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.
  • #2,881
razzz said:
If I remember right, footage was taken from the next nearest nuclear plant in line of sight. The distance accounts for the delayed sound waves other than that local background noise. What type of sound were you expecting to hear?

The sound "arrives" 2 seconds after the blast. At sea level the speed of sound is 343.2 m/s, so if this is a "faithful" recording, the camera is only about 700 m away, less than half a mile.

Fukushima Daini is about 10 km away and (from memory) I think the camera was around 20 km away at the time.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2,882
PROPOSED MECHANISM FOR DRYWELL BLAST, UNIT 3, CAUSING BLOWOUT AT TRANSFER CHUTE AND LEAK AT EQUIPMENT POOL


|Fred said:
thank to the above site I leaned that the BWR 4 by GE was used in the Vermont Yankee (BWR-4) Plant
Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant.jpg


and looking into this plant I was able to get this picture witch I believe is an accurate representation of what reactor 3 at fukushima looks like (with the exeption of the color coding)
[URL]http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2009/05/03/1241407279_5282/539w.jpg[/URL]

I know need to think and try to figure what we could be seeing .. on the previous screen grab

@Fred:

You were right about the orientation. My bad, the video did skip around a bit. I think the previous frame grab is looking in through the side of the small pool -- green arrow -- and that there is either a gate on that side, which I cannot confirm, or worse, a crack in the upper portion of the primary containment. But my earlier error also clears up a discrepancy that was nagging me, now corrected. The screen shot does confirm damage from a blast coming from inside the drywell containment, but shows (relatively) less damage on the equipment pool side than might be expected if the entire gate from the transfer chute on the SFP side blew out. In principle, it would take a tremendous blast to vaporize the contents of the SFP, and a crack as small as seen venting steam on the equipment pool side would not likely explain that.

. . . also

@AtomicWombat
If you look carefully at the diagram, you will see the large wench atop the crane I referred to earlier.

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture56-1.png

Fred, again:

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2009/05/03/1241407279_5282/539w.jpg

Does your photo show that an entire section of one side of the drywall containment (perhaps big enough to transfer the pressure vessel head under water to the equipment pool?) has been removed, or am I being fooled by a reflection in the pool? Is that the pressure vessel cap seen in the equipment pool opposite the opening to the reactor vessel? Perhaps the whole side of the equipment pool can be removed, for all I know.

Yes!

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture2-4.png

See annotation. The fuel rod is about to go through the transfer chute (red arrow) the back wall of the primary containment at the drywell head is open and the RPV cap is sitting in the equipment pool (green arrow).

The earlier screen grab is steam venting through one of the cracks near the southwest corner of the equipment pool. The equipment pool "gate" probably survived the blast better because the equipment pool was still full of water with its hydrostatic pressure backing the gate, whereas, at the fuel rod transfer chute, the water opposite the transfer gate had boiled off. The blast was much greater and more concentrated on the south side. And as before, much of the damage on the north side of Bldg 3 was probably the falling FHM.

The "fish eye" photo of the reactor pool would be taken from the deck of the FHM with the photographer's back to the SFP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,883
TCups said:
@AtomicWombat
If you look carefully at the diagram, you will see the large wench atop the crane I referred to earlier.
http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture56-1.png

You've maid my day...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,884
Jorge Stolfi said:
1 - fuel rods from one assembly?
4 - racks from spent-fuel pool?

Difficult to say for certain, since the resolution of the picture is not too good. However, to my eye #1 and #4 look very much like the rack that is used to store and replace in-core neutron flux detectors. These detectors are long (> 10 m) and thin, and need such a rack to enable storage and replacement. This rack would probably be stored in the horizontal position somewhere in the reactor hall, and since unit 4 was undergoing maintenance, it has probably been used recently.
 
Last edited:
  • #2,885
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M22Gt4sswEA"

At about 5:00min. into this video, I believe a great big void is shown in Unit 3, what is it? There are other angles of Units 3 & 4 during the flyover.

