Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear Risk Expert: Fukushima Fuel May Be Leaking
An anonymous reader writes "Three weeks after the nuclear crisis began at Japan's Fukushima Dai-1 power plant, there's still a real danger of melted nuclear fuel escaping the reactor buildings and releasing a large dose of radiation. So says Theo Theofanous, an engineer who spent 15 years studying the risks of nuclear reactors. Theofanous believes that melted nuclear fuel has already leaked through the reactor vessels and accumulated at the bottoms of the primary containment structures. All attempts to keep the reactor buildings cool may not be enough to prevent the overheated fuel from eating through the concrete floors, he says."
HAHAHA
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
MIT NSE Nuclear Information Hub
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Another hopeless optimist. Japan is a high-tech country. Japan is not hampered by an anti-nuclear movement. Japan builds new reactors. Japan's reactors are highly regulated for safety. None of that has prevented them from having aging reactors, operated by a corrupt company. If this can happen in Japan, it can happen anywhere.
Now it's not just a matter of "sealing it and shutting it down": If the core melts through the floor, how are you going to seal that up? The crux with nuclear power is that even undamaged reactors are high maintenance for decades after they've been shut down at the very least. So far nobody has figured out what to do with the "spent" fuel and other radioactive waste. Attempts to bury it have repeatedly resulted in unforeseen accidents with the result that even more radioactive waste needs to be dug up and stored above ground, essentially forever. This stuff isn't just radioactive, it's also extremely toxic and chemically aggressive.
No nuclear facility is insured to an amount that would cover all damages which an accident could cause: No insurer is willing to take the risk. The risk is entirely on the shoulders of the public, who cannot reject it, thanks to representative democracy and bought politicians. The exception to the rule is Austria: In a fluke of common sense, they held a referendum before Austria's first nuclear power plant (completed and ready) was going to be activated: The Austrian people rejected nuclear power and they have not reneged so far.
No one at Fukushima has received a radiation dose that require treatment for radiation sickness let alone received a fatal dose. Two workers received a dose that exceeded their yearly dose limit and were removed from the site. Perhaps you are getting this situation confused with Chernobyl.
-- Back to the shadows again...
From TFA:
But the drywell's concrete floor is probably 5 to 10 meters thick, so Theofanous says there's not an immediate risk of a release of radioactive materials via this route. "A lot of melting has to take place before you get through 5 meters of concrete," he says.
And:
"We don't really know where the fuel is," he says
.
Also:
Theofanous found that as long as there was a typical amount of water in the drywell--about half a meter--and that water was continuously cycled through to prevent it from heating up and boiling away, the nuclear fuel would not immediately make its way out into the environment. "We showed that if there's a severe accident, you must make sure there's water in the drywell," says Theofanous.
So, yeah... Article is hype but the summary is outright lying.
See... these are the moments when I wish that I was religious.
So that I could find some modicum of relief believing that there is a special hell for people who are hyping up these stories just so they'd get more fucking clicks and page-views.
You know... Trying their best to make a cent or two from their fellowman's suffering. Cunts.
Oh pooh. Any electrician working at an industrial facility knows exactly how to fix this and with an emergency of this nature the parts would come in via very special delivery very very quickly.
The problems were a LOT more serious - switchgear wiped out, pumps destroyed, no water supply, no instrumentation working, and a lot more.
Oh look, another volunteer. Since they're not dying on the spot, what's holding you back? If a little cancer is not worth mentioning in a discussion, it certainly isn't a reason not to help out, is it? People like you disgust me. The workers couldn't even do their job there under the normal limits. The limit has been increased to a quarter of a sievert. The workers incur the limit dose after just 15 minutes of working in some of the areas. Just one hour in the same area: Radiation sickness and 10% dead within 30 days.
The IAEA is reporting that measured soil concentrations of Cs-137 as far away as Iitate Village, 40 kilometers northwest of Fukushima-Dai-Ichi, correspond to deposition levels of up to 3.7 megabecquerels per square meter (MBq/sq. m).
Compare this with the deposition level that triggered compulsory relocation in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident: the level set in 1990 by the Soviet Union was 1.48 MBq/sq. m.
From http://www.japan.org
The information I have is that they did bring mobile generators to the site.
* Fukushima Dai-ichi units 1, 2 & 3 successfully shut down when the plant lost off-site power during the earthquake. Units 4, 5 & 6 were already offline for maintenance.
