Nuclear Reactors Hit By Earthquake In Japan

icarus · Post by **icarus** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:43 pm

seedload:

Anyone understand this? What would the US have done again? Dismantle? Don't they have to solve the same problems before they can dismantle?

I think the story goes that the US was offering to helo in gensets on day one to get cooling back-up before everything went pear-shaped ... but made it conditional on the japs shutting down and dismantling the reactors after everything was hunky-dory ... the japs had just extended the lease on these things for another 10 years although they were originally due to be decommissioned this year (the oldest is 40 years old) ...

... and why on earth were they loading up these past use-by reactors with MOX, a last hurrah?

.. the japs said no thanks we'll go it alone as they wanted to reserve right to start them up again once they were back in control, they never got cooling back-up and well the rest is history ...

... i don't think they ever fully comprehended what they were dealing with, these are the guys that were mixing fuel by hand in stainless-steel buckets to save pennies a few years back. Probably, just local plant operators who have not been exposed to the full dangers involved in the complete fuel cycle and they got tied up in the minutae of operations when they were in a do or die situation. Normally they just load fuel in and load it out and run the reactor to well-defined procedures, this was well outside the square and they should have been brave enough to lose face and accept outside help.

UK had windscale fire, US had Threemile island, USSR had chernoble ... it seems like they have to go through this to get a visceral feel for them what it is like when they let the nuclear fission beast out of the cage ... now they know.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:34 pm

ladajo wrote:Yes, but neutron sponge does not good gamma sponge. And, using water you get no airgap with very inexpensive engineering.
There will be neutrons, just not as many when at power

The issue of material being discussed was just in terms of cooling and whether it will activate so badly that it becomes a hazard in itself, rather than its shielding properties. There would be no airgap if it was designed in a way in which the rods were clamped into the heatsink by some ingenious means or other, and also the rods could then run at a higher temp (>100) which would increase thermal conduction.

A solid receptacle was just an idea. Besides, the French do it by vitrifying their waste, which is much the same thing, I guess.

ANTIcarrot · Post by **ANTIcarrot** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:15 am

I wonder if in a year or two we'll see a japanese chinook that can fly by remote control, and which has a very long camera guided hose, possibly with some kind of gyrostabaliser on the end...

...Purely for fire fighting of course.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:21 am

chrismb wrote:
ladajo wrote:Yes, but neutron sponge does not good gamma sponge. And, using water you get no airgap with very inexpensive engineering.
There will be neutrons, just not as many when at power
The issue of material being discussed was just in terms of cooling and whether it will activate so badly that it becomes a hazard in itself, rather than its shielding properties. There would be no airgap if it was designed in a way in which the rods were clamped into the heatsink by some ingenious means or other, and also the rods could then run at a higher temp (>100) which would increase thermal conduction.

A solid receptacle was just an idea. Besides, the French do it by vitrifying their waste, which is much the same thing, I guess.

Yes, fair enough, but the sheilding is still going to be required. And from an engineering standpoint, a big pot of water does both tricks nicely, and costs pretty much nothing to design and setup.

choff · Post by **choff** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:27 am

The problem with using a plane to deliver water is time over target, unless you can find a pilot crazy enough to take a fully loaded water bomber on a power dive, release the whole load and pull up hard. Then you get several tons of water hitting the roof all at once, maybe collapse it as well.

Helicopters and fire hoses are next to useless.

What you need to do is find some guys who while currently able, have already been told by a doctor they're going to drop dead in the next year or two. Another group would be guy's on death row for murder, willing to atone by taking on a suicide mission. Get them to bring a hose directly up to the top of the storage pool and pump it full while some of them seal any leaks.

Once it all cools down, take it apart and bury it.

choff · Post by **choff** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:31 am

Helo's might work better if the water was in a big bag that held together until hitting the target, except for the weight of it hitting all at once maybe breaking things.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:44 am

Rotor UAV seems like a much simpler solution.

93143 · Post by **93143** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:57 am

Maui wrote:Well, keep in mind how much the earthquake set them back:
Earthquake Sets Japan Back To 2147

Skipjack wrote:I dont know, is this supposed to be funny?