At 4:46min in, you talk about rods laying around but #4 rebar is kinda like a pencil's diameter and hanging out of broken concrete all over the place along with other size rebar. Rebar doesn't shine, stainless steel conduit would. like someone else mentioned was used in this construction to shield wiring runs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,887
I believe we have some evidence concurring Tcups analysis .
still there is an issue assuming the part that we see in the video is in deed the temp wall and the slap is joining at the top. The lower part of this temps wall seems missing but it can't be missing otherwise steam would be visible ? If we assumed it is caved like a stair, how do we explained it is caved in rather than out?
when the explosion occurred the blast toke place above the slab exerting a pressure from the equipment pool toward the primary Containment , the top of the wall hit the slab edge and did not move.. but the lower caved in ?

http://i.min.us/imVuLK.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,888
Fred, TCups

Great analysis - spot on I think.
 
  • #2,889
Vacuum? First it sucks in then explodes outwards. Some the structure didn't recover from the first effect. Then some things launched like from a cannon.
 
  • #2,890
  • #2,891
PROPOSED MECHANISM OF MULTIPLE BLASTS, BLDG 3: PRIMARY BLAST CAME FROM DRYWELL WITH SECONDARY EXPLOSIONS IN THE UPPER BUILDING AND LOWER BUILDING.

|Fred said:
I believe we have some evidence concurring Tcups analysis .
still there is an issue assuming the part that we see in the video is in deed the temp wall and the slap is joining at the top. The lower part of this temps wall seems missing but it can't be missing otherwise steam would be visible ? If we assumed it is caved like a strait, how do we explained it is caved in rather than out?
when the explosion occurred the blast toke place above the slab exerting a pressure from the equipment pool toward the primary Containment , the top of the wall hit the slab edge and did not move.. but the lower caved in ?

http://i.min.us/imVuLK.jpg

No. I maintain, as I have always maintained, that the primary blast came out of the drywell containment, just like the steam venting now. There was very probably hydrogen in the upper building as well. The blast from the drywell, through the transfer chute was the initial fireball seen rising from the southeast corner of Bldg 3. That blast 1) vaporized the remaining water in SFP3 to steam, launching the FHM, and 2) ignited a secondary explosion in the upper building.

The blast from the drywell came from emergency venting of hydrogen from the RPV within the drywell, or quake damage to the pipes entering/exiting the RPV or some combination thereof. Hydrogen, under pressure, with steam, under pressure, displaced the nitrogen, vented to the torus pool and rose into the lower building as well venting through the drywell cap into the upper building. When the RPV got hot enough, it set the whole thing off -- BANG! - BANG! - BANG! -- RPV, upper building blowout, lower building blow out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,892
artax said:
quite disturbing... does he know something we don't?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W7uGvW8xvY&feature=player_embedded#at=54

In my travels around YouTube I found a flyover after the sea surge. Units 5&6 not shown up close but if they got saltwater in their equipment it wouldn't take long to ruined a bearing, shaft, wiring connections or a lot of other stuff. Can't find a report on how high the sea reached at the complex. Shouldn't forget about sand either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUGAbMVG-qc"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,893
ARE EXPOSED FUEL RODS SEEN ON TOP OF THE DAMAGED NORTH END OF BLDG 3? -- VERY UNLIKELY WITHOUT CONFIRMATORY THERMAL IMAGES

razzz said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M22Gt4sswEA"

At about 5:00min. into this video, I believe a great big void is shown in Unit 3, what is it? There are other angles of Units 3 & 4 during the flyover.

At 4:46min in, you talk about rods laying around but #4 rebar is kinda like a pencil's diameter and hanging out of broken concrete all over the place along with other size rebar. Rebar doesn't shine, stainless steel conduit would. like someone else mentioned was used in this construction to shield wiring runs.

