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.
  • #5,761
jpquantin said:
Can you explain how you get to 2000 kW + 400 kW?

see https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3242513&postcount=3526" there I plotted the decay heat for the first year.

400kW is estimated as heat load from old spent >> 1 year
2000kW was calculated for 4 month old spent fuel (today we can take 5 month and reduce to 1.6 to 1.8MW)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #5,762
|Fred said:
Let me rephrase , we have Two set of document exhibiting what seems to be contradictory data. My question aim to understand if those document are contradictory or if they do not exhibit the same kind of informationData posted here: http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/saigaijohou/syousai/1305747.htm
For exemple http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/other/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/05/03/1305746_0312_11.pdf

Are those simulation made at different date based on hypothetical scenario ? ? (they exhibit radiation level in populated area in the 0.1 Sv and more)And data posted there's http://www.nsc.go.jp/mext_speedi/ and I'm reffering to http://www.nsc.go.jp/mext_speedi/past.html to be precise. ]
Are Those hourly projection based on actual condition ? or hypothetical scenario?
(they exhibit radiation level in amount of 0.0000000000000001 Sv)

"SPEEDIによる単位量放出を仮定した予測計算結果(これまでに行った1時間毎の予測)
○ 今回の事故においては、事故発生直後から、文部科学省の委託業務契約に基づいて財団法人原子力安全技術セン ターが予測計算を実施しています。 ただし、ここでは、上記のように放出源情報が得られていないことから、「単位量放出」を仮定した予測計算を 行っています。 これは、原子炉施設から放射性の希ガス又はヨウ素が1時間あたり1ベクレル(Bq)放出(単位量放出)され る状態が1時間続いたものと仮定して、放射性希ガスによる地上でのガンマ線量率(空気吸収線量率)の分布と 、大気中の放射性ヨウ素の濃度分布の時間変化を予測するものです。 この予測は、これらの量の測定(緊急時モニタリング)の参考とするため、原子力防災関係者間で共有されてき ました。 この予測結果は、現実の放出量の変化を反映したものではありませんし、気象予測の誤差の影響を含んでいます 。
○ ここに示すこれまでの予測計算結果は、原子力安全委員会が文部科学省から提供を受けたものです 。
⇒ これまでの予測計算結果はこちら"

I wrote a long, detailed reply, which got lost because my login timed out while I was writing it, and I don't have the energy to redo it. But basically, the MEXT and NSC websites are plotting somewhat different quantities, using different source term assumptions. The MEXT plots are based on some assumptions about released iodine and rare gases for a reactor that shut down at 14:47 on 3/11 (they assume 1.9x10^19 Bq/h for noble gases, 1.7x10^18 Bq/h for iodine, at 17:00 on 3/12). The NSC calculations are for simple unit releases (1 Bq/h each of iodine and rare gases), because they didn't have any data on what got released when. So the NSC plots have to be scaled by some realistic estimate of source terms to get realistic integrated doses.

Also, the MEXT plots are for ground exposure (Bq/m^2), adult exposure (mSv) and infant thyroid exposure (mSv), while the NSC plots are for air concentrations of iodine (Bq/m^3) and air absorbed dose rates for gammas from rare gases (microGy/h). The MEXT source term is assumed to be at a height of 1 m, the NSC source term at 120 m (exhaust tower height?). The only thing the models seem to have in common is the wind pattern.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5,763
AntonL said:
see https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3242513&postcount=3526" there I plotted the decay heat for the first year.

400kW is estimated as heat load from old spent >> 1 year
2000kW was calculated for 4 month old spent fuel (today we can take 5 month and reduce to 1.6 to 1.8MW)

Thank you for your explanation.

I also found that edgepflow used a different formula in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3188377&postcount=113".

You can back-of-the-envelope estimate the decay heat power with infinite fuel exposure from (Ref. "Nuclear Heat Transport" El-Wakil):

P(t) = 0.095 Po ts ^ -0.26

Po = power before shutdown
ts = shutdown time is seconds

Applying it to SFP4 for 4 month old spent fuel would give 3.1~3.2 MW max. Can you explain the difference in your calculation please?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5,764
TCups said:
Every temperature measurement of the SFP's I have seen are by IR images (maybe with laser interferometry?). Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can comment, but it would seem that IR images would read only the visible surface temperature, that the temperature would be somewhat averaged with the interposed air temperature, and that much of the surface of SFP remains obscured by the FHM, crane, and roof structures. If there has been insertion of any direct reading temperature probe(s) into the pools, I missed it (entirely possible).

