Armchair Nuclear Engineer and Japan’s Nuclear Problems

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:55 pm

Frank Catena wrote:

You trying to be on the TV news too ?

Well clearly I am giving my opinion here. But if you think I have said anything that is not accurate, please point it out directly.

Now for some more 100% personal opinion...

First, I think people who are paying attention mostly seems to fall into two camps. 1. The world is going to end. 2. This is no big deal. Both are wrong. However I am more afraid of the second group of people than the first.

Second, there will be people who are nuclear advocates who will place blame for the damage this does to the nuclear industry at the feet of the public who they will think are overreacting. Even if it turns out people are overreacting it doesn't matter. I think those advocates have their head in the sand as to reality. Or maybe it's just wishful thinking. Its not that the world is going to end, but rather that they expect the public to treat (and ultimately forgive) the nuclear industry like any other that have problems. It's unfortunate, but the oil spill in the Gulf is going to be largely forgotten within 12 months and will have no real impact to the oil industry. This nuclear incident however will have effects that will last for decades. TMI already has proven that.

Third, I predict that during the inevitable investigation it will turn out that TEPCO was not really doing their job in some way. They have been caught before and I don't see why it will be any different this time. And that whatever they screwed up will not really be related to the current events, but that will not matter in the eyes of the public. It will just be more "evidence" that they nuclear industry can't be trusted.

But like I said I am not anti-nuclear. I think it would be a great interim stepping stone between fossil fuels to renewal solutions (solar, wind, etc.) It's just unfortunate this stuff happens on many different levels.

Richard

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:58 pm

So I am guilty of dragging this off topic as much as anyone else. Lets hear your out of the box engineering solutions. Or we can just change the topic of this thread.

Jason Mauldin · **Posted:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:27 pm

Richard Casto wrote:

But like I said I am not anti-nuclear. I think it would be a great interim stepping stone between fossil fuels to renewal solutions (solar, wind, etc.)

Richard

I personally don't agree with what you're implying here. If we were to just completely switch to solar and wind for our power needs, there would be MAJOR impacts to the local environments where this energy is being taken out of the environment. Anything we do to convert a natural resource (fossil fuels, uranium, solar, wind, etc) to electricity is going to have some kind of impact on the world around us. We've seen the hazards of fossil fuels and nuclear, so we just assume they are worse than the alternative.

I suspect the ultimate solution will be to use a combination of these sources and hope for the best. In the meantime, using less energy should be a priority. But that's never going to happen while we have an economy that is driven by consumption.

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:12 pm

Richard Casto wrote:

There is real evidence the containment has failed on one of the reactors.

Richard,
The link is but the first in a series of blog-type posts, linked at the top of the 3/13/2011 entry. Most of the other posts were updates of "as close as can be ascertained to fact" information as made available.

Where is proof of this containment breech? I'm talking about the core, as in meltdown through the concrete containment vessel/apparatus. I have seen/read lots of info about cooling the spent fuel pools, the cooling system for the reactors, and the radiation from those aspects but nothing like a containment failure. The explosions have been related to steam/de-pressurization attempts and consequences thereof, with minimal amounts of iodide and cesium, but not a core breach/meltdown. Of course, there are multiple layers of containment (as noted in the diagrams on the link I posted) so one person's (say, anti-nuclear advocate) "failure" may not be the same as someone who is involved in the nuclear industry.

The issue is not a structural problem with the plants. Yes, they are old, and yes, there are better designs. But the best I can gather indicates that it was built to withstand an 8.0 earthquake and a 6 meter tsunami--it got whacked by a 9.0 and a 7-10 meter tsunami. It was a highly improbable event, and apparently the engineers were OK with tolerating that "tail risk." I suppose now they need to plan for a 10.0 magnitude quake and resultant tsunami. Putting diesel generators higher up, having longer-duration battery back-up, having an ocean-water emergency cooling backup system--who knows? And when an 11.0 quake hits, what will the critics then say? (partly saying this in jest, but critics will always criticize no matter how well something is built/planned.)

Bernie Baake · **Posted:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:24 pm

first lets qualify a few statements:
spent fuel rods cannot achieve criticality,thats why they're called spent. They are removed when their uranium content no longer can sustain a chain reaction.

The spent fuel pools are empty in the four buildings. This has been verified by satellite
photo.

Boric acid is used to inhibit a chain reaction. Since there is little to no chance of criticality in spent rods, one can only conclude that it is being used in the boiling water reactors.

Any breach in the zircaloy cladding in considered a melt down. Something more than minor breaches have occured in my opinion, due to venting of steam from one or more of the plants.

Increased radiation levels have been detected in California, minor venting won't spread significant amounts of radiation. Levels 3000 miles away are being felt to increase thats significant.

Satellite photos also show numerous breaches in 4 of the buildings, these are indications that system piping may have been breached also.

My guess is that this event will be similar to TMI but worse, but not as bad as chernobyl.

