Slashdot Mirror


Fuel Rod Removal Operation Begins At Tsunami-hit Fukushima

rtoz writes "TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) has started removing fuel rods from a storage pond at the Unit 4 reactor building of Tsunami-hit Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear power station in Japan. The first of the fuel-rod assemblies at the plant's No. 4 reactor building was transferred from an underwater rack on the fifth floor to a portable cask. This step is an early milestone in decommissioning the facility amid doubts about whether the rods had been damaged and posed a radiation risk. 22 unused fuels will be moved to the cask a task which is planned to be completed by November 19. After being filled with fuel, the cask will be closed with a lid, and following decontamination, will be taken down to ground level and transported to the common spent fuel pool on a trailer. It is planned to take approximately one week from placing the fuel into the cask at the spent fuel pool to storing it in the common pool. The entire removal of all fuel inside the Unit 4 spent fuel pool is planned to take until the end of 2014."

25 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. Finally! by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Good. It's about time to get those fuel rods out of there.

    The US needs Yucca Mountain. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better to have fuel rods inside a mountain than at reactor sites. After all, Yucca Mountain is in an area so isolated that it used to be used for above-ground testing of nuclear weapons.

    1. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I propose we store the nuclear waste in Southern California, as it has less culture that Yucca Mountain, and is already contaminated with parasitic organisms.

    2. Re:Finally! by bob_super · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm still waiting for an announcement about some scientist "discovering" that subduction zones are a good place to bury stuff that you don't want to worry about seeing back up any time soon.

    3. Re:Finally! by bob_super · · Score: 2

      If you bury it two miles down the crust, by the time it gets subducted, melted, churned by lava currents, and potentially finds its way up a magma chamber (considering you wouldn't bury it in the subduction zone nearest active volcanoes), I don't think the original 50000 tons will be more than traces.
      Uranium is heavy, it won't be the first element to float to the top of the mantle. Most of the others will have decayed while being subducted.

      Considering that Mount St Helens blew about 3km3 of material (not all of it being new lava), managing to get hit by a chunk of subducted Uranium would earn you a special prize in $Afterlife.

    4. Re:Finally! by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

      My knowledge of earth science is also lacking. What bothers me is that by dumping spent fuel rods into subduction zones, we're effectively throwing away quite a large amount of fuel for newer reactors. I realise that U and Th aren't exactly hard to come by, relatively speaking, but is it really easier to dig it out of the ground than to reprocess what we already have on hand?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    5. Re:Finally! by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Apparently so. When we first started making reactors reprocessing was the norm due to the high cost of fresh fuel. Advances in uranium mining and refinement brought the price down dramatically, to the point where the reprocessing plants already in existence were no longer cost effective to operate. Lets hear it for externalizing the cost of nuclear waste disposal.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  2. And then? And then? by stevegee58 · · Score: 5, Informative

    They keep saying "first we'll do this and then we'll do that" with the spent fuel.
    But the one question no one seems able to answer is what you ultimately will do with all that toxic spent fuel. Simply speaking there is no answer, no plan for what to do with nuclear waste from any plant damaged or otherwise.

    1. Re:And then? And then? by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 4, Funny

      Leave it in an unlocked car in Lewisham. It'll be gone in an hour.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    2. Re:And then? And then? by kriston · · Score: 2

      Really? Of course the question has been answered. Yucca Mountain is politically dead right now but is the best engineered solution. Since the politics are so toxic around that problem, and we have an arbitrary national ban of reprocessing spent fuel due to a non-existent plutonium proliferation risk, we're now looking at salt mine encapsulation.

      So we're left with: unproven subduction zone dangers to back up an arbitrary political decision on Yucca, a bizzaro-world fuel reprocessing ban, and unproven salt mine safety to address the political blockage of the other two solutions.

      There are there completely solid answers to this problem. What are the common obstacles? I'll leave that to you.

      --

      Kriston

    3. Re:And then? And then? by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Every feasible / scalable energy source we have has some kind of "undesirable" output.

      The options tend to be "output that you have to filter, scrub, and / or capture, and is completely useless" for non-nuclear sources. Nuclear has the benefit of delivering your "waste" already packaged, and its actually useable down the road.

      Not really seeing the problem. What to do with it? Stick it somewhere, reprocess it, etc. What do you do with the waste from coal?

    4. Re:And then? And then? by symbolset · · Score: 2

      eBay.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:And then? And then? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Plenty of countries answer this all the time.

    6. Re:And then? And then? by nojayuk · · Score: 2

      The Rokkasho reprocessing plant started test operation about a year ago, based on a prototype reprocessing operation at Tokai. When it's up to speed Rokkasho will reprocess about 800 tonnes of spent fuel a year. Simply speaking you're totally wrong.

    7. Re:And then? And then? by nojayuk · · Score: 3, Informative

      No-one takes in another country's nuclear waste, at least not spent fuel or reprocessed waste. Britain and France used to reprocess spent fuel from Japan but the recovered uranium and plutonium was reformatted into fresh fuel elements and they along with the waste from the reprocessing operation has been returned to Japan.