The IR camera will measure the cooler temperature of the steam above a boiling surface.
As for the bird song on the live video, this must be subject to closer scrutiny. The audio track may have been heavily edited with the bird song added just to increase the impact for a live video stream.

On the other hand, the presence of a live audio track accompanying the live video feed, which apparently matches the exact location of the existing videos of the explosion at Unit 3, might give credence to the theory that the only existing audio track of the explosion at Unit 3 (of which I know), was likewise recorded "live" by the same camera and microphone, even if the audio track were then edited at a later to visually synch it with the video for TV newscast.

The bird song seems to be genuine it is very faint and random and wind noise can be heard too.

Back to the explosion of unit 3, if the three booms where recorded by the same microphone, and the camera being some 13 km distant (https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3282622&postcount=5737" ) the sound would have been some 39 seconds after the visual in still air. As the observation spot is on top of a mountain it is quite possible that echoes would be heard from nearby mountains. As the sound path for the echoes is different there would have been different Doppler shifts, signal compression and phase shifting of the sound wave by the different air velocities of the sound path so that the sound signatures of the echoes would not be the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5,765
|Fred said:
And data posted there's http://www.nsc.go.jp/mext_speedi/ and I'm reffering to http://www.nsc.go.jp/mext_speedi/past.html to be precise. ]
Are Those hourly projection based on actual condition ? or hypothetical scenario?
(they exhibit radiation level in amount of 0.0000000000000001 Sv)

"SPEEDIによる単位量放出を仮定した予測計算結果"

"Results of SPEEDI's prediction/estimate calculations based on assumed emission quantities"

Translation key:
による due to / according to
単位 unit (of something measurable)
量 quantity / amount
放出 emission / release
を [direct object marker]
仮定 assumption / hypothesis
した "has done / was done"
予測 prediction / estimation
計算 calculation / forecast
結果 result / consequence
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5,766
jpquantin said:
Thank you for your explanation.

I also found that edgepflow used a different formula in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3188377&postcount=113".
edgepflow said:
They have lost significant amounts of heat over 3 days, but the power output is still large. You can back-of-the-envelope estimate the decay heat power with infinite fuel exposure from (Ref. "Nuclear Heat Transport" El-Wakil):

P(t) = 0.095 Po ts ^ -0.26

Po = power before shutdown
ts = shutdown time is seconds
Applying it to SFP4 for 4 month old spent fuel would give 3.1~3.2 MW max. Can you explain the difference in your calculation please?
Maybe someone more knowledgeable should comment!

Above formula for decay heat is different to that shown in the Cambridge University slide that I used a basis for my caluclation, https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20457%20CSE%20462%20Safety%20Analysis%20of%20Nuclear%20Reactor%20Systems/Decay%20Heat%20generation%20in%20Fission%20Reactors.pdf" also uses the same formula as the one in the Cambridge University slide except for the time unit is days in stead of seconds as below.
[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/ikop60.JPG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5,767
|Fred said:
Let me rephrase , we have Two set of document exhibiting what seems to be contradictory data. My question aim to understand if those document are contradictory or if they do not exhibit the same kind of information


Data posted here: http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/saigaijohou/syousai/1305747.htm
For exemple http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/other/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/05/03/1305746_0312_11.pdf

Are those simulation made at different date based on hypothetical scenario ? ? (they exhibit radiation level in populated area in the 0.1 Sv and more)





And data posted there's http://www.nsc.go.jp/mext_speedi/ and I'm reffering to http://www.nsc.go.jp/mext_speedi/past.html to be precise. ]
Are Those hourly projection based on actual condition ? or hypothetical scenario?
(they exhibit radiation level in amount of 0.0000000000000001 Sv)

I'm scratching my head at this as well. Some of the numbers seem off by several orders of magnitude. This English translation of data made available on 3/24 (sorry, can't find the original link at the moment) says specifically that these are estimates based on measuring dust (not specified if airborne or on the ground), and not reactor nuclide output. I'm trying to find the estimation procedure they used by which 1-5mSv external exposure correlates with 100mSv internal for infants' thyroids. Anybody?
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5,768
Rowmag sorry about that , and thank you once again for the invaluable help you provide us on the board.


