Japan earthquake + tsunami + nuclear problems

...
The next transition is happening, and it's to solar energy in all its forms. Sun, wind, wave, and we can thank the Moon for tidal. It pours down on us every minute of every day. That's where the future is, and anything spent on nuclear power now is investment in the future thrown away.

There is no way that solar or wind power is remotely in a position to power the grid. You need highly predictable controllable power levels 24/7. Wind fluctuates 15% over a few minutes and often much much more. You can't even anticipate how much wind you'll have tomorrow. Solar fluctuates 100% plus drastic fluctuations on time of day, cloud cover and season.

California's infamous summer of rolling blackouts a few years back occurred because the available power was short by 1 or 2%, think of what a 12% drop will do.

It's not helpful to talk of wind as supplemental power, either. You can't just turn on a generator, it takes many hours to days. Therefore if you have 'standby' you actually have to have hot spares, running at full speed, ready to kick in during the next lull in the wind.
 
The accident has been recorded at Level 4 on the International Nuclear Events Scale, meaning that there are local consequences only (the scale goes up to 7). For reference, Three Mile Island was a Level 5 and Chernobyl was a Level 7.

EDIT

It's now a 5:

The nuclear accident at the Fukushima plant now ranks alongside Three Mile Island in terms of seriousness on an international nuclear accident scale, Japan’s nuclear safety agency said Friday.
http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/...-accident-ranked-alongside-three-mile-island/
 
Last edited:

The report that Lomiller cites actually confirms what I have said. It states that there is more than 4 billion tons of uranium suspended in seawater and that this is recoverable. This is what gives rise to the 7 million year figure Cohen gives in his 1983 paper that I linked above. I myself often give the figure as 2 million years on the conservative assumption that we would likely recover a third of this or less before we start seeing diminishing returns.

Last week, prior to the disaster in Japan I forwarded an article to the CNS e-mail list from CNN/Fortune warning of price increases in the uranium market. Dr. Dan Meneley responded quoting a paper that he co-wrote "Nuclear Fission Fuel is Inexhaustible":

The price of uranium when converted to other forms of energy, such as electricity, is a very small part of the retail price. For example, at a U3O8(yellow cake) price of about US$70/kg [UC, Oct 2005] the raw material cost of the uranium to produce electricity in thermal reactors is about US$0.0015/kWh [Pendergast, 1990]. If the price of U3O8 were to increase 100 fold to US$7,000/kg, the price of electricity would increase by about US$0.15/kWh, which compares with the current retail price of electricity in North America being US$0.05 to US$0.15/kWh. Thus, if the current price increased even that dramatically, the price of electricity would increase to US$0.20 to US$0.30/kWh, which would be manageable.
So, $7,000 per kg uranium would not be a big problem.


At that price, you probably could mine uranium out of most ordinary granite and still make big money. To say nothing of the near-infinite quantity of uranium in the oceans, or also the fact that thorium is more abundant than uranium in the earth's crust.

Gwyneth Cravens, author of "Power to Save the World" also confirms that global uranium reserves are essentially infinite (click Chapter 14 from the menu).

Even if technological human civilization, operating far into the future could exhaust all of the uranium and thorium that we know about today, there is reason to believe that in that time span geological processes would bring up new supplies from the Earths mantle, making uranium and thorium viable for sustaining civilization up until the end of the planet itself in some 4 or 5 billion years.
 
The next transition is happening, and it's to solar energy in all its forms. Sun, wind, wave, and we can thank the Moon for tidal. It pours down on us every minute of every day. That's where the future is, and anything spent on nuclear power now is investment in the future thrown away.

This is just silly. The worlds largest solar array in India covers 58 square miles and produces maybe 24,000 megawatt hours per day (and I'm being really generous here) while the largest reactor complex in North America produces six times the energy on one tenth the land area.

Short of the Earth suddenly moving closer to the sun and stopping its rotation (frying or freezing all life on the surface in the process) solar energy will never compete with nuclear.

I have a little thing of my own I call the rule of cubes.

1 cubic meter of moving air will push a toy boat across a pond.

1 cubic meter of petroleum will drive a semi trailer truck from New York to Chicago.

1 cubic meter of uranium or thorium will light a city for a year.

It's the ability to squeeze a large amount of energy into a small package that determines the success of an energy source. To think that wind and solar will compete with nuclear when they never could with oil is pure dreaming.
 
This is just silly. The worlds largest solar array in India covers 58 square miles and produces maybe 24,000 megawatt hours per day (and I'm being really generous here) while the largest reactor complex in North America produces six times the energy on one tenth the land area.