* On-site diesel backups successfully engaged to continue the cooling process, but the diesels were knocked offline when seawater from the tsunami flooded the fuel tanks. They got about an hour of cooling before these diesels were ruined.
* At that point, an backup battery supply engaged, and ran for about 8 hours before it was depleted. This is 2x the average capacity of the battery backup system at an American nuclear power plant.
* Meanwhile, they did get mobile diesels brought in, but the were only able to generate enough power to stabilize units 2 & 3. Unit 1 lost cooling water, and in 4 hours they were forced to vent the built up hydrogen gas.
* I found some discussion that the coolant pumps require 5 MW to power, which a generator at 100,000 lbs is above what even a US chopper could airlift. This is why the helicopters were focusing on transporting coolant (seawater).
* The issue then was they were physically leaking coolant water, and the rods were exposed at units 1 & 4. The exposed rods resulted in hydrogen explosions (which is what all the videos show).
* The transco's goal was to get off-site power restored, which was basically rebuilding the transmission line to a neighboring plant. It took 6 days to get it restrung.
Yes, it was that cut off.
This appears to be a very informative article. I did not know that the batteries were actually the 4th backup system:
http://www.backsidesmack.com/2011/03/explaining-the-fukushima-1-incident/
Russia and the Ukraine were both part of the USSR but the place was effectively run by Russia anyway.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
You meant _ineffectively_ run by Russia, right?
The authorities don't know how the water is leaking out and don't know the upper bound on the total amount of radioactivity released. The lower bound is already rather staggering. In addition, radioactive materials have already leaked into the ocean and the ground water. TEPCO said the level they measured in the ground water was the similar to the high levels found in the turbine buildings and the tunnels outside the plants. The Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said those readings were way too high so they asked TEPCO to measure again more carefully.
The only specific theory I've heard of how the thousands of tons of highly radioactive water got out of the containment vessel is that it got out via graphite seals in the bottom of the vessel. There are holes there for control rods and the holes are blocked with graphite seals. The seals will fail at high temperatures and melted fuel rods falling to the bottom of the vessel would provide more than enough heat to cause the seals to fail. If it is any solace, reactors that don't contain melted fuel rods probably don't have leaks all over the bottom of the containment vessel.
The radioactivity released at Chernobyl escaped upward into the air. This made it easier to get a handle on the magnitude of the total amount of radioactivity released. The release at the light water reactors at Fukushima is for the most part traveling downward, to basements, tunnels, ground water, and the ocean. This makes it extremely difficult to get a handle on the total amount of radioactivity that has been released. They really don't know of the bulk of it is in the thousands of tons they have already discovered or if that is just the tip of the iceberg.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
That's correct Russia did not exist when Chernobyl happened. The U.S.S.R. existed.
Not the point, Chernobyl is in Ukraine. You wouldn't say that something that happened in London while it was part of the Roman empire happened in Italy, would you? They're not even originally a part of Russia, Ukraine was one of the states in the Soviet Union.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Burn it off with a controlled burn? How do you suggest that they do that? Light a match next to where it is coming out? It's not like they had a lot of options for the hydrogen gas with no power whatsoever on site. Also I don't know what you mean by "build the reactors along the fault line" You do realize that the fault line is in the ocean right? Not directly under Fukushima. By that reasoning, Tokai and Onagawa should not have been built either. "far lower than the historic tsunami wave-heights" where did you get this information? I can't find any data on historic wave heights of Fukushima. Don't just say "Oh there was such and such a high wave in Hokkaido" either, because the geography of the sea floor and the coast makes a big difference. They had a wall ready for a 5.5 meter tsunami, which is still a huge wave. The earthquake sunk the Japanese coast by about 1 meter AND it was hit by a 14 meter tsunami. This is documented in NOVA's documentary on the subject: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/japan-killer-quake.html . Salvage the reactors? They wrote off the reactors the minute they injected them with seawater. They have publicly said that reactors 1 - 4 will never run again. There is a good deal of information out there if you speak Japanese. Otherwise, you have to wait for someone to translate it which doesn't always happen. If you don't speak Japanese then you are in no position to comment on the amount of information that is or is not coming out.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -John Adams
Nuclear power has one thing going for it:
Nuclear power also has several strikes:
Even if a superior reactor design comes along, there's an incredible financial incentive to stick with the technology that was first developed and deployed (see the Wired story on thorium).
