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.
  • #9,061
Bioengineer01 said:
Am I the only Engineer that sees a two stage explosion on Unit 3? Stage 1: the detonation that creates the flash to the right and then, afterwards Stage 2: the upside going explosion that behaves very similarly to a nuclear detonation, and may be was...
Just loop the video in the link around the explosion and observe the two clear stages of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7naSc81WSqA&feature=related

You are not the only person who noticed the event appeared to occur in two stages.
I saw it on TV that morning and have been obsessive about it since.


I can niether rule out nor prove that it may have had some help from neutrons.

There exists a group called "American Nuclear Society , Nuclear Criticality Safety Division" whom one would expect to have analyzed and reassured us by now. The silence is deafening.

One thing Arnie did get right - where information is concerned ranks are closed.

TPTB are avoiding the subject.


satellite 3 minutes after explosion:

http://www.satimagingcorp.com/galleryimages/worldview-2-fukushima-daiichi.jpg
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #9,062
MiceAndMen said:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110513x2.html

That took me about 1 minute to find with Google.

Thanks for the link although the page currently doesn't load due to "congestion." I could certainly have looked for it myself, but I don't know what you were referring to when you said TEPCO had a Plan B, so obviously I don't know what to search for.

Edit: Page now loaded and I think you may have misunderstood me. What's described in the article in my mind IS Plan A. My question is/was, what if they end up with more water than can be stored/decontaminated/recirculated, then what's Plan B?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9,063
Bodge said:
Evidence of recriticality in reactor 1?

I noticed the increase in I-131 detection on the CTBTO chart matched up with the "erroneous" recordings of radiation spikes in reactor 1's drywell:

http://www.bfs.de/de/ion/imis/ctbto_aktivitaetskonzentrationen_jod.gif
http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/plots/cur/out/plot-un1-t-T-full.png

SixU3.jpg


edit: Just noticed at http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/06/arnie-gundersen-on-and-off.html" commenters claim that the CTBTO Iodine spikes match up with increased temps at reactor 3's RPV flange.

Somebody needs to properly correlate the relevant data.

They don't correlate, I plotted the temperature data for Unit 3 until the 20th
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9,064
http://www.satimagingcorp.com/galleryimages/worldview-2-fukushima-daiichi.jpg

I still want to know what is in the steam (and occasional smoke) that has been coming out from two locations in what used to be reactor building number three. For almost three months now.

It can't possibly be that nobody can measure this.

I'm especially interested in what looks like a huge tea kettle spout in the middle of the building.
 
  • #9,065
robinson said:
http://www.satimagingcorp.com/galleryimages/worldview-2-fukushima-daiichi.jpg

I still want to know what is in the steam (and occasional smoke) that has been coming out from two locations in what used to be reactor building number three. For almost three months now.

It can't possibly be that nobody can measure this.

I'm especially interested in what looks like a huge tea kettle spout in the middle of the building.

Teakettle spout? mark up a photo ... are you speaking of this?

second10COPY.png
 
  • #9,066
NUCENG said:
Questions:

1. Where is the Japan CTBTO sensor? Are the peaks in CTBTO data correlated with wind direction to the sensor from the Fukushima site?

2. Have the peaks been checked for increases in other short half life isotopes?

3. If the peaks are due to short recriticalities shouldn't the increase be followed by an exponential decay from the new peak? It looks like they drop right back to the decay trend that was in place before the short peaks.

4. Shouldn't the Unit 1 drywell radiation detectors show some time delay to the CTBTO sensor unless that sensor is on site.
.
.
1. http://www.ctbto.org/map/" (approx 200km and 100km away from Fuk Daiichi)
.
.
2. From WindGuru
vXK9S.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9,067
MiceAndMen said:
Does he have a cite for that? I seem to recall that during the Shoreham fiasco in New York local authorities claimed that (a) the roads during an evacuation would be clogged due (in part) to parents going to get their kids, and (b) school bus drivers would be AWOL anyway, having gone to look after their own families. I can't believe the NRC just arbitrarily claimed something else. In fact, now that I think about it, the NRC is concerned only with actual radiation releases and does not overly concern themselves with the details of accident response. Outside of seeing that there is some evacuation plan in place, those plans are outside of the NRC's purpose and scope of responsibility.