    8. Re:And then? And then? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      You can generate weaonpized fuel to Thorium reactors, it's just harder.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  3. Maybe... by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 2

    I realize this is hindsight but maybe the Ring of Fire isn't the best place to build nuclear reactors? Not that the Japanese have much option there if they want nuclear power.

  4. It's a start, but there is a LONG way to go by bobbied · · Score: 3, Informative

    They are just starting to move fuel assemblies which where removed from their reactors prior to the earthquake. Where it will be a good thing to get these things out of the leaky cooling pools the real work has still not started. It's not really going to be possible to start working on the reactors which melted down for a few more years. Even then, it won't be possible for humans to approach so the work will require invention of remotely operated tools that can deal with the unique situation, and tasks necessary to clean up this mess.

    It took 14 years to decommission Three Mile Island after the accident there which was exceedingly less complicated because the containment structures where not blown open and there was only one reactor involved. We are decades away from being done here with multiple reactors at least partially melted down, sea water being used for coolant and the extensive damage to the containment structures.

    This is a great start, but until they get all of the high level material into an inherently stable condition and/or offsite we won't be able to breath easy. Keep it going TEPCO."

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  5. Take it back in time - they'd be able to use it by Timothy+Chu · · Score: 2

    "I'm sure that in 1985, plutonium is available in every corner drugstore, but in 1955, it's a little hard to come by."

    - Doc Brown

  6. Re:One down... by MiniMike · · Score: 2

    Sorry, that should be 1532, the numbers have changed since they first announced they were doing this. I guess they miscounted initially.

    Or maybe they just broke a few, and now they count them as two. By the time they're done, they'll claim to have removed 1752.8 fuel rods.

  7. something's missing from the news release by swschrad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I didn't see the expected statement that these idiots will parade the hot rods through downtown Tokyo to reassure everybody they have the situation well under control.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  8. Re:Reprocessing by nojayuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Reagan reversed the ban Carter imposed on commercial reprocessing of spent fuel in the US in the early 80s. Nobody has funded a reprocessing operation (other than the lines used to produce weapons-grade materials from military breeder reactors) in the US for various reasons; raw uranium is cheap, nobody wants to use MOX fuel for cost and operating licence reasons and the US government is in charge of making spent fuel go away for which the generating companies pay a levy, currently over $30 billion dollars over the past few decades (it's what paid for Yucca Mountain).

  9. Re:Reprocessing by MrL0G1C · · Score: 4, Insightful

    disallowed in the United States for purely political reasons.

    From that which you linked:

    In March 1999, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reversed its policy and signed a contract with a consortium of Duke Energy, COGEMA, and Stone & Webster (DCS) to design and operate a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. Site preparation at the Savannah River Site (South Carolina) began in October 2005.[11] In 2011 the New York Times reported "...11 years after the government awarded a construction contract, the cost of the project has soared to nearly $5 billion. The vast concrete and steel structure is a half-finished hulk, and the government has yet to find a single customer, despite offers of lucrative subsidies." TVA (currently the most likely customer) said in April 2011 that it would delay a decision until it could see how MOX fuel performed in the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi.[12]

    Sounds like no-one's interested because it's prohibitively expensive even with big subsidies from the Gov't.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  10. Re:Reprocessing by nojayuk · · Score: 2

    Reprocessing and MOX manufacture is expensive, a lot pricier than using cheap freshly-mined uranium ore in a once-through operation. The big win with reprocessing is that it vastly reduces the mass and volume of dangerous waste needing dealt with, even after vitrification and encapsulation. That makes final disposal a lot cheaper and simpler as well as reducing proliferation worries since none of the resulting waste is at all suitable for nuclear weapons development.

  11. Wait, wait..UNused Rods??? by IonOtter · · Score: 2

    Hang on a moment, unused rods are non-radiating. They're *ready* to start working, but they won't start radiating until they're brought together in a core. That's called "criticality", or "going critical", which is a self-sustaining reaction.

    Prior to core insertion, unused rods are handled in open air, without any shielding, and can even be touched without a problem. You definitely don't want to bring them close to another fuel bundle, nor do you want them anywhere near a neutron reflector.

    That would be a Bad Thing.

    The only way this would be a threat, is if any of the debris in the storage pool damages the fuel bundles. Such as bending them and bringing the rods within criticality range of each other. Or if some stray metal got down inside the storage slots, acting as a neutron reflector and creating a hot-spot.

    Outside of that, unless I'm wrong about unused fuel not being hot, then this is just a scare story.

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:Wait, wait..UNused Rods??? by cazzazullu · · Score: 2

      Yes. Now imagine 1500 used rods, totaling 250 metric tons of spent fuel, mixed with 200 brand new shiny unused ones, lying in a large pile of mikado in a damaged pool on bent supports 30 feet above the ground, partially cooled by seawater that is eating away the zirconium rod housing, and with the roof collapsed on top of it. What could possibly go wrong...?

      --
      int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}