It's not as if the earth is short of land area (and even if it were, there's the ocean). To give an idea of the areas involved, to power an industrialized nation at current solar cell efficiencies and current use rates we'd need about as much area covered with solar panels as is currently paved over. That's a lot, yes, but it's also evidently feasible in terms of land use.

Short of the Earth suddenly moving closer to the sun and stopping its rotation (frying or freezing all life on the surface in the process) solar energy will never compete with nuclear.

You obviously have no basis for that assertion.

I have a little thing of my own I call the rule of cubes.

1 cubic meter of moving air will push a toy boat across a pond.

1 cubic meter of petroleum will drive a semi trailer truck from New York to Chicago.

1 cubic meter of uranium or thorium will light a city for a year.

It's the ability to squeeze a large amount of energy into a small package that determines the success of an energy source. To think that wind and solar will compete with nuclear when they never could with oil is pure dreaming.

Petroleum is a remarkably compact energy source. It's very useful for high-intensity needs like powering jets. Why would we want to waste it running power plants?
 
Thought this was an interesting blog post:

The plant

The Fukushima Daiichi power station operates six boiling water reactors all completed during the 1970s. Details of the reactors vary but the concept is the same: the core consists of a pill-shaped pressure vessel filled with several hundred fuel assemblies. Each fuel assembly is in turn filled with about a hundred fuel rods. A fuel rod is a long, narrow tube of zirconium alloy filled with pellets of uranium which has been enriched to around 3-5% of the energy-producing isotope U-235. (In the case of unit 3, Plutonium-239 is also an active part of the fuel).

When enough fuel is brought together at the core, a chain reaction begins that generates heat, and ultimately power. The core of a modern reactor can hum along for a year or more before the fuel needs to be changed.

The accident

The key to the crisis is water. In addition to the uranium fuel rods, the fuel assemblies have channels which carry highly purified water between the fuel. The water acts as both a moderator for the nuclear reactions and a coolant for the reactor core. On top of it all, it makes the electricity: as it is heated by the reactor, it turns into steam that drives the power turbines. Once the water passes through the turbines it is cooled and re-injected into the core to do it all again.

It all goes great unless the water stops flowing, and that's exactly what it appears has happened in the wake of a massive magnitude 9.0 earthquake that shook the region on 11 March. Diesel generators designed to keep feeding water to Fukushima Unit 1 apparently shutdown about an hour after the quake. Yesterday, the water supply to Unit 3 was interrupted. In both cases, the cores began to heat up.

Meltdown

Immediately after the earthquake, the Fukushima reactors, and many others, went into an automatic shutdown mode. Special rods of neutron-absorbing material, known as control rods, were inserted between the fuel assemblies, halting the power-producing nuclear reactions. But power-producing reactions are not the only ones happening at the core: as nuclear fuel burns it creates new elements that themselves generate a great deal of heat through their radioactive decay. A small but significant amount of the core's heat is generated by these elements, and there is no way to turn them off.

So, without emergency cooling, the temperature at the core of both reactors began to rise. As it did, what water that remained began to boil off, increasing the pressure inside the pellet-shape pod.

When temperatures reached around a thousand degrees Celsius, the zirconium alloy holding the fuel pellets probably began to melt or split apart. As it did, it reacted with the steam and created hydrogen gas, which is highly volatile.

[snip]

If, as it appears, the zirconium came apart, then some of the uranium and plutonium pellets in the fuel rods may have become loose or melted and sunk to the bottom of the pressure vessel. In that case, the cores of units 1 and 3 are now a volatile test tube filled with radioactive fuel, melted zirconium and water.

The real danger is the fuel. If enough fuel gathers at the bottom of the reactor, it could burn through the concrete containment vessel. In a worse case scenario, the fuel could again gather to form a critical mass outside the fuel assembly. The loose fuel would restart the power-producing reactions, but in a completely uncontrolled way. This, if it happened, would lead to a full-scale nuclear meltdown.

[snip]

What's next?

It is very difficult to say. In the best case scenario, the fuel will be sufficiently cooled to stabilize the situation. But its important to understand that there's no way to “shut off” the residual heat inside these reactors. Unless the fuel can be moved, which seems unlikely for now, they will need to be actively cooled for weeks in order to prevent a crisis. (Although the half-life radionuclides in the fuel mean that cooling will become less urgent with time). Even after the immediate crisis is past, decommissioning the reactors could take decades.

The latest update from World Nuclear News indicates progress in the injection of seawater into unit 3.