I'd really like to see him back that claim up, but if I had a nickle for every time I thought that about Gundersen I'd be rich.

Of course, I can't speak for Gunderson and where his information comes from as to parents not picking up their children. I can, however, confirm that at least for the area I live in (southern California, close to San Onofre NPP), that's exactly the plan. See linked document, page 7, point 1.

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/oes/docs/ever-ready2009.pdf

I can also confirm that about 20 years ago during an evacuation due to a huge fire, those were exactly the instructions provided to parents: do not pick up your children, the schools will evacuate them themselves. And they did.
 
  • #9,069
jim hardy said:
You are not the only person who noticed the event appeared to occur in two stages.
I saw it on TV that morning and have been obsessive about it since.


I can niether rule out nor prove that it may have had some help from neutrons.

There exists a group called "American Nuclear Society , Nuclear Criticality Safety Division" whom one would expect to have analyzed and reassured us by now. The silence is deafening.

One thing Arnie did get right - where information is concerned ranks are closed.

TPTB are avoiding the subject.


satellite 3 minutes after explosion:

http://www.satimagingcorp.com/galleryimages/worldview-2-fukushima-daiichi.jpg

In the photo at the southwest corner of Unit 3 RB it looks like the SBGT pipe might be severed or at least has some debris laying on it. There is no damage to Unit 4 RB yet. If any of you graphics experts can look at this it may be evidence to rule out Hydrogen from Unit 3 causing the explosion or damage in unit 4 through the common stack.
 
  • #9,070
mscharisma said:
Thanks for the link although the page currently doesn't load due to "congestion." I could certainly have looked for it myself, but I don't know what you were referring to when you said TEPCO had a Plan B, so obviously I don't know what to search for.

One of the key elements of the plan was to flood the primary containment vessels to ensure cooling. They shifted to Plan B when they discovered the cores had melted. They have only a very vague idea right now about how they're going to keep the melted fuel cool. They don't even know where it is.

They continually claim to be surprised by events, when it's obvious (at least to me) that all these things should have been anticipated. It is good they now appear to be making some progress, some very good progress, but I believe they are reacting to events rather than implementing any sort of "plan" designed to take control of those events.
 
Last edited:
  • #9,071
MiceAndMen said:
One of the key elements of the plan was to flood the primary containment vessels to ensure cooling. They shifted to Plan B when they discovered the cores had melted. They have only a very vague idea right now about how they're going to keep the melted fuel cool. They don't even know where it is.

Another important element of the original plan was designed to halt the outflow of contaminated water into the sea. That hasn't gone quite according to plan either. They planned to pump all the water out of basements and underground trenches, but for some strange reason the water refuses to go away.

They continually claim to be surprised by events, when it's obvious (at least to me) that all these things should have been anticipated.

Thanks. I just edited my post while you were typing since the article link did finally work. We may have misunderstand each other. When I was wondering about a Plan B, I was speaking solely of the scenario where too much water accumulates to be stored or decontaminated/reprocessed. What will they do then, i.e., what's their Plan B for THAT scenario? Especially since so far many things have not gone according to plan.
 
  • #9,072
mscharisma said:
Thanks. I just edited my post while you were typing since the article link did finally work. We may misunderstand each other. When I was wondering about a Plan B, I was speaking solely of the scenario where too much water accumulates to be stored or decontaminated/reprocessed. What will they do then, i.e., what's their Plan B for THAT scenario? Especially since so far many things have not gone according to plan.

Ah, sorry to have misunderstood. That one's easy: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=29794&terms=float".

But in all seriousness, I think they will just keep expanding the number of tanks brought in from the outside for storage. Is anyone really going to be surprised if it turns out that the water treatment plans are incapable of keeping up with the ongoing accumulation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9,073
MiceAndMen said:
Ah, sorry to have misunderstood. That one's easy: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=29794&terms=float".

But in all seriousness, I think they will just keep expanding the number of tanks brought in from the outside for storage. Is anyone really going to be surprised if it turns out that the water treatment plans are incapable of keeping up with the ongoing accumulation?