The best argument in favor of nuclear power is that "it may have problems, but it's all we've got". Nuclear advocates rightly point out that, compared to coal, oil, natural gas, and even hydropower (complicated), perhaps nuclear isn't so bad. Coal is abundant but dirty, oil is expensive and dirty, natural gas is cleaner but still poisons the ocean with CO2, and hydropower has it's own challenges.
But the one "black swan" that never gets talked about is "disruptive technology" that changes the entire energy equation.
One example: I've mentioned Global Resource Corporation's Microwave here before. This device uses specific microwave frequencies to release gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons from solids, such as coal (diesel, propane, butane). The company had a prototype that worked on tires, but they fell apart before they could get commercial versions of their technology to market. Luckily archive.org has a copy of their website: http://waybackmachine.org/*/http://www.GlobalResourceCorp.com. I remember reading about a cool patent that used Magnetic Resonance to figure out what specific microwaves a given sample of "trash" would need to be broken down...
GRC's site talked about applying the technology to tar sands, to coal mining, breaking down hundreds of millions of used tires piled everywhere... How would the energy equation change if harvesting coal and tar sands didn't require massive amounts of energy?
Here's something else: according to an old story on money.cnn.com, the largest single use of electricity in southern California is pumping water. And very large amount of water is used to generate electricity.
So, with these twin issues... What if Raphial Morgado's MYT (Mighty) pump really is as good as he says it is? Suppose you could get 25% more water pumped for the same amount of electricity, or generate 25% more electricity with the same amount of steam?
Whereas Global Resource Corp's special microwaves haven't reached market because it was torpedo'd by mismanagement (or maybe there's a technical problem - I'm pretty certain that the science is sound), Morgado's pump is in limbo because he hasn't yet found anyone who'd lend him $4-million or $10-million to build a factory. He has plenty of offers to buy the technology outright, but he has the audacity to presume that he should be the one to profit from his invention.
Imagine if the demand for energy suddenly plunged by more than 25%. Oil is only going for $100/barell because demand roughly matches supply. If supply exceeds demand by a significant percentage, we'd be back to $1/gallon gas in a heartbeat.
These are just the two technologies that
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
The lesson is we (humanity) should learn, it that we have only this one nest.
If we don't solve that problem, we deserve whatever happens to us.
We can't afford to foul it up (that is, any more than we have already.)
So you'll be turning off your computer and lights in 5, 4, 3... Oh, yeah, I forgot. Solar, wind, and geothermal will give all six billion of us all the electricity we need, so I guess you can leave that stuff powered up.
I am sick of the idiots saying "seal it". What the fuck do you think that means? The core material has most likely melted through the inner steel vessels and probably in places through the concrete containment (at least that seems likely) - as a result, highly radioactive water is leeching out into the drainage tunnels and out to the Pacific Ocean.
How exactly can you "seal" that? Furthermore, even if you could, what makes you think that sealing it before you've cooled down the corium material is a good idea? I mean, if it's been hot and radioactive enough to melt through concrete, how exactly do you "seal" it?
The whole point is it needs to be cooled down enough and stabilized so that it's not melting through anything on an ongoing basis, and only then do the existing leaks need to be sealed up as best as possible, or at least mitigated so that whatever has escaped stays relatively localized.
As for "shut it down", it was shut down within seconds of the original earthquake. It's just that it needs ongoing cooling even after shutdown for quite some time - and once the fuel rods have melted down, it needs even more cooling.
...And what power source would you recommend? Coal, which is pretty much the only other viable alternative to nuclear energy at this point, which kills over 5 thousand workers each year just mining it, not to mention all of the health risks associated with burning coal for power. On the other hand, we've had about 63 deaths occurring directly from nuclear incidents since nuclear power started. Now, while others have obviously had larger cancer risks and such resulting in death, but it is nearly impossible to be 100% certain about how many of those have occurred. Quite honestly nuclear power is the safest type of power we have at the moment.
And we have to realize that the disaster at the Fukushima plant isn't normal. Rather, this was the fifth largest earthquake to be recorded in modern history. Not only that but it had a huge tsunami to go along with it. Could TEPCO have handled this better? Yes. Could the Japanese government have handled this better? Yes. Should TEPCO have built this reactor to withstand larger earthquakes? Yes. But is nuclear power more dangerous than coal, oil, and every other power source that can be used in large quantities? No.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Why would someone with no insight into the current status at Fukushima throw wild guesses around. This sounds more like an religious agenda then science.
He teaches chemistry at UC Santa Barbara.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
After fission, there's a whole lot more in there than uranium in there, and uranium is the least of the concerns from a radioactivity point of view.
