1, 3 and 6.
In this picture I put the data from 1, 3, 4 and 6 on top of each other so that this spike can be more clearly seen:
http://varasto.kerrostalo.huone.net/sub_drain_spike.png
Source:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110430e12.pdf
Cainnech said:Another copy of the photo of the "shadow" with a slightly better resolution.
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201103/r733167_5929130.jpg
Found it here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/photos/2011/03/12/3162376.htm
I have no idea what it is, but to me it looks like some sort of rack or grid with kind of a tube on top...![]()
Another possibility is that there is water interchange between the subdrains of #1, 2 and 3. #3 has had I-131 levels below that of #1 and #2 and the graph shows it catching up to those other levels over the last several measurements. If there is no interchange, that would not bode well imo. Additional, refining question is: shouldn't we be seeing the I-131 levels dropping at the 8[STRIKE]hr[/STRIKE] day half life rate rather than remaining constant/increasing? Doesn't this amount of data over time indicate the I-131 is being replenished by some process?PietKuip said:The scariest thing is I-131 steadily increasing under reactor 3.
This looks like criticality to me.
triumph61 said:Also the stair is still to see. On the next Fotos, a few days later, the stair is away?? How does is work?
8-day halflife for iodine-131.StrangeBeauty said:Another possibility is that there is water interchange between the subdrains of #1, 2 and 3. #3 has had I-131 levels below that of #1 and #2 and the graph shows it catching up to those other levels over the last several measurements. If there is no interchange, that would not bode well imo. Additional, refining question is: shouldn't we be seeing the I-131 levels dropping at the 8hr half life rate rather than remaining constant/increasing? Doesn't this amount of data over time indicate the I-131 is being replenished by some process?
It's indeed difficult to decide which model to apply with such a small amount of hard data. I tend to trust more on the refill rates published than the lucky chance which destroued the gate.htf said:When calculating the leakage rate of the SFP#4 I get these formulas for the leakage rate r:
1. Refill at constant rate:
r1 = V/t*ln(C(t)/C(0))
2. Refill only once:
r2 = V/t*(C/C(0) - 1)
The truth is somewhere in between because TEPCO probably does a refill once or twice a day. But this does not really matter: r1 / r2 = 1.29.
What is more important: there is the volume V of the SFP in the formula. Now, TEPCO said that the gate between the SFP and the RPV has been destroyed. This would increase the effective volume we have to put into these formula.
With V = 1200 m3 we get a leakage rate of ~40m3/day. Adding ~70m3/day evaporation rate we get 110m3/day total loss rate which is consistent with the refill rate published by TEPCO.
But if we have to increase the volume V (I estimate a factor 3) we get much higher rates (120m3/day leakage rate + ~70m3/day evaporation rate = 190 m3/day total loss rate) which are no longer consistent with refill rate published by TEPCO.
Please, can somebody calculate the energy output of a reaction which ends with x Bq iodine?PietKuip said:The scariest thing is I-131 steadily increasing under reactor 3.
This looks like criticality to me.
The way to gauge the energy output would be to measure a neutron flux somewhere near the reactor.Rive said:Please, can somebody calculate the energy output of a reaction which ends with x Bq iodine?
You don't need the neutron flux - that determines only the timeframe of the energy release (but a long timeframe is a bit problematic due the half-life of the iodine ).PietKuip said:The way to gauge the energy output would be to measure a neutron flux somewhere near the reactor.
That is data that Tepco does not wish to publish.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201104300099.htmlTEPCO releases image inside spent fuel pool at No. 4 reactor
2011/05/01
Tokyo Electric Power Co. released on April 29 an image of fuel assemblies in the storage pool of spent fuel rods in the No. 4 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
"Although the image shows some rubble sitting on part of a steel rack (of fuel assemblies), no serious damage was identified," TEPCO said.
This is the first time an image of fuel assemblies inside the pool was released to the public after the crisis unfolded at the plant as a result of the Great East Japan Earthquake last month.
The image was taken April 28 with a camera on the tip of the long arm of a concrete pump used to spray water into the pool.
The image showed the status of the storage pool about six meters below the surface of the water.
Fuel assemblies are seen placed in each square of the steel rack in the pool. The image showed glittering new fuel assemblies and darker spent fuel rods. Seven control rods were shown on the right side.
Workers also collected 150 cc of water from the pool April 28 for analysis. Results showed the level of cesium-137 was 55 becquerels per 1 cc of water and that of iodine-131 was 27 becquerels per 1 cc of water, both lower than levels detected in a check of samples taken April 13.
TEPCO believes no additional leaks of radioactive materials have taken place at the reactor.
It said the radioactive materials detected in the latest check could have come from seawater sprayed into the pool to cool the reactor.
Seawater in the vicinity of the plant has been contaminated by radiation leaked by the facility.
PietKuip said:8-day halflife for iodine-131.
The striking thing is that I-131 has been going up for the last week at unit 3, without cesium increasing at the same rate. Indeed, some of those days, the cesium activity decreased.
Soil chemistry is complicated. But the most obvious process replenishing I-131 would be uranium fission.
I assume you mean I-131 from fission of U-235.Rive said:Please, can somebody calculate the energy output of a reaction which ends with x Bq iodine?
Nopefluutekies said:Does that answer your question?
Then calculate amount U-235 needed and use fission energy.Rive said:NopeI (you) need an energy equivalent.
x Bq I131 = y J.
elektrownik said:From new nisa report we can see that all temperatures are going up...
Cainnech said:Article 2011/05/01 from The Asahi Shimbun regarding the image of fuel rods in SFP4.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201104300099.html
None takenMadderDoc said:No malice was intended. I honestly don't think it is possible to get the replacement core shroud through that hole in the wall in one piece. And even if you managed to do so, the troubles getting it to the service floor would not end there ..
My central contention in all this is that the green box/framework/hole thing could have had something to do with the core shroud replacement project, not that that spot was definitively the location of core shroud ingress. I really don't care how they got them in and out of the building. The core shroud replacement job is much more than a routine refueling outage. There must be (literally) tons of extra equipment and tools needed above and beyond what's normally in the reactor building, and maybe whatever was happening on the low roof in the SE corner of the building was in a support role for all that extra stuff.MadderDoc said:It is curious that with all the technical details we know of the shroud replacement procedure, that we don't know how the shroud gets to the service floor. Do we know that it is being brought in, in one piece? From diagrams I've seen, the construction of the shroud itself involves the welding together of several cylindrical 'slices'.
dh87 said:Do you have a link to this report?