What is a bit confusing is that "NSC" paper are also labeled from MEXT.
What you are saying troubles me as the Paper found on NSC seems to be really up to date (latest from yesterday) It seems weird to me that they keed doing analysis on wrong (assumed) data?

And the MEXT data are as well make on assumed data

So basically we have a software.. And instead of inputing the day by day measured data they inputed a couple of different data model ? Seems like non sens to me ?
 
Last edited:
  • #5,769
Azby said:
I'm trying to find the estimation procedure they used by which 1-5mSv external exposure correlates with 100mSv internal for infants' thyroids. Anybody?
Tcup might be able to explain that. There is a weight factor of (0.05) (might have change) for the Thyroids. but it still does not do the math
 
  • #5,770
|Fred said:
Rowmag sorry about that , and thank you once again for the invaluable help you provide us on the board.What is a bit confusing is that "NSC" paper are also labeled from MEXT.
What you are saying troubles me as the Paper found on NSC seems to be really up to date (latest from yesterday) It seems weird to me that they keed doing analysis on wrong (assumed) data?

And the MEXT data are as well make on assumed data

So basically we have a software.. And instead of inputing the day by day measured data they inputed a couple of different data model ? Seems like non sens to me ?

The NSC web page mentions that they are running these models for MEXT. Not sure if MEXT also ran models themselves, but if so, it was clearly with the same software, if different input assumptions.

But anyway, these hourly plots are really only useful for seeing where stuff is heading, but not how much stuff is heading there. For the long-term integrations (such as http://www.nsc.go.jp/mext_speedi/0312-0424_in.pdf or http://www.nsc.go.jp/mext_speedi/0312-0424_ex.pdf ), there was apparently some attempt made at estimating realistic source terms, by using dust sampling measurements. (I.e., they use down-stream measurements and wind patterns to back-calculate the source terms.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5,771
AntonL said:
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20457%20CSE%20462%20Safety%20Analysis%20of%20Nuclear%20Reactor%20Systems/Decay%20Heat%20generation%20in%20Fission%20Reactors.pdf" also uses the same formula as the one in the Cambridge University slide except for the time unit is days in stead of seconds as below.

I've done a calculation with T0 = 365 days, assuming that no re-fuel had taken place at unit 4 since one year before its stop on Nov. 29th 2010, based on reports of 100% operation for one year http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/aij/index2.html" . I found 1.2 MW? Did you take T0 as 365?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5,772
jlduh said:
... (i still cannot see the TBS video feed unfortunately...

EDIT; Thanks ANTON L for posting the captured frames of the TBS feed if something new happens, like the one just above, as I'm a little bit frustrated not to be able to get it live...

FRED, as you are probably also based in France, do you have access to the live feed? I wonder if it's access rights related.

I am in Germany and was having the same problems. But for me it works connecting via proxy server
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5,773
I made some rough sketching of core burnup distributions assuming 12 month equilibrium cycles, 80 % availability, 6 irradiation cycles for each assembly prior to final discharge, and 170 kg uranium weight per assembly. For different batches I assumed the relative power fractions of 1.1, 1.2, 1.1, 1, 0.9 and 0.8. Roughly, for a 400-assembly unit with 1380 MWth around 140 EFPD I got the batch average burnups 3, 10, 17, 23, 28 and 33 and for a 548-assembly 2381 MWth unit about 4, 12, 21, 28, 35, and 42 MWd/kgU at the time of shutdown.

Then I took the decay heat data from burnup/shut down cooling calculations made (by someone else - credits due) for a "generic" BWR fuel assembly with different void histories, and calculated core-average power-weighted decay heats at different cooldown times. The results are in the attached file. This approach should give somewhat overestimated values, since it does not take into account the cooldown periods at refueling outages, but rather burns the fuel with constant power density starting from fresh fuel, and ending at 5, 10, 15 MWd/kgU etc., and then continuing with the cooldown calculation for 1800 days.

This is just an exercise I made in order to get some kind of an idea of the decay heats one could assume at this time. Therefore I have not had the time to do any double-checking of the results. Qualitatively, however, they seem to appear sensible. A decent decay heat calculation would follow the decay heat from each nuclide separately and take into accound the different saturation and cooldown periods during plant operation, but that's beyond my resources at the moment. It would, however, be nice to hear what kind of estimates others have for the decay heat of the earthquake-stricken reactors.
 