That was precisely my concern and question: How likely does it seem to be that they are going to be able to keep up - assuming nothing else will go wrong and AREVA's plant works as anticipated right away -, and what's next (Plan B) if "keeping up" doesn't work? And since my question came up in response to an alternate cleaning solution or claim thereof posted by someone: what on Earth - if anything - is being done right now to look for alternate solutions? While I understand little of the technical intricacies, I cannot help the impression that, and others have mentioned it before, TEPCO seems to be taking a very linear approach: we try this (Plan A), if it doesn't work, we think of something else (Plan B). Maybe I oversimplify in my non-technical mind, but what about thinking about the "what if it doesn't work" right away rather than later? I hear little official or anything about options, hence I was asking.

And yes, I am mentally preparing myself for the mega float coming up as THE solution again. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9,074
Lambert said:
Yeah it was a interview of Kei Sugaoka, here is the info from the youtube video before it was nuked:

"Uploaded by laborvideo on Jun 3, 2011

GE Nuclear Inspector And Whistleblower Kei Sugaoka Speaks Out About Fukushima , GE & Obama
General Electric nuclear plant inspector Kei Sugaoka was one of the inspectors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in 2000. He noticed a crack in the steam dryer which he videotaped. He was later ordered by TEPCO to edit this part of the tape which is illegal in the United States. He went public and some TEPCO managers were fired. He thought that things would change but they have not. Additionally as a result of being a whistleblower he was also fired by General Electric and has been struggling to get the truth out about these dangerous plants. This interview was done on May 5, 2011.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBjiLaVOsI4&feature=
http://criticality.org/2011/05/whistleblower-shutdown-17-nuclear-reactors/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world/asia/27collusion.html?hpw
http://www.baycitizen.org/disasters/story/inside-japans-failing-nuclear-react ...
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20040523x2.html
Production of Labor Video Project www.laborvideo.org laborvideo.blip.tv
(c)2011"


most of the links are dead now, kind of crazy... here is another link i found which is also interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0AA0A2E17C94FC6C



Back up if anyone is interested:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9,075
Lambert said:
Back up if anyone is interested:



Thanks for that. Kei is supposedly writing a book.

Well worth the listen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9,076
razzz said:
Thanks for that. Kei is supposedly writing a book.

Well worth the listen.

Yes the book would be an awesome read, Kei's a rock star for sure, id love to have a few pints with him ;-/
 
  • #9,077
mscharisma said:
That was precisely my concern and question: How likely does it seem to be that they are going to be able to keep up - assuming nothing else will go wrong and AREVA's plant works as anticipated right away -, and what's next (Plan B) if "keeping up" doesn't work? And since my question came up in response to an alternate cleaning solution or claim thereof posted by someone: what on Earth - if anything - is being done right now to look for alternate solutions? While I understand little of the technical intricacies, I cannot help the impression that, and others have mentioned it before, TEPCO seems to be taking a very linear approach: we try this (Plan A), if it doesn't work, we think of something else (Plan B). Maybe I oversimplify in my non-technical mind, but what about thinking about the "what if it doesn't work" right away rather than later? I hear little official or anything about options, hence I was asking.

And yes, I am mentally preparing myself for the mega float coming up as THE solution again. ;)
I managed large engineering teams. You always have your analytical group that needs to think and re-thing everything 10 times until they propose something, those types are great for design work. But for crisis work I had the "drivers", they can think on their feet, they are able to elaborate complex plans in days, rather than months. When you use one group to do the task the other should do, you get a disaster. That is what seems to be happening here, they don't have the right type of people working on the problem. Contingency planning is a basic element of any plan.
 
  • #9,078
Hi dudes, I registered to ask a question of you:

First, check out this video that purportedly shows radioactive steam being released from somewhere under the first floor of reactor 1:



It seems that this steam must be coming up from the basement of reactor 1. Of course, steam means water is boiling.

If the basement is indeed the source of the steam then consider that we know the basement is flooded with millions of gallons of water.

Now, what in this situation could make millions of gallons of water boil?

Could it be that the nuclear fuel has fallen into the basement, achieved criticality, and is now heating all that water?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9,080
jim hardy said:
You are not the only person who noticed the event appeared to occur in two stages.
I saw it on TV that morning and have been obsessive about it since.