Updated 14 March at 12:43 PM GMT
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2011/03/fukushima_crisis_anatomy_of_a.html
 
Last edited:
'World-renowned physicist Michio Kaku (known for being a leading string theorist) told MSNBC that dropping water from helicopters is pointless, and advocates using the Chernobyl approach instead':

"[Kaku] What they are doing is basically using squirt guns against a raging forest fire.

***

It's not effective, because the workers cannot get close enough to put water here. That's why I would personally advocate the Chernobyl option. Do what Gorbachev did, call out the Japanese air force, get the army to bring a fleet of helicopters armed with sand, boric acid and concrete, entomb it, bury it in concrete.

[Question] So the sand and -- the approach they use in Chernobyl . Is it too early to do that?

[Kaku] They keep saying that the thing is stable. That's like saying you're hanging on your fingernails and saying it's stable, stable, every six hours it gets worse. If I was the prime minister, I would put the air force on standby, get the helicopters in case they have to exercise the Chernobyl option."

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/03/physicist-what-they-are-doing-is.html
 

Really interesting journal article (if a little shocking....)

eg.

Until today, no accident or sabotage happened to cause the release of radioactivity from a spent fuel pool. However, many scientists and nuclear security experts are very concerned about a significant release of radioactivity by a possible spent fuel fire, especially in the case of dense packing of pools - a method that has been used by many reactor operators worldwide including for most pools in the US.

The most serious risk is the loss of pool water, which could expose spent fuel to the air, thus leading to an exothermal reactions of the zirconium cladding, which would catch fire at about 9000 °C. Thus, the Cs-137 in the rods could be dispersed into the surrounding atmosphere. Based on a Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plant in 2000, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conceded that "the possibility of a zirconium fire cannot be dismissed even many years after a final reactor shutdown." [10] Recently, a number of nuclear scientists outside the government agency arrived at the same conclusion. For example, the new technical study Reducing the hazards from stored spent power-reactor fuel in the United States by R. Alvarez et al. [11] points out that "In the absence of any cooling, a freshly discharged core generating decay heat at a rate of 100 kWt/tU would heat up adiabatically within an hour to about 600 °C, where the zircaloy cladding would be expected to rupture under the internal pressure from helium and fission product gases, and then to about 900 °C where the cladding would begin to burn in air." In addition, although the cooler fuel could not ignite on its own, many scientists are concerned that fire from freshly spent fuel could spread to adjacent cooler fuel by some mechanisms, including zircaloy oxidation propagation. [12] Finally, even for the case of non-dense-packed pools, there could still be some sabotage scenarios that cause a significant amount of radioactive release as discussed in the following section.

Thus, a loss of pool cooling could cause a pool fire.

and

The major operating reprocessing plants are at French La Hague, British Sellafield, and Russian Mayak, and Japan is currently building a major reprocessing facility (with a capacity of 800 tHM/y) at Rokkasho, which is about 90% complete.

Some experts are already concerned about the possible consequence of a terrorist attack on the La Hague nuclear reprocessing facilities. As a COGEMA-La Hague spokesman declared after September 11, as far as the design basis is concerned, the facilities are no more protected against an airliner crash than any other nuclear power station. [20] The World Information Service on Energy, Wise-Paris, estimated the potential impact of a major accident in La Hague's pools. [21] The calculation was made for the case of an explosion and/or fire in the spent fuel storage pool D (the smallest one), assuming that it is filled up to half of its normal capacity of 3,490 t, supposing a release of up to 100% of Cs-137. Based solely on the stock of Cs-137 in pool D, it is shown that a major accident in this pool could have an impact up to 67 times that of the Chernobyl accident. Moreover, the total Cs-137 inventory in the pools of La Hague reprocessing facilities is about 7,500 kg, 280 times as much as the Cs-137 amount released from the 1986 Chernobyl accident.
 

I doubt most terrorists would live long enough to reach the spent fuel pool if they tried to assault a reactor.

Nuclear reactors in the US and Canada are typically heavily defended targets. The winners of the US National SWAT team championships for 2008, 2009 and 2010 has been the Bruce Power Security Team from Bruce County Nuclear Generating Station in Ontario Canada. They've beaten police departments from across the united states, Switzerland and Germany for three years running.

A smart terrorist (a relative term when discussing terrorists) looking to raise hell, would simply grab some fertilizer, oil and a rental truck and go hit a shopping mall or daycare center.
 
gotta love the doomsday anti-nuke crowd.
- 60 years - total spent fuel covers a soccer pitch 3 meters deep
Contains enough useable fuel to run the planet for 400 years.
15% of all electricity comes from the reactors

all your scenarios COULD have happened.....didn't....