I base my thoughts on six years of Nuclear Power operation and training with the US Navy and on satellite photo's seen on TV

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:13 pm

Bernie Baake wrote:

first lets qualify a few statements:
spent fuel rods cannot achieve criticality,thats why they're called spent. They are removed when their uranium content no longer can sustain a chain reaction.

The spent fuel pools are empty in the four buildings. This has been verified by satellite
photo.

Boric acid is used to inhibit a chain reaction. Since there is little to no chance of criticality in spent rods, one can only conclude that it is being used in the boiling water reactors.

Any breach in the zircaloy cladding in considered a melt down. Something more than minor breaches have occured in my opinion, due to venting of steam from one or more of the plants.

Increased radiation levels have been detected in California, minor venting won't spread significant amounts of radiation. Levels 3000 miles away are being felt to increase thats significant.

Satellite photos also show numerous breaches in 4 of the buildings, these are indications that system piping may have been breached also.

My guess is that this event will be similar to TMI but worse, but not as bad as chernobyl.

I base my thoughts on six years of Nuclear Power operation and training with the US Navy and on satellite photo's seen on TV

OK, I get what you're saying. It makes sense then that zircaloy cladding failed given that cesium/iodine etc was detected in the vented steam.

But MIT explains it quite differently

"A reactor is maintained critical during normal power operations. In other systems, such as a spent fuel pool, mechanisms are in place to prevent criticality. If such a system still achieves criticality, it is called “re-criticality”. Boron and other materials, which absorb neutrons, are in place to make sure that this re-criticality does not occur. The added neutron absorbers substantially increase the rate of loss of neutrons, to ensure a subcritical system."

from http://mitnse.com/

I guess That explains why they are dumping water from helicopters, using water cannons etc while waiting for the new diesel generators to come online, or the new power lines to make it to the facility.

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:32 pm

Steven Carter wrote:

Richard Casto wrote:

There is real evidence the containment has failed on one of the reactors.

Where is proof of this containment breech? I'm talking about the core, as in meltdown through the concrete containment vessel/apparatus. I have seen/read lots of info about cooling the spent fuel pools, the cooling system for the reactors, and the radiation from those aspects but nothing like a containment failure. The explosions have been related to steam/de-pressurization attempts and consequences thereof, with minimal amounts of iodide and cesium, but not a core breach/meltdown. Of course, there are multiple layers of containment (as noted in the diagrams on the link I posted) so one person's (say, anti-nuclear advocate) "failure" may not be the same as someone who is involved in the nuclear industry.

I take back my comment about the evidence regarding the failure of a containment vessel. I was going upon reports from three days ago after the explosion at reactor 2. If I remember correctly after the explosion some pressure readings showed a lower pressure in the containment vessel and that adding water didn't raise the pressure. The implication was that it had a leak and would not hold the higher pressures. Nobody knew for sure, but that was the initial analysis. I believe that since that initial report was written they say the damage appears to have been to the suppression pool at the bottom of the containment vessel and not the containment vessel itself. Frankly I am ecstatic I was wrong as I hope the vessels remain intact.

Steven Carter wrote:

The issue is not a structural problem with the plants. Yes, they are old, and yes, there are better designs. But the best I can gather indicates that it was built to withstand an 8.0 earthquake and a 6 meter tsunami--it got whacked by a 9.0 and a 7-10 meter tsunami. It was a highly improbable event, and apparently the engineers were OK with tolerating that "tail risk." I suppose now they need to plan for a 10.0 magnitude quake and resultant tsunami. Putting diesel generators higher up, having longer-duration battery back-up, having an ocean-water emergency cooling backup system--who knows? And when an 11.0 quake hits, what will the critics then say? (partly saying this in jest, but critics will always criticize no matter how well something is built/planned.)

You may not have been addressing me with the comment about the structural problem, but if you are, I never said there was. If I was to make any comment it would be that in my opinion it was not a stretch to envision a 9.0 quake in that area. Apparently these reactors were built to sustain the parameters of a 7.3 quake that happened in the US in 1952. I guess you have to pick some target and while a magnitude 7 is not a terrible target, I personally I think they set the bar on the low side given their location. And I don't think that is a hindsight comment. They started construction on that plant in 1967. In 1960 Chile had the largest earthquake then (or since) at 9.5. In 1964 Alaska experienced a 9.2 earthquake along with a tsunami that had a 100ft wave. With this type of recent history within the "Ring of Fire" I know someone put one and one together and knew it might happen at the location of this Japanese plant. And I am sure some estimates were put together to see what it would take to protect against a larger quake and a large tsunami and I am sure it was a cost issue. I am not saying you don't ignore cost, but if you build reactors on the edge of fault lines and directly on the coast, you are tempting fate. Don't set the bar so low. But we as a human race have to learn things the hard way. I guess it is how we are wired.

But you would ask the question "Well, what should we design for?" I would say at a minimum they should design for a 9.0 quake as that is the range of the largest known. Even then, most everyone feels it wasn't the quake that really created the problem, but the tsunami. If anything they should look harder at the effects of tsunamis and other disasters that can eat into the redundancy that they count upon. The use of "defense in depth" is a great strategy. But if a single (and not far fetched) event can cripple a critical portion of your redundancy then your plan has a big hole in it. I don't want to speculate as to how they had protected their backup diesel generators, but I would love to know what measures were taken. I hope they were not sitting between the main reactors and the beach!