In http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw2Aw3komgc" I feel the more telling information is the audio. It actually sounds like three explosions. Assuming that audio is accurate of course.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9,081
jim hardy said:
Teakettle spout?

I was just remarking that the steam cloud from the middle location looks for all the world at times like a giant tea kettle boiling away, with this huge cloud of steam coming out. I have little doubt it is from the reactor, and that containment was breached after the explosion. And the pile of nuclear fuel is boiling away the water they keep dumping on it.

That was obvious on March 17th.

What is remarkable is that 'they' just never mention it, much less publish any data on what is coming out of the reactor in the steam, 24 hours a day, every day since the explosion.
 
  • #9,082
mscharisma said:
That was precisely my concern and question: How likely does it seem to be that they are going to be able to keep up - assuming nothing else will go wrong and AREVA's plant works as anticipated right away -, and what's next (Plan B) if "keeping up" doesn't work?

I have been reading everything I could find since the situation began unfolding. In recent weeks, as talk of these water containers has increased, I've yet to find a single report that talks about any significant number of storage units showing up prior to August. It's June now.

My suspicion is that, for at least some period, the sea will be the only possible place to put the excess water. With rain still coming and, I believe, buildings still uncovered, I just don't see how this will work...
 
  • #9,083
RdFltErr said:
In http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw2Aw3komgc" I feel the more telling information is the audio. It actually sounds like three explosions. Assuming that audio is accurate of course.

The explosion sound issue has already been thoroughly discussed and demonstrated to be added to the video after the recording. It is my understanding that the explosions heard on the video are special effects audio not related to the actual explosion.

Please search through this thread to find the specific information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9,084
swl said:
The explosion sound issue has already been thoroughly discussed and demonstrated to be added to the video after the recording. It is my understanding that the explosions heard on the video are special effects audio not related to the actual explosion.

Please search through this thread to find the specific information.

whoops, sorry bout that :-) thank you for the correction.
 
  • #9,085
jim hardy said:
satellite 3 minutes after explosion:
http://www.satimagingcorp.com/galleryimages/worldview-2-fukushima-daiichi.jpg


Wow, I missed this picture up until now.

At 3 minutes after explosion there were two distinct and separate sources of steam release: the containment structure and the SFP.

This all but confirms T-Cups theory about the source of the blast coming from under the containment lid.
 
  • #9,086
swl said:
The explosion sound issue has already been thoroughly discussed and demonstrated to be added to the video after the recording. It is my understanding that the explosions heard on the video are special effects audio not related to the actual explosion.

Please search through this thread to find the specific information.

Here it is:

5-14 12:07 AM #7168
westfield

westfield is Offline:
Posts: 1
Re: Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants
Originally Posted by Borek
Please search the thread - it is not clear (at least to some) whether the sound is really part of the recording and whether it was not added from some other

source.
I'll have a stab at making it clear. Been lurking for a few weeks but this audio discussion has driven me spare and caused me to unlurk.

Take it from a career audio professional and\or look at the evidence below, it's not in any way the sound of unit #3 exploding. To me, a glance at the

waveforms is enough to see it's a cut up effects track assembled from a 3 or 4 samples with some tweaks with effects and dynamics.

There are SO many things to speculate about, this audio track shouldn't be one of them. It's fake.
 
  • #9,087
Jorge Stolfi said:
Indeed, according to the Cristoph Mueller slides posted earlier, once the fuel is completely molten, the radioactive elements that remain in the liquid melt (corium) will produce 30% of the decay heat power that would be produced by the intact fuel; the other 70% of the decay heat power is due to more volatile elements that will end up elsewhere.

Some of that 70% will escape to the atmosphere, some will be washed out by the cooling water, and perhaps some will be deposited inside the reactor or containment in places and forms that cannot be easily washed out. In any case those 70% are a big contamination problem but should not pose much of a heat management problem. Is this correct?

On the other hand the corium will contain many long-lived isotopes which could be a huge health hazard if they were ejected to the atmosphere. While the contribution of an element to the heat production rate is inversely proportional to its half-life (among other things), its potential for health damage is largely independent of it, at least for lifetimes up to a decade or two. So, while the corium keeps 30% of the decay heat production, it may include a larger fraction of the total health damage potentia of the original fuel.