Reality

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average 161 (50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (<0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (<1% of world energy)
Hydro 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

move on move on nothing to see here....indeed

and the coal industry merrily continues to emit radiation and other long lived poisons as well as cook the planet......but nnooooooo....no nukes........stupid monkeys indeed......

at least Ontario, France and other regions and most scientists understand that nuclear power is here to stay,
there needs to be a reactor built a day for 20 years to eliminate coal........:garfield:
 
Some of it is wrong.

When temperatures reached around a thousand degrees Celsius, the zirconium alloy holding the fuel pellets probably began to melt or split apart. As it did, it reacted with the steam and created hydrogen gas, which is highly volatile.

Zircaloy -
Crystal structure: hexagonal alpha phase to 865°C, then bcc beta phase, melts at 1860°C.
The Zr alloys are used in the alpha phase condition, with a microstructure governed by the martensitic or bainitic transformation on cooling from beta. The alpha phase is highly anisotropic:

Corrosion:
Irradiation greatly accelerates corrosion through the radiolysis of water giving oxidizing species, countered by adding H2. The reaction
2H2O + Zr = ZrO2 + 4H

Irradiation effects: radiolysis of water
The radiolysis of water has been noted on page 30. Under irradiation, oxidants are produced, raising the electrochemical corrosion potential. Significantly increased corrosion rates can result. This can be effectively countered by addition of H2 to the water: for only 500 ppb (5.6 cc/kg) addition, radiolytic formation of oxidants is effectively suppressed. While this works in PWRs, it fails in BWRs, where the H2 boils off (i.e. is partitioned preferentially to the steam phase). In BWRs, water rises along the fuel rods, and about 25% of the way up steam starts to form. Increased SCC due to radiolysis of water is mainly a problem in BWRs.

http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/teaching/partIII/courseM17/M17H.pdf

It's best not to read blogs; instead go to proper sources.
 
'World-renowned physicist Michio Kaku (known for being a leading string theorist and anti-nuclear power and weapons) told MSNBC that dropping water from helicopters is pointless, and advocates using the Chernobyl approach instead':

"[Kaku] What they are doing is basically using squirt guns against a raging forest fire.....
Fixed it for you - funny how you manage to quote people who a) don't specialise in the subject and b)support your point of view.

The lesson is never believe anything JJ says without first looking up the source.

Physicist Michio Kaku, a major spokesman for these views, has stated:

"Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are two sides of the same coin. They are controlled by the same people, produced by the same corporations and serve the same political and financial interests. The give off the same radioactive poisons, generate the same deadly waste that nobody yet knows what to do with. And both threaten catastrophic destruction. The people who brought us Hiroshima now bring us Harrisburg"


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...#v=onepage&q=michio kaku anti nuclear&f=false
 
The expert scientists I'm watching keep talking about a fire. Burning fuel rods.
 
There is no way that solar or wind power is remotely in a position to power the grid. You need highly predictable controllable power levels 24/7. Wind fluctuates 15% over a few minutes and often much much more. You can't even anticipate how much wind you'll have tomorrow. Solar fluctuates 100% plus drastic fluctuations on time of day, cloud cover and season.
Sorry, but that's not true: the available power doesn't need to match the load, only to be greater than it at any given moment. For large scale renewable power, read up on "super grid".
 
Fixed it for you - funny how you manage to quote people who a) don't specialise in the subject and b)support your point of view.

The lesson is never believe anything JJ says without first looking up the source.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...#v=onepage&q=michio kaku anti nuclear&f=false

Kaku may be a fine string theorist, but he is (a) reflexively anti-nuclear, (b) not a nuclear energy expert, and (c) given to making wildly inflated claims to support his opinion. He is rather infamous for his hysterical claims about the safety of RTG-powered spacecraft.

I'm not particularly impressed by the helicopter drops, either, but properly managed it doesn't hurt, may help a little, and has apparently provided some insight into the conditions at some of the reactor buildings. But I'd no more go to Kaku for expert analysis of the situation then I would my dentist. Or my dogs.
 
Sorry, but that's not true: the available power doesn't need to match the load, only to be greater than it at any given moment. For large scale renewable power, read up on "super grid".

Nice as a concept, but until really it is built and renewable can replace baseload power, we'll have to rely on the few way to generate baseload, and renewable isn't one.
 

Back
Top Bottom