The stuff will be a molten mix of uranium, zirconium, ceramic, steel and all sorts of other stuff, mostly the materials with high boiling temperatures. The molten core material would have the gross composition of a mix of metal and silicate rock. It's very dense and very difficult to cut up, if the melted products in the bottom of Three Mile Island are any indication. For leaching to be effective it would have to be crushed up (in order to increase the surface area and let the water percolate through) and you'd have to use a leaching solution that removes all the elements of interest. I'm not sure such a chemical solution exists. Furthermore, you have to do it at high temperatures without the introduced solution reacting with the concrete. Given how chemically reactive concrete is compared to typical metal or silicate rock, I can't think of a solution that would promptly dissolve the latter two without probably dissolving the former. Even if you were successful at selectively removing the dangerous stuff into solution, then you've got a solution full of the dangerous stuff -- a solution that can leak and escape lot easier. Worse, if it is boiling off it might even end up concentrating the radioactive solids as it evaporates and eventually could increase the nuclear reaction where the solids are concentrated.
This is not the same rock that they mine uranium from. It's a different material. This is a bad idea even if there was any chance of it actually working, which seems doubtful.
Not arguing with you, but if you're counting deaths from mining coal, you need to also count deaths from mining uranium, not just deaths from "nuclear incidents".
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
it doesnt reduce radiation dose. gamma requires several feet of shielding to bring it down. the suits are just there to prevent particle contamination from getting in/on their bodies.
That's not how a reactor works.. Sure, you "shut it down" by inserting the control rods, but it's not an off switch. It needs days to cool down, all the while still able to heat water and spin turbines.
I don't know what was providing systems power and how that was lost.
mod me funny
The problem, I think, is all the crap that's not Uranium anymore. Uranium in the ground hasn't been enriched and then allowed to chain react for a while. As a result, it likely won't have all the daughter products around, certainly not in the quantities you'll find them in the reactor. That reactor is hot, both thermally and radioactively, at a level that I don't think one would see at a working mine.
I appreciate the creative thinking, but to treat this thing in that manner would require letting the shorter-lived daughters decay so that it more resembles what you'd see naturally occurring in the earth (relatively, at least). And that time scale is a luxury I don't think they have.
Also, mining it would require completely breaching the core, which is most certainly what they don't want right now (see above).
In the end - years down the line - what you describe would be potentially a good idea, assuming they don't go with the concrete casket route as in Chernobyl.
The energy content in one ton of uranium using 1960s reactors is roughly equivalent to 16,000 tons of coal. Using newer reactors that consume U-238 as well as U-235, a ton of uranium will produce more energy than a million tons of coal.
Assuming coal mining kills 5000 people a year and uranium mining kills as many people per ton, to produce the same amount of electricity you're looking at less than one mining death every 3 years for 1960s plants and one death every 200 years with newer plants.
http://mitnse.com/2011/03/16/what-is-decay-heat/
There is no more uranium fission, that was stopped within seconds of the earthquake hitting. The problem is the decay products of the reaction, which are unstable and thus radioactive. The power given off by the reactor at this point is just a percent or so of its original power, and all of that is coming from unstable isotopes splitting on their own. There is no real point to separating the fuel, the byproducts will continue to fission without any neutrons hitting them. Removing them to make them easier to cool is pointless, since by the time they could set something up, they could've set up a real cooling system and solved the problem on site.
A lot of roadblocks go up in a sudden poof of smoke when you say "or would you rather deal with a nuclear meltdown?". Helicopters and fuel aren't going to be an issue when your need is at pretty much the very top of the pecking order.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I guess buying a modern, safe nuclear reactor wasn't really on the top of his to do list, and mothballing the Fukushima reactors before the quake would have been unthinkable, they provided about 20% of the total power used in northern Honshu.
The first reactor was scheduled to be shut down on march 26th 2011., the others over the next decade. You can't do it all at once because you need time to build new plants to replace the capacity.
Which, incidentally, is the main reason that so many old reactors are still running. Nobody will let them build new ones, so how can you shut down the old ones?
There is a good deal of information out there if you speak Japanese. Otherwise, you have to wait for someone to translate it which doesn't always happen. If you don't speak Japanese then you are in no position to comment on the amount of information that is or is not coming out.
Nonsense, there is a one-size-fits-all narrative to describe anything in nuclear power. The management is corrupt, incompetent, and greedy. Nuclear power itself is like a coiled serpent, ready to strike at any moment, laying waste to hundreds of square miles of land.