Mueller divides the fission products into high, medium, and low volatility. At Fukushima, a lot of iodine and some cesium probably were boiled off (together with all the noble gases). However, there's been considerable extraction of the spent fuel by boiling water. Most of Muller's medium volatility fission products (Ba, Sr, Rb, but I'm not sure about La) are going to be readily soluble in water in most chemical forms, and these can be washed out of the spent fuel.

Mueller wrote, "Only medium and low volatility FPsare relocated to the lower head. These FPs generate about 30% of the total decay heat." I am not clear on whether he's saying that only 30% of the heat generation is left or that the fraction of total decay heat that these generate is only 30%, and hence that there's still a lot of heat generation even if these are removed.
 
  • #9,088
mntnfun said:
Hi dudes, I registered to ask a question of you:

First, check out this video that purportedly shows radioactive steam being released from somewhere under the first floor of reactor 1:



It seems that this steam must be coming up from the basement of reactor 1. Of course, steam means water is boiling.

If the basement is indeed the source of the steam then consider that we know the basement is flooded with millions of gallons of water.

Now, what in this situation could make millions of gallons of water boil?

Could it be that the nuclear fuel has fallen into the basement, achieved criticality, and is now heating all that water?


It could be
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9,089
Quim said:
Wow, I missed this picture up until now.

At 3 minutes after explosion there were two distinct and separate sources of steam release: the containment structure and the SFP.

This all but confirms T-Cups theory about the source of the blast coming from under the containment lid.

But the steam is coming from the SFP and the "tool pool". Containment is in the "gap" between the two steam plumes is it not?

Steam has been observed emanating from the "tool pool" side of the containment structure of Unit #3 since the explosion made that area visible but it is a leap to conclude from that visible steam that containment is a blast source isn't it?

We have images of the concrete blocks separating the reactor void from the "tool pool" and they appear to be un-smashed. Given the building damage there was plenty of lateral force to push the side walls of the building out so much. Explosion source inside containment seems illogical to me given what damage we can see. It leaves a question mark about what caused the lateral forces that popped the RB like a concrete balloon. Hydrogen throughout the entire RB seems much more logical imho. Thats just my 2c of course.
 
  • #9,090
I'm responding to westfield #94104
But the steam is coming from the SFP and the "tool pool". Containment is in the "gap" between the two steam plumes is it not?

Steam has been observed emanating from the "tool pool" side of the containment structure of Unit #3 since the explosion made that area visible but it is a leap to conclude from that visible steam that containment is a blast source isn't it?

We have images of the concrete blocks separating the reactor void from the "tool pool" and they appear to be un-smashed. Given the building damage there was plenty of lateral force to push the side walls of the building out so much. Explosion source inside containment seems illogical to me given what damage we can see. It leaves a question mark about what caused the lateral forces that popped the RB like a concrete balloon. Hydrogen throughout the entire RB seems much more logical imho. Thats just my 2c of course.The larger plume of steam is coming from the containment structure - on the east side of the bldg in the center of the building.

The smaller plume is coming from a place south of that - right where we would expect the spent fuel pond to be.The refueling trough (cattle chute) is between the containment structure and the SFP.

I don't know about a "tool pool" do you mean the equipment pool?
That would also be on the east side of the bldg, north of the containment structure.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Fukushima Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster discussions
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
49K
Ukraine nuclear power plant Zaporizhzhia on fire
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Fukushima Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants Fukushima part 2
  • · Replies 2K ·
60
Replies
2K
Views
451K
Fukushima Are US Nuclear Power Plants Prepared for Earthquakes?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
Fukushima Critiques of Fukushima Thyroid-Cancer Study
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
What if a nuclear power plant loses outside electricity?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
20K
Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects
  • · Replies 763 ·
26
Replies
763
Views
274K
Fukushima How will they end the Fukushima disaster?
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
16K
Thoughts on nuclear power and disasters [long, rant/tangenty]
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Fukushima The geological issues of the Fukushima Daiichi
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K