Regarding the infamous rod-like objects on the upper level of Bldg 3. While I can propose a theoretical mechanism for fuel rods getting there (albeit a bizarre mechanism - being yanked out of the SFP by a ballistic FHM), in the absence of IR thermal images showing a heat signature from the area of the rods, they almost certainly are not spent fuel rods open to the air. What they are, I am not sure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,894
jensjakob said:
Fred, TCups

Great analysis - spot on I think.

Thanks, Jens.

@Fred: If this proposal turns out to be correct, and I think after several missteps, it is pretty close, then you, sir, get as much credit as me. Your photos were invaluable and your dogged skepticism when something didn't fit eventually pointed to what may be a reasonable explanation. I also note that you haven't wholeheartedly endorsed it yet, so I wonder if I may have made another mistake you will catch :redface:

Thank you, Fred!

Now, what the heck happened at Unit 4?!
 
  • #2,895
Analysis of sea water near Unit 2 water leak
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/04/20110405007/20110405007-4.pdf
[PLAIN]http://i.min.us/imZSrg.GIF

with levels 5.4MBq/cm3

Tepco seem to have a new policy - reporting I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137 only,
the others are for us to guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,896
razzz said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M22Gt4sswEA"

At about 5:00min. into this video, I believe a great big void is shown in Unit 3, what is it? There are other angles of Units 3 & 4 during the flyover.

At 4:46min in, you talk about rods laying around but #4 rebar is kinda like a pencil's diameter and hanging out of broken concrete all over the place along with other size rebar. Rebar doesn't shine, stainless steel conduit would. like someone else mentioned was used in this construction to shield wiring runs.

Guessing, but . . .

That "void" if you stare into it, is probably the depths of SFP3. You can see part of the wall (blue lines), a faint green glow deep in the depths of the hole (green arrow), (Photoshop/Image/Adjustments/AutoColor) that may be fuel, if there was some water left, or if they got some water in there before the fly over -- otherwise wouldn't the glow be red? "X" might be about where the blast came out of the transfer chute.

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Picture4.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,897
VIDEO WITH AUDIO OF UNIT 1's EXPLOSION?

Can anyone find the video of Unit 1 exploding with an audio track instead of a voice over? If both videos were taken from about the same place, it would be very interesting to count the booms. If Unit 1's explosion has only 1 boom and Unit 3's has 3 booms, then they aren't echoes. Conversely, if Unit 1's explosion also has 3 booms, then they are echoes.

I must get dressed and get to work . . .
 
  • #2,898
AntonL said:
Analysis of sea water near Unit 2 water leak
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/04/20110405007/20110405007-4.pdf

with levels 5.4MBq/cm3

Tepco seem to have a new policy - reporting I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137 only,
the others are for us to guess.

This is crazy high... Is it really sea water? It's not water taken directly from the leak!?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,899
Just been posted...Here is the first flyovers/stabilised/higher definition.

There might be some more information in here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,900
If the plan is to pump out all the highly radioactive water from the basements of reactors 1-3 won't the radiation levels outside skyrocket?

The water in the basement is shielding the upper levels and outside from higher levels of radiation right?That was some strange looking steam at 1:40 artax,looked like a mixture of smoke and steam.
 
Last edited:
  • #2,901
orndorf said:
If the plan is to pump out all the highly radioactive water from the basements of reactors 1-3 won't the radiation levels outside skyrocket?
They have a choice of pumping the contaminated water into a barge or into the ocean. That would increase the activity around the barge or in the ocean.

The water in the basement is shielding the upper levels and outside from higher levels of radiation right?
The water in the basement may provide some shielding of whatever the water is containing. Given that they put clean water in and get contaminated water out, this would indicate a leak somewhere in the containment or some affiliated piping system.

Given that they still need to cool the core, they need to replace the water that leaks - or stop the leak and ensure a closed cooling system, if that is possible. Otherwise, they have to collect the contaminated water and store it somewhere, and otherwise, release the contaminated water to the ocean.
 
  • #2,902
Thank you Tcups, I'm glad to contribute to the collective quest for plosive answers that you lead for a fair amount .
There is one thing that I'm still not to confident with :
What are we seeing bellow the arrows It is supposed to be a strait wall.. How do we explain what we are seeing ?