Except for the fact that the Japanese government rubber stamped a proposal to extend the life of the plant by at least 5 years in February. Had it really been planned to be shut down in 15 days I doubt it would have been running at the capacity it was when the quake struck.
Monstar L
Oh japan.org? ... fake rads map ... fear mongering anti-nuke crap ... Good call.
Instead of a brain-dead attack on the messenger, why not try finding out the truth for yourself? It takes all of 10 seconds to go to the IAEA site here and see the numbers quoted by the OP are correct:
The average total deposition determined at these locations for iodine-131 range from 0.2 to 25 Megabecquerel per square metre and for cesium-137 from 0.02-3.7 Megabecquerel per square metre. The highest values were found in a relatively small area in the Northwest from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. First assessment indicates that one of the IAEA operational criteria for evacuation is exceeded in Iitate village. We advised the counterpart to carefully assess the situation.
The world's largest concrete pump, deployed at the construction site of the U.S. government's $4.86 billion mixed oxide fuel plant at Savannah River Site, is being moved to Japan in a series of emergency measures to help stabilize the Fukushima reactors.
"Our understanding is, they are preparing to go to next phase and it will require a lot of concrete," Ashmore said, noting that the 70-meter pump can move 210 cubic yards of concrete per hour.
Putzmeister equipment was also used in the 1980s, when massive amounts of concrete were used to entomb the melted core of the reactor at Chernobyl.
"It will be too hot to come back," Ashmore said.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
I take it that is sarcasm. Not very good at it, are you?
Nuclear power is perfectly safe, if done properly. So is coal mining. Both become extremely dangerous when not done properly - nuclear power due to the risk of reactions getting too hot (decay causes heat, accelerated decay through neutron emissions causes a lot more heat), which can lead to a failure of the structural integrity of the system or - worse - uncontrolled chemical reactions resulting in a chemical explosion (essentially a "dirty bomb"), coal mining due to the risk of coal gas (methane) igniting, resulting in an explosion and/or an uncontrolled fire within the coal seam itself, beyond the confines of the mine.
In both cases, the problem is not so much the initial event (although nobody likes fatalities - unless they're newsreaders or Fox TV presenters), the problem is that event zero can lead to the problem spreading in a way that cannot be controlled or stopped.
In both cases, competent design and competent management can make the probability of event zero happening at all virtually zero. The number of nuclear reactors worldwide is extremely high, but other than the Windscale core fire, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and the Fukushima complex, there really hasn't been any major accident in the industry in 50 years. That's not bad, given that our knowledge of the physics is the same age.
(The Windscale core fire was an interesting piece of history. A graphite nuclear reactor core was allowed to burn for 3 days before anyone even thought to check why the temperature gagues were showing excessive readings. This was not corruption or greed, and even calling it incompetence is a stretch as maintenance was due over that time.)
The fact of the matter is this: in ALL of these accidents, there was a VERY long chain of events from the the initial point that turned towards disaster and the disaster actually happening. ANY person along that chain COULD have broken that chain at ANY time. They failed to do so.
Typically in disasters, this is because the difference between what they should have done and what they did do was so small that the person disregarded the difference. A very large sum of very small deltas will eventually add up.
(Even the Titanic's sinking was not due to a single person's failure or a single event, but a laundry list of very tiny deltas from the time the iron was first processed to the time the helmsman mistook what sterring order the helm was set to. R101, likewise, failed because of an incredibly large number of people making incredibly tiny errors.)
Yours is a common, and pitiful, belief that criticism of a sequence means criticism of the entire world in which that sequence lives. I've noticed such a mindset most amongst the right-wing and the libertarians. There is, sadly, no known cure and they are doomed to live in a world that really doesn't exist outside of their own interpretation.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Irrelevant. In the metric of deaths per TWh for which nuclear has 0.04 and coal has 161. If capacity increases this death RATE should remain constant. You get more energy out of uranium so you need less of it.
The battery backup in commmercial nuclear plants does NOT run the large scale cooling equipment, that is what the multiple independent channels of diesel backup power (which failed along with offsite power) are for.
The battery backup is for instrumentation and control only, including computer monitoring systems, process control computers, some valves, etc. At a typical GE BWR (like fukushima, I was an operator at a newer GE BWR myself) the entire basement of the control/auxialiary building is filled with lead acid batteries (multiple THOUSANDS of car battery sized cells) and large UPS's (27 of them at the plant I worked at) for backup power to intrumentation and control only.
