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.
  • #2,641
Michael 200 (If i recall right) made a long and full post explaining that Murray E. Miles was likely mistaken as the GE BWR used at fukushima do not have this uper pool .
(that was about 5 or 6 pages ago )
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2,642
shogun338 said:
Pic of Unit 4 spent fuel pool and reactor .
where did you get this picture ?

# 4 reactor spent fuel pool Feb 1 2005.jpg

edit: got it
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/archive/news/2011/03/16/20110316p2g00m0dm034000c.html

edit2: did they repaint the top crane in green ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,643
AntonL said:
:smile:you should take up writing movie scripts


But tell me what sort of cabling jointing/dressing work is this? Normally cables are laid in cable trays and rise on cable ladders to which they are securely tied. Here we have a bunch of cables laid as I would expect in the wildest third world countries but not as part of the plant of a nuclear power station.
[URL]http://www.asahi.com/photonews/gallery/fukushimagenpatsu2/images/0402_plant1.jpg
[/URL]

I have no idea, a news article referred to it as storage. Looks like it was fabricated as a minor structure. In nuke plant construction I thought everything was major structure. Obviously this is downstream of contaminated liquids/atmosphere besides being a pathway, guess the architect figured no way in a million years a minor structure failing would...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9d7b6070-5d40-11e0-a008-00144feab49a.html#axzz1ITaAaMyW"

Just released now, that observation from overflights found hot spots in unit 4. So assemblies in transit in various locations around the interior or let loose somehow from pools and equipment was not a stretch of the imagination. Those grayed looking slag like areas are looking rather ominous now. Wonder what other observation reports are on hold?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,645
TCups said:
Where do you put the epicenter of the blast?
Good question.. The answer is beyond my faculty of analysis..

The roof of unit 1 is gone, the structural wall are intact the two crates as well.
It is my idea that The unit 3 and 4 used a reinforced design for the structural wall.
Still unit 4 roof is almost immaculate, damage is mostly collateral due to structural wall giving out on both South and Nord End.


Pure speculation based on hunch :
Unit 4 has a lot of damage in the floor bellow operating floor, I think that what happened was H gaz filling the operating floor just like in all other unit.. when the explosion occurred the Blast was propagated to the whole building thank to the water in the utility pool and the core filled with water.
In other word it would mean that some of the lower level structure (especially around the utility pool) had a weaker walls that the ceiling up to a point..

Then again it's based on no physical calculation what so ever, and It's probably a non sens ..
 
  • #2,646
|Fred said:
where did you get this picture ?

# 4 reactor spent fuel pool Feb 1 2005.jpg

edit: got it
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/archive/news/2011/03/16/20110316p2g00m0dm034000c.html

edit2: did they repaint the top crane in green ?

[PLAIN]http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/archive/news/2011/03/16/images/20110316p2a00m0na007000p_size5.jpg
The caption reads as follows:
The pool for spent fuel at the No. 4 reactor of TEPCO's Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant is pictured in this Feb. 1, 2005, file photo. (Mainichi )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,647
Where are the IR images for building #4? Links?
 
  • #2,648
Would any of you knowledgeable people like to comment on the latest by Gunderson.
If someone already posted this today and I missed it..I do apologize.

Newly released TEPCO data provides evidence of periodic chain reaction at Fukushima Unit 1
http://vimeo.com/21881702
 
  • #2,649
Lurking said:
Would any of you knowledgeable people like to comment on the latest by Gunderson.
If someone already posted this today and I missed it..I do apologize.

Newly released TEPCO data provides evidence of periodic chain reaction at Fukushima Unit 1
http://vimeo.com/21881702
Gunderson has little or no credibility. I'm not sure how he gets information or how or what he analyzes.

If the core was having neutron bursts - they should not be of the magnitude of the steady-state neutron flux, since they are starting off at essentially zero power - neutron-wise. There are sources of neutrons present from the spontaneous fission of transuranics like Pu240 and Pu 242 in the higher burnup fuel. If there is water to promote criticality, then that was slows the neutrons. I don't see how there can be neutron beams emanating out to 1 mile or 1.5 km.

As for more iodine, that could mean some fuel which hasn't failed (breached) has since failed/ruptured. The exact state of the fuel is simply unknown.

The decay heat has been steadily reducing, but the temperature will fluctuate depending on the 'heat transfer'. If there is steam, the heat transfer from the fuel is poor, so the temperature will rise. If the steam is replaced by water, the heat transfer is much better, and the temperature drops, and the water is heated and may change phase (boil) from liquid to steam. Temperatures will fluctuate depending on water level and the rate at which cool water is introduced and heated or boiled. As far as I know, the cooling has not been continuous and steady.

I know there is a concern about criticality in the SFP and core. I would expect that TEPCO personnel have added borated water to core and SFP precisely to prevent recriticality.

If the core or SFP went dry, criticality would be less likely because there would be no water to moderate neutrons. If fresh water were introduced, criticality would be a concern, particularly if the fresh water were not borated, AND the control rods in the core had lost the boron, and the SFP racks had lost their inventory of boron.

Both the core and SFP were apparently flooded with seawater. Seawater is rather corrosive on stainless steel (SS304) which is typically used for control rods, in-core structures, and probably SFP racks. If the boron content of control rods or SFP racks was diminished, and fresh water introduced to the core or SFP, the criticality would certainly be a concern. Hopefully the plant personnel are taking appropriate precautions to prevent re-criticality.

FYI - http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3/196.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,650
Is it possible that the control rods have been partly washed away by the hot seawater and boric acid?
 
  • #2,651
Astronuc said:
Gunderson has little or no credibility. I'm not sure how he gets information or how or what he analyzes.
What are your own credentials?

As for more iodine, that could mean some fuel which hasn't failed (breached) has since failed/ruptured. The exact state of the fuel is simply unknown.
Your hypothetical recent ruptures would also be worrying.

But Gunderson's point is based on the iodine/cesium ratio. The iodine in the fuel rods is supposed to have decayed for almost three halflives now, a factor 8. And new ruptures would also release cesium. The ratio would probably be influenced by temperature, but I have no idea by how much. Do you?
 
  • #2,652
Street Cred:

"academic background - nuclear/astrophysics, then nuclear engineering, materials science and engineering, some electrical and aerospace engineering.
Country
PF Engineering Dept.
Interests
Science, technology, environmental preservation & sustainable development, gardening, transportation, world and ancient history
Educational Background
Graduate/Masters
Degree in
Nuclear Engineering
Profession
Nuclear Engineer"

For Astronuc from his profile..
 
  • #2,653
PietKuip said:
What are your own credentials?
I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about Astro's credentials. He is a professional in the industry. You might spend a bit more effort researching the fear-mongers, though. Fairewinds is not an unbiased source, comprised of a rabble-rouser and his wife.
 
  • #2,654
Not finding much on IR imaging or at least current IR imaging.

"[URL March 21, 2011
Infrared (IR) Thermal Heat Map Images of Fukushima Daiichi [/URL]

http://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp2/daiichi-photos2.htm"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,655
razzz said:
Just released now, that observation from overflights found hot spots in unit 4. So assemblies in transit in various locations around the interior or let loose somehow from pools and equipment was not a stretch of the imagination. Those grayed looking slag like areas are looking rather ominous now. Wonder what other observation reports are on hold?

Sources, please?
 
  • #2,656
turbo-1 said:
I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about Astro's credentials. He is a professional in the industry. You might spend a bit more effort researching the fear-mongers, though. Fairewinds is not an unbiased source, comprised of a rabble-rouser and his wife.
How do we know that Astronuc is a professional if he does not want to give his (her?) name? It is easy enough to research Gundersen. I want to know who Astronuc thinks he is when he says that Gundersen (a retired professional) lacks credibility.
 
  • #2,657
PietKuip said:
How do we know that Astronuc is a professional if he does not want to give his (her?) name? It is easy enough to research Gundersen. I want to know who Astronuc thinks he is when he says that Gundersen (a retired professional) lacks credibility.
Please drop this or reconsider and do some research on Gundersen. This is a guy who claims that an accident at Vermont Yankee could make almost all of New England uninhabitable.
 
  • #2,658
Gundersen has an axe to grind (although it might be a legitimate one at that).

Astronuc, any significance on higher cadmium 106 levels found in the US? All other isotopes of cadmium unchanged, but 106 was measured higher...
 