Attachments

  • #5,774
TCups said:
REGARDING TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS
Every temperature measurement of the SFP's I have seen are by IR images (maybe with laser interferometry?). Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can comment, but it would seem that IR images would read only the visible surface temperature, that the temperature would be somewhat averaged with the interposed air temperature, and that much of the surface of SFP remains obscured by the FHM, crane, and roof structures. If there has been insertion of any direct reading temperature probe(s) into the pools, I missed it (entirely possible).

There are at least 3 different types of temperature measurements:

IR images that you mention.

Skimmer surge tank data that is published daily. Unit 4 temperature has been unavailable for ages (last available reading was 14th march) but this skimmer temp data is still available for unit 2.

More direct measurement. We don't know how often they do this, as data not published very often, but most of the headline news stories about boiling pools comes from this data. According to my notes, the following temperatures for pool 4 have been mentioned:

April 12th 90 deg C
April 22nd 91 deg C
April 23rd 83 deg C, then 66 deg C after spraying
April 24th 86 deg C, then 81 deg C after spraying

edited to add that I am not sure where I got the first couple of temperatures from, likely press or company reports, but it was an IAEA report from April 27th that gave me the more recent 'before and after spraying' data:

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushima270411.html

In Unit 4 140 tonnes of fresh water was sprayed over the spent fuel pool on 23 April and 165 tonnes of fresh water was sprayed over the spent fuel pool on 24 April using a concrete pump truck. The nuclear emergency response headquarters reported that temperature measurements showed the spent fuel pool temperature to be 83 °C before spraying and 66 °C after spraying on 23 April, and the spent fuel pool temperature to be 86 °C before spraying and 81 °C after spraying on 24 April.
 
Last edited:
  • #5,775
pdObq said:
A few pages back there has been some discussion about where the refueling crane (FHM = Fuel Handling Machine?) of unit 3 has gone, and if it could be below the big crane...

Looking at this image, I noticed that brownish-greenish structure with something that looks like a bent metal pole sticking out in the middle-left part of the image. There is some gray debris on its lower part, likely concrete pieces. Is it possible that this object is the unit 3 fuel crane that has maybe been ejected from the service floor in the unit 3 explosion? Would the size and its current position make any sense? The brownish color might be rust, and maybe we are seeing the bottom of the crane.

Its approximately the right size, and its in a place that would make sense.

However, looking at an image taken from a different angle clearly shows that its actually some sort of ground vehicle/crane that has an arm extending into the sky (the small one near bottom of this picture, not the larger more obvious crane):
 

Attachments

  • notrefuelling.jpg
    notrefuelling.jpg
    9.9 KB · Views: 484
  • #5,776
MadderDoc said:
I am sure you have noticed that a part of the metal roof structure is missing on the roof in the south end. That's because in the course of the blast it ended up in the yard between units 3 and 4. Fortunately its attachment to the south edge of the roof has been that much retained that one can see that one end has been torn apart, while the other end appears to have been affected by a similar heat-damage what we are talking about effect. Are we to assume three separate fire/blast events, two on the roof and one in the yard?

Detail from one end of the roof structure landed in the 3/4 yard:
20110320_down_4-3a_detail.jpg
Sorry, on that picture I can see nothing, I have to check that area on other pics/vids.

My point is that two rusty spots/release paths are too sharp-edged and detailed to be made before (or just in the same time) the roof had fallen to its actual place.



Otherwise, some pictures attached. The THawk.jpg is from the first THawk-releases, the other two is from the drone flyovers at 03.24. Any ideas?
 

Attachments

  • THawk.jpg
    THawk.jpg
    49.8 KB · Views: 503
  • Upview.JPG
    Upview.JPG
    36.3 KB · Views: 492
  • U3FHM.JPG
    U3FHM.JPG
    39.6 KB · Views: 495
Last edited:
  • #5,777
Is that a lake of water?
 
  • #5,778
Dotini said:
Is that a lake of water?

Is there a specific image you're referring to?
 
  • #5,779
In the rmattila's estimate after 6 months (180 days) the decay heat seems to be somewhere near 1 MW for the 2 381 MW thermal power output:

http://varasto.kerrostalo.huone.net/decay_heat_mattila.png

Soon we will have so many estimates that no matter what your theory is you can always pick an approriate decay heat estimate for it. :smile:
 
  • #5,780
WhoWee said:
Is there a specific image you're referring to?