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:40 pm

Bernie Baake wrote:

I base my thoughts on six years of Nuclear Power operation and training with the US Navy and on satellite photo's seen on TV

Bernie, I pretty much would defer to your domain knowledge. I pretty much agree with what you have said other than the point about the spent fuel pool and criticality (as Steven just pointed out). You should not have to worry about spent fuel going critical again. But there are scenarios in which it could happen. And what is happening in Japan is tickling those scenarios.

One thing that aggravates things with the current situation is that the spent fuel pools are integrated within the reactor building like they are. Just like everyone else we see those cross section cut aways of the building and I keep wondering if the hydrogen explosions above the reactor caused problems with the integrity of the spent fuel pools. One of the experts I saw on TV said they don't build spent fuel pools like that anymore.

Outside of us discussing (arguing), I actually have hope that they are getting a handle on things. It seems like the news is more good than bad. They still have a long way to go however.

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:45 pm

Jason Mauldin wrote:

Richard Casto wrote:

But like I said I am not anti-nuclear. I think it would be a great interim stepping stone between fossil fuels to renewal solutions (solar, wind, etc.)

Richard

I personally don't agree with what you're implying here. If we were to just completely switch to solar and wind for our power needs, there would be MAJOR impacts to the local environments where this energy is being taken out of the environment. Anything we do to convert a natural resource (fossil fuels, uranium, solar, wind, etc) to electricity is going to have some kind of impact on the world around us. We've seen the hazards of fossil fuels and nuclear, so we just assume they are worse than the alternative.

I suspect the ultimate solution will be to use a combination of these sources and hope for the best. In the meantime, using less energy should be a priority. But that's never going to happen while we have an economy that is driven by consumption.

At the risk of driving this in a different direction I will reply.

We probably agree more than disagree on this. Everything has impacts. True, many (most?) people would assume that solar, wind, etc. is going to have a smaller impact than fossil or nuclear. Personally I think that would be a correct assumption (you may not agree), but I also agree that anything we do needs to be understood. I also think that between now and some future state where we are hopefully using one more long term sustainable sources that there will be a mixture of sources and that will include nuclear.

Jason Mauldin · **Posted:** Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:34 am

I agree that the majority of people feel that solar and wind will have a smaller impact than traditional means. But, I also think that the negatives have not seriously been considered. I won't blindly say one way or the other, as I have nothing to base an assumption on. This isn't to say that I am against a PV Farm on top of every building that's currently standing.

People seem to forget that you can't just create energy. It has to be taken from somewhere or something. There is no such thing as a free lunch here.

Bernie Baake · **Posted:** Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:09 am

Don't have alot of time ... heading to NCCAR ....But time for some schooling on critical mass..... three things necessary fissionable fuel, spent rods have some.
second, water to act as a moderator to slow emission nuetrons to useable levels by the fissionable material,(graphite was used at Chernobyl hense the massive fire and contaminant spread.third and most critical is buckling factor---the size and shape necessary to sustain criticality. most cores are cylindrical which is not the perfect shape (a circle allows least nuetron ecsape making more available for fission) if too many escape then fission ceases. or if you pour an absorber like boron into the reactor to poison it. Spent rods are not piled into shapes that will create chain reactions and the likley hood of the quake and tidalwave to do so is remote, really remote. it takes hundred of engineers thousands of hours to design these shapes thats why I doubt criticality in the pools which no longer have water in them.
and the plants in Japan did have spent fuel pools they are of an older design.
So without a moderator and the lack of shape I don't believe that the pools contain critical piles. I'm off to drive NCCAR

steve remchak · **Posted:** Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:32 pm

the end is nigh boys.................... time to order up that GTS

http://cc.porsche.com/pva_new/ccCall.do ... s&vLevel=2

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:03 am

This video is interesting to say the least...

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/highway-fukushima-zone-first-person-trek-through-radioactive-wasteland

Bernie Baake · **Posted:** Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:32 am

My guess is that this event will be similar to TMI but worse, but not as bad as Chernobyl.

I quoted that in my first post on this thread. I'm going to revise it and say almost as bad as Chernobyl

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:54 am

Interesting video. I am not sure I would want to drive those roads at night as it didn't look like there was much in the way as to warnings to bad road conditions.

I haven't really posted anything new as they generally have things under control. It seems to be more of damage control mode now. With a wealth of radioactive water seeming to be the current issue.

Direct reports from TEPCO or Japanese officials seems to be full of the words "maybe", "potential", "possible" etc. They just can't say with 100% certainty what did, or didn't happen with respect to things such a if criticality was accidentally reached at Unit 1 and if there was a breach of the pressure vessel at Unit 3. There is evidence (but not definitive evidence) that both of these happened. It may be months before we get a real idea as to what happened inside those reactors.

THSCC Forums

Armchair Nuclear Engineer and Japan’s Nuclear Problems

Who is online