[PLAIN]http://i.min.us/ikEmCk.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,903
shogun338 said:
The sound in that video has been added in by someone . I have the video of Unit 3 exploding and there is no sound like that . Where did they get the sound that was added to the video ?

No it's not added in, that was the sound on the live coverage, its just never been repeated as far as I know since.
 
  • #2,904
shogun338 said:
The sound comes to soon . Even if the camera was only one mile away it would take the sound of the explosion around 5 seconds or more to reach camera . Camera is more than a few miles away .

That sound is Definately Added afterwards. Also there was a 20km exclusion zone around the plant and I suspect these images are from that distance, they said the number 3 blast was heard 40km away but I'll be surprised if anyone recorded it.
 
  • #2,905
Giordano said:
This is crazy high... Is it really sea water? It's not water taken directly from the leak!?

http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/04/20110405007/20110405007-4.pdf shows several kinds of samplings :

物揚場前　in front of the quay
2号機スクリーン海水　sea water at unit 2 screen
スクリーン流入水　water flowing into the screen
ケーブルピット水　cable pit water

(Edited to remove my big unit mistake , as Giordano mentions below)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,906
tsutsuji said:
5400 Bq/kg is not as crazy as the 15000 Bq/kg they found in the spinach at Kitaibaraki (70 km south of the plant) on 19 March and whose sales are now stopped : http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/2r98520000015iif-att/2r98520000015jpm.pdf

http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/04/20110405007/20110405007-4.pdf shows several kinds of samplings :

物揚場前　in front of the quay
2号機スクリーン海水　sea water at unit 2 screen
スクリーン流入水　water flowing at the screen
ケーブルピット水　cable pit water

?

5.4 Mbq/cm3 corresponds to 5 400 000 000 Bq/kg of water
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,907

Attachments

  • unit4_equippool.jpg
    unit4_equippool.jpg
    102 KB · Views: 468
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,908
|Fred said:
Thank you Tcups, I'm glad to contribute to the collective quest for plosive answers that lead for a fair amount .
There is one thing that I'm still not to confident with :
What are we seeing bellow the arrows It is supposed to be a strait wall.. How do we explain what we are seeing ?

[PLAIN]http://i.min.us/ikEmCk.jpg[/QUOTE]

Well, if the theory is that the FHM went ballistic and crashed downward through what was left of the roof on that side of the building, there could have been quite a bit of debris that ended up in the equipment pool -- parts of the roof, the FHM itself, etc.

Photoshop says it is some sort of complex, box-like structure partially covered with debris and with a bit of sun and shadow thrown in just for fun. Some piece of equipment? Don't know, but it is clearly in the pool and appears to be separate from and in front of the common wall with the upper dry wall containment.

An upright piano, maybe?

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-05at74000AM.png

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-05at74307AM.png

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-05at73942AM.png

. . . no -- here is a shot straight down into the pool with the shadows brightened:

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn270/tcups/Screenshot2011-04-05at75953AM.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,909
TCups said:
VIDEO WITH AUDIO OF UNIT 1's EXPLOSION?

Can anyone find the video of Unit 1 exploding with an audio track instead of a voice over? If both videos were taken from about the same place, it would be very interesting to count the booms. If Unit 1's explosion has only 1 boom and Unit 3's has 3 booms, then they aren't echoes. Conversely, if Unit 1's explosion also has 3 booms, then they are echoes.

I must get dressed and get to work . . .

Watching live I only remember one boom with unit 1, and it was noticeable enough for me to think "That's odd" there being three explosions on the live pictures and sound with three
 
  • #2,910
Giordano said:
?

5.4 Mbq/cm3 corresponds to 5 400 000 000 Bq/kg of water

Sorry.

I have edited my post.

So the sea water in front of the quay with 360 000 Bq/kg on April 3rd, then 640 000 Bq/kg on April 4th is worse than the spinach.
 
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