  • #2,659
PietKuip said:
How do we know that Astronuc is a professional if he does not want to give his (her?) name? It is easy enough to research Gundersen. I want to know who Astronuc thinks he is when he says that Gundersen (a retired professional) lacks credibility.

From Gundersons CV:
Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in nuclear engineering
licensed reactor operator
Chair of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Oversight Panel
invited author on the DOE Decommissioning Handbook
part-time math professor at Community College of Vermont

His view is biased for sure, but what do we know about Astronuc's agenda?
 
  • #2,660
has anyone tried to derive any information from this data?:

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110404-1-4.pdf

there are many things that does not make sense to me (but i am far from being an expert):
for example: 'Reactor water level' remains unchanged since days. water is being pumped in at a rate of 116 l/min and above. reactor 2 and 3 seem to be 'open', but #1 still has pressure: where is the water (expected to be) going to (at the same rate it is being pumped in)?

'0.290MPa g(A)
0.531MPa g(B)'

is there an explanation why these two values are that much apart?

i have not followed the whole thread. if i missed something, please just point me in the right direction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,661
Taxidermista said:
Sources, please?

One of the replies here referred to a report of known hot spots in unit 4 captured via IR but no pics. Classified, need to know basis, top secret, incriminating, akin to yelling fire in a movie theater? I don't know. I would think military sats. are watching these events in real time 3D modeling with readouts. Contaminating drones during fly overs are just an exercise as the radioactivity must be high.
 
Last edited:
  • #2,662
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,663
Can anyone explain what is the object labeled (2) in the following image (from the Air Photo services series)? From theway roof girders are bent, it seems to have fallen onto the roof (rather than lifted from below).
[PLAIN]http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/EXPORT/projects/fukushima/blast/pics/pict12-e.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,664
tsutsuji said:
In the first minute and 40 second timeframe of his video at http://vimeo.com/21881702 Gundersen cites Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress and Arjun Makhijani, What Caused the High Cl-38 Radioactivity in the Fukushima Daiichi Reactor #1?, The Asia-Pacific Journal Vol 9, Issue 14 No 3, April 4, 2011 available at http://www.japanfocus.org/-Arjun-Makhijani/3509

the comments http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3822/localized-criticalities-at-fukushima" convinced me, that the cl-38 value is rather a wrong interpretation of data, than evidence for recriticality. tepco has never revoked the data though...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,665
razzz said:
One of the replies here referred to a report of known hot spots in unit 4 captured via IR but no pics. Classified, need to know basis, top secret, incriminating, akin to yelling fire in a movie theater? I don't know. I would think military sats. are watching these events in real time 3D modeling with readouts. Contaminating drones during fly overs are just an exercise as the radioactivity must be high.

The latest infrared photography of the reactors, taken by Japanese Self Defense Forces' helicopter is available at http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/defense/saigai/tohokuoki/kanren/230403.pdf
 
  • #2,666
PietKuip said:
What are your own credentials?

Your hypothetical recent ruptures would also be worrying.

But Gunderson's point is based on the iodine/cesium ratio. The iodine in the fuel rods is supposed to have decayed for almost three halflives now, a factor 8. And new ruptures would also release cesium. The ratio would probably be influenced by temperature, but I have no idea by how much. Do you?
Greg and the staff have my CV. I have an MS in nuclear engineering, and I am published. Most of my work is proprietary.

My only agenda is to get to the truth of the matter at hand.

If there were criticality events, the inventory associated with MW-s/MTU are quite small relative to the existing inventory.

There are numerous short-lived isotopes I'd like to see.
 
  • #2,667
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,668
"Tellurium 129 Presence Is Proof Of Inadvertent Recriticality At Fukushima"

That's the latest claim from Gunderson, via http://www.zerohedge.com/article/tellurium-129-presence-proof-inadvertent-recriticality-fukushima"

It has a 70 minute half life. Data collected 30.03.11

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11033110-e.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,669
tsutsuji said:
The latest infrared photography of the reactors, taken by Japanese Self Defense Forces' helicopter is available at http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/defense/saigai/tohokuoki/kanren/230403.pdf

I'm glad you found some current readings. Unit 3 still acting up.
 

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