It's from 2007.

ANTIcarrot · Post by **ANTIcarrot** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:52 am

Dumb question: Why aren't the water pumps steam powered? Or at least why isn't there such a backup system? It might not be able to cool the reactors down completely (low temp = less power/cooling) but it could kept under control.

In aviation there is a set of proceedures called ETOPS, which basically mean if you fly over a big ocean you must have at least two engines, so you have a backup, and a RAT - which is a little wind turbine that pops out to generate minimal electrical power. Once it deploys, the RAT is essentially incapable of going wrong because it's powered by the aircraft's forward momentum.

There seems to be a lack of anything comparable in the japanese reactors.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:18 am

ANTIcarrot wrote:Dumb question: Why aren't the water pumps steam powered? Or at least why isn't there such a backup system?

I believe I made such a suggestion in my post about survivability being seperation and redundancy of toughened systems, and got pilloried for suggesting such an expensive design.

Hmmm. Design it safely from the start, or pay out the nose and all other bodily orifices because you did NOT design it safely and then have to go back... time after time after time... to redesign/rebuild it.

I don't know, call me crazy, but I subscribe to the "once-right" philosophy.

cc · Post by cc » Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:20 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
ANTIcarrot wrote:Dumb question: Why aren't the water pumps steam powered? Or at least why isn't there such a backup system?
I believe I made such a suggestion in my post about survivability being seperation and redundancy of toughened systems, and got pilloried for suggesting such an expensive design.

I think that if you need to actively pump anything, the design is already a failure, regardless of redundancy. Management of decay heat should require nothing more complicated than natural convection, or a freeze plug.

The real failure occurred more than 50 years ago, when we decided to pursue LWRs rather than breeders. Especially in light of the recent situation, it is crystal clear that having tons of spent fuel sitting in pools is not a good idea.

Rather than extracting an infinitesimal fraction of the energy from massive amounts of fuel, while creating an unnecessary "waste" problem, we would have been much better off actually utilizing the fuel efficiently. There would be far less nuclear material to manage, and the nasty stuff would remain sealed within the reactor vessel--arguably the safest place for it.

icarus · Post by **icarus** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:30 pm

Fireboat cannons can fill those pools and keep them topped up long enough to cool off. Lead-lined cabins, biggest stand-off possible can do it faster and for less exposure than current SDF water cannons on trucks.

Should have had fireboats there when the explosions and fires began last Sunday, 6 days and counting.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:56 pm

I agree with CC to some extent. However talking about past mistakes is not going to fix anything. Nuclear power has many problems, one is the bad reputation it has (unfairly, I think).
Talking down on existing reactor designs is not going to improve the perception people have of nuclear power. The problem is that as long as nuclear power has a bad reputation among the population, there will only few new reactors be built. With few reactors built, new designs will have a hard time finding their way in. In addition to that, there have no new reactors designs been certified in the US in 30 years. I think that this is in part also because of the bad reputation that nuclear has. I know that this is somewhat paradox, but this is a political problem and when have politicians ever done anything based on logic and reason?

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:57 pm

I agree with you on that one icarus. I dont understand whey they have not brought them in yet. They obviously have them...

cc · Post by cc » Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:46 pm

I'm not really sure what can fix the nuclear situation outside of addressing the ignorance surrounding it. Even with the safety record of nuclear, the current course is not sustainable, and the possibilities, however unlikely, are clearly terrifying. Nuclear needs a fresh start, and the potential safety and fuel cycle benefits over conventional reactors should be a great motivation for pursing modern reactors. Defending the status quo is not effective--it is a lost cause at best, and probably counterproductive.

While I watch the "clean coal" ads on TV in disgust, it occurs to me that the problem is first and foremost a matter of perception. With the giant leaps of progress, it should be possible to sell modern nuclear. While the fossil fuel lobby is busy spewing propaganda based purely on lies, perhaps a truthful nuclear advertising campaign would do the trick. Even excepting nuclear, it may suffice to convey to people the truth behind coal. After all, objectively, nuclear has nothing on coal in terms of devastation to people and the environment.

Advertising is expensive, but I would like to believe that there are at least a few decent people with the necessary resources.