The attached thumbnails of post 5792. My eyes are 62 years old.
 
Last edited:
  • #5,781
Dotini said:
Is that a lake of water?
It's the spent fuel pool of Unit 3. The pool looks a bit smaller than it should be I think - I hope the difference is partially because of the fuel handling machine, hiding under the rubble (and maybe partially submerged on the THawk-picture?).

Ps.: Sorry for the small pictures.
 
Last edited:
  • #5,782
Rive said:
Sorry, on that picture I can see nothing, I have to check that area on other pics/vids.

My point is that two rusty spots/release paths are too sharp-edged and detailed to be made before (or just in the same time) the roof had fallen to its actual place.
Otherwise, some pictures attached. The THawk.jpg is from the first THawk-releases, the other two is from the drone flyovers at 03.24. Any ideas?

I have enlarged the third picture.

it was edited.
maybe you can see there glowing nuclear fuel rods.

one can clearly account for different pixel sizes. water would not cause this effect.

This is of course my personal opinion.

regards from germany
 

Attachments

  • pixel-error.JPG
    pixel-error.JPG
    14 KB · Views: 594
  • pixel-errorII.JPG
    pixel-errorII.JPG
    6.4 KB · Views: 523
  • #5,783
default.user said:
I have enlarged the third picture.

it was edited.
maybe you can see there glowing nuclear fuel rods.

one can clearly account for different pixel sizes. water would not cause this effect.

This is of course my personal opinion.

regards from germany

Oh my god default.user you're bloody right!
 
  • #5,784
default.user said:
it was edited.
Well.

After decompressing the original video to uncompressed size I've deshaked it with VDub, then there was two turns with VideoEnhancer, then some artifact-cleanup, contrast enhancement, cropping, and at the end it was exported as jpeg. Then you zoomed it.

It can be even Osama's clone :-)
 
  • #5,785
Rive said:
Well.

After decompressing the original video to uncompressed size I've deshaked it with VDub, then there was two turns with VideoEnhancer, then some artifact-cleanup, contrast enhancement, cropping, and at the end it was exported as jpeg. Then you zoomed it.

It can be even Osama's clone :-)

Sorry, my mistake.

edit:

I see an empty pool if the answer is still interesting.
 

Attachments

  • THawk-lines.jpg
    THawk-lines.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 525
  • #5,786
Looking at the latest plant parameter data ( http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/00_05041200.pdf), all reactor 3 temps apart from suppression chamber are continuing to climb.

And I think that perhaps they are trying to respond to this, because I note that at 11:00 today the water injection rate for reactor 3 is shown as 9.0 m3/h, up from 7.0 at 05:00 ( and 6.9 and 6.8 on previous days).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5,787
SteveElbows said:
Looking at the latest plant parameter data ( http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/00_05041200.pdf), all reactor 3 temps apart from suppression chamber are continuing to climb.

And I think that perhaps they are trying to respond to this, because I note that at 11:00 today the water injection rate for reactor 3 is shown as 9.0 m3/h, up from 7.0 at 05:00 ( and 6.9 and 6.8 on previous days).

Yes it look like they want to cool down #3 which is now 213C from unknown reason...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5,788
SteveElbows said:
Looking at the latest plant parameter data ( http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/00_05041200.pdf), all reactor 3 temps apart from suppression chamber are continuing to climb.

And I think that perhaps they are trying to respond to this, because I note that at 11:00 today the water injection rate for reactor 3 is shown as 9.0 m3/h, up from 7.0 at 05:00 ( and 6.9 and 6.8 on previous days).

If this is an ongoing trend, I can't understand how the government and military can stand by and agonize over this much longer. Won't they have to bring the ocean to u1, u2, u3 and u4? Or bring them to the ocean? Wait till the wind blows out to sea and take care of it? This whole thing needs to be shielded from humanity. OHHHHHHH the humanity. Best regards from Minnesota.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5,790
rowmag said:
I wrote a long, detailed reply, which got lost because my login timed out while I was writing it, and I don't have the energy to redo it.

Don't you hate it when that happens? I now usually do crtl-a and then crtl-c before I press 'submit.' That way, if I have timed out, the reply is saved to my clipboard.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
49K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2K ·
60
Replies
2K
Views
451K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
20K
  • · Replies 763 ·
26
Replies
763
Views
274K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
16K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K