The RHR (recirc heat removal pumps, used for both emergency and normal shutdown cooling) are huge beasts, batteries could not possibly keep them running. They are 4160v multiple 1000 horsepower motors (can't remember exact size), no way lead acid batteries can do that (let alone the UPS's), simply no way. One easy way to vouch for this fact is that the UPS's only produced 270VAC power!
There is the HPCI and RCIC systems driven by decay heat steam from the reactor itself (via small to mid sized steam turbines), and in the fukushima situation these likely functioned until control power was lost (assuming piping to these stayed intact). After control power is lost, these systems shutdown or break, or overspeed, can't remember, probably varies with the individual plant. Either way, no control power, no HPCI or RCIC
The spent fuel pool is another matter entirely. It has a separate electric motor driven pumped cooling system, but once again, batteries do do not drive these, these pumps are something like multiple 100Hp 480v pumps, once again outside the range of what even a ton of lead acid batteries can manage for any significant length of time. (see paragraph about heat sink below too)
The loss of offsite power, followed by the loss of the diesel backup power is really the root failure, and you need BIG diesels (or gas turbines even) to manage this load. At the plant I worked at, there were 4-4+ MW diesels onsite for a single reactor. 2 at a minumum were needed to keep things cool if offsite power was lost (assuming no other failures). We had fuel for approximately 2 weeks of run time of each diesel within the control building (about 200000 gallons, with another million available in a non safety rated tank outside the buidling). 4Mw locomotive or marine sized diesels cannot be simply trucked or helicoptered in, these are BIG machines, not to mention replacement fuel (they're thirsty!). In my plant's case, each diesel was a 5000Hp, 16 cylinder twin turbocharged monster that was originally designed for use in diesel electric cargo ships!
Perhaps if they parked an aircraft carrier right on the coast and somehow ran cables that could have made up for the loss of power, or maybe a dozen or so diesel electric locomotives, a few large diesel electric container ships, etc. but nothing smaller than that could have handled this load (original design Nimitz class aircraft carriers have about 20Mw electrical generating capacity INCLUDING their 4 emergency diesel generators at 4160v 60Hz, and remember they need some of that to keep their own engine room and other ship functions operating in this sort of scenario). But even then you would need some hellish power cables and functioning switchgear and control power in the plant itself BEFORE you could consider turning on a big cooling pump
Oh yeah, you would also need a functioning "service water" system (part of the normal seawater cooling system for the plant, not the emergency seawater cooling that is being used, provides cooling water and makeup water to cooling towers at some plants), those pumps (assuming control power AND intact piping again), needs another megwatt or so to operate. If you don't have service water, you don't have a heat sink even if you get the cooling systems inside the plant building operating.
Most people have no idea of the scope of the pow
Except the worlds largest sources of uranium aren't in third world countries, and the coal numbers above for coal can be separated to include US only. Oh Look, it's 15 deaths/TWh just in the US alone 3 orders of magnitude higher than world wide nuclear.
There's a lot of negative things to be said about nuclear power, but in terms of human death coal is orders of magnitude worse regardless of how you neysayers try to skew the statistics.
Their anti-nuclear movement blocked several plants back in the 90s.
Yep, old reactors like this were to be shut down and replaced by newer, safer designs. All the activists did was keep old reactors going.
It's not just Japan, but the rest of the world. Old reactors are still running in America and Europe because the movements forced governments to not build any new reactors.
Haha, yeah, and please put the most positive spin you can think of on whatever you read. If you read "It's a disaster" you must consider that the translation might be defective.
Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way
What I think you are saying is, well, maybe it is a disaster, but they had a hell of an excuse!
That (i suspect willfully) misses the points completely. The reactor was not supposed to fail. Yet it did, and the results are impressive, to say the least. That a catastrophe that manages to make a reactor fail also severely hinders you ability to deal with the situation is a new thing we have learned. And that in fact nobody has a good plan for a situation like this is also suddenly in plain sight, although is nothing that wasn't known before.
Insightful my fat arse.
Here in Germany the power companies basically had a choice: either they shut down all their reactors by a set date or they transfer operational time between reactors so newer and safer ones can run longer, and older could be shut down sooner.
What did the power companies do? They transfered the operational times from new reactors to old ones since they were cheaper to operate, already written off decades ago and thus generated pure profits of about one million euros every operating day.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap