Japan earthquake + tsunami + nuclear problems

[macdoc]

Great links - that third one is excellent description..

 

[MattusMaximus]

I put together a blog post last night about all of this, and I'd appreciate any feedback...

Know Nukes: The Japanese Earthquake & Anti-Nuclear Hysteria

ETA: Thanks for the links two posts above, I think I will try including them later into my post.

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

Latest news is that the pumps for reactor 2 aren't working any longer, Currently they can't confirm that here is coolant water left inside the vessel nor that new -sea- water is entering the vessel of reactor 2. (NHK)

Edit:
The Tepco VP just gave a press conference and stated that pumps were back in operation. (NHK)

Edit 2:
Reactor 2 - Fuel for the pumps ran out resulting in the interruption of sea water pumping but this has been resolved and water is once again being pumped into the vessel to re-submerge the rods for cooling. During the 2 hour interruption there was insufficient water coolant and the fuel rods were fully above water. (NHK)

Edit 3:
21:51 Water levels are now at 2 meters from the bottom inside reactor 2. (NHK)

 

[Kuko 4000]

Thanks MattusMaximus, I paused reading after this:

Now, some people have made an argument that the danger of the diesel engines being flooded by a tsunami is an obvious design flaw, and I might agree. Regardless of whether or not there are design flaws, you can be rest assured that nuclear scientists & engineers will definitely learn from this incident and design better power plants.

...and decided to comment.

This is exactly what my comment in the OP was referring to:

I do have to wonder why the Japanese were not prepared for this when other countries have warned them about this and know how to build better precautionary measures.

We have known for a long time now how to build better and more fail-safe cooling systems than the ones in trouble right now, at least that's what the experts here in Finland have said from the beginning. Japan just hasn't listened, even though they live in a Tsunami critical area. Which is something that, if true, should be more emphasised.

I'm looking forward to reading the rest of your post, thanks!

 

[Oystein]

Would alternative energy power plants be as dangerous?

Some alternative energy power poses special risks caused by earthquakes, too:

There are news report that an irrigation dam broke in Japan because of the earthquake and washed away many houses, leaving some people missing. I haven't seen much confirmation and follow up on that, so I present the following numbers only to illustrate the dangers of hydro-electric plants:

Suppose the dam's main purpose was generation of electricity.
I read in one report that 1800 houses were washed away.
Suppose There was 1 person killed in every house.
That would make, up to now, 0 dead from earthquake-related nuclear troubles, and 1800 dead from earthquake related alternative energy troubles.

Since the start of the troubles at the Fukushima I-1 reactor, coal fired power plants have caused or contributed to the deaths of nearly 800 people.

Do you have a source on that?

 

[JihadJane]

Some alternative energy power poses special risks caused by earthquakes, too:

Perhaps "conventional" and "alternative" energy aren't the only choices. There is also the option finding a way of living on the planet that doesn't require using the amount of energy that the transient fossil fuel bonanza has convinced us we need.

Do you have a source on that?

Probably, though he not infrequently and unapologetically invents "facts" out of thin air!

 

[icerat]

Hmm, BBC reports from one of the plant designers -

1431: More from Japanese nuclear engineer Masashi Goto: He say that as the reactor uses mox (mixed oxide) fuel, the melting point is lower than that of conventional fuel. Should a meltdown and an explosion occur, he says, plutonium could be spread over an area up to twice as far as estimated for a conventional nuclear fuel explosion. The next 24 hours are critical, he says.
1426: Mr Goto says his greatest fear is that blasts at number 3 and number 1 reactors may have damaged the steel casing of the containment vessel designed to stop radioactive material escaping into the atmosphere. More to follow.
1422: Japanese engineer Masashi Goto, who helped design the containment vessel for Fukushima's reactor core, says the design was not enough to withstand earthquakes or tsunamis and the plant's builders, Toshiba, knew this. More on Mr Goto's remarks to follow.

 

[macdoc]

The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Health and Environmental Research sponsored a multiyear study by a Harvard University research group to evaluate all of the available studies. Its conclusion was that air pollution is probably causing about 100,000 deaths per year in the United States.11 These deaths are principally from heart and lung disease. In addition it is estimated that air pollution causes about 1,000 cancer deaths per year.6

The estimate of 100,000 deaths per year means that 1 American out of 30 dies as a result of air pollution. Most environmental agents that get abundant media attention and public concern, such as Alar in apples, pesticides that have been banned, PCBs, and formaldehyde, give those exposed less than one chance in 100,000 of dying from their effects. We see that air pollution, which gives 1 chance in 30, is thousands of times more harmful.

While the evidence for health effects from air pollution is undeniable, reaching an understanding of them has proved to be a very difficult task. Historically, the pollutants most easily and therefore most frequently measured were sulfur dioxide and suspended particulate matter; thus, nearly all correlation studies were based on them. Until the late 1970s, it was widely assumed that these were the materials actually responsible for the health damage. Yet animals exposed to very high levels of these materials for long time periods showed no ill effects. Moreover, men occupationally exposed to 100 times the normal outdoor levels of sulfur dioxide from refrigeration sources, oil refineries, and pulp and paper mills were not seriously affected. Occupational settings where suspended particulate levels are 100 times higher than the outdoor average revealed no important health effects.10 In response to these findings, in the mid-1970s there was a strong trend toward designating sulfate particulates, resulting from chemical reactions of sulfur dioxide with other chemicals in air, as the culprit, and some still continue to support that viewpoint; but animals show no ill effects even from prolonged exposure to relatively high levels of sulfate particulates.

One could concentrate on other components of air pollution as possible sources of the health effects, and there are plenty of candidates to choose from. Most of them, including the great majority of volatile organic compounds, have not been investigated as causes of health effects. But there is no evidence or strong body of opinion that any one substance is the major culprit in air pollution. Health effects probably arise from complicated interactions of many pollutants acting together. We may never understand the process in any detail.

The greatest difficulty in trying to tie down causes is that air pollution doesn't kill healthy people in one fell swoop. It rather continuously weakens the respiratory and cardiovascular systems over many decades until they collapse under one added insult. This explains why there are no mortality effects on the occupationally exposed, on animals, and on college students used as volunteer subjects in controlled tests.10

Since we do not know what components of air pollution cause the health effects, it is impossible to know what pollution control technologies will be effective in averting them. The often-heard statement "we can clean up coal burning" involves a large measure of wishful thinking.

How much of this air pollution can be averted by use of nuclear power? None of the pollutants discussed above are released by nuclear reactors. Coal burning, which now generates most of our electricity, is by far the most polluting process. According to EPA estimates,5 fossil fuel burning in electric power plants produces 64% of all U.S. releases of sulfur dioxide, 27% of the particulates, and 31% of the nitrogen oxides, but less than 1% of the carbon monoxide or hydrocarbons. It is therefore reasonable to estimate that this is causing 30,000 of the 100,000 deaths per year caused by air pollution

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter3.html

extrapolated worldwide 800 appears on the low side - far far low side

•••

The earthquake was 5 x the plant design - keep it in mind.

Japanese engineer Masashi Goto, who helped design the containment vessel for Fukushima's reactor core, says the design was not enough to withstand earthquakes or tsunamis and the plant's builders, Toshiba, knew this.

Totally vague statement - something lost in translation.

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

Latest news is that the pumps for reactor 2 aren't working any longer, Currently they can't confirm that here is coolant water left inside the vessel nor that new -sea- water is entering the vessel of reactor 2. (NHK)

Edit:
The Tepco VP just gave a press conference and stated that pumps were back in operation. (NHK)

Edit 2:
Reactor 2 - Fuel for the pumps ran out resulting in the interruption of sea water pumping but this has been resolved and water is once again being pumped into the vessel to re-submerge the rods for cooling. During the 2 hour interruption there was insufficient water coolant and the fuel rods were fully above water. (NHK)

Edit 3:
21:51 Water levels are now at 2 meters from the bottom inside reactor 2. (NHK)

00:15 NHK is once again reporting that they are encountering problems getting new water into the vessel of reactor 2 while the water level inside is dropping.

 

[Oystein]

Perhaps "conventional" and "alternative" energy aren't the only choices. There is also the option finding a way of living on the planet that doesn't require using the amount of energy that the transient fossil fuel bonanza has convinced us we need.

True, but beside the point and not the issue of my post.
Changing the way of life, by the way, poses risks, too, beside the chances.

Probably, though he not infrequently and unapologetically invents "facts" out of thin air!

What an unnecessary post. I asked precisely because I wasn't going to just believe him.

 

[macdoc]

Now it's been answered and perhaps those without nuclear reactor knowledge can sit back and learn and take alternative power sources questions to appropriate threads.

••••
latest summary

Another hydrogen explosion has rocked the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, this time at the third reactor unit. Initial analysis is that the containment structure remains intact.
The blast that occurred at 11.01am today was much larger than the one seen at unit 1 two days ago. An orange flash came before a large column of brown and grey smoke. A large section of the relatively lightweight roof was seen to fly upwards before landing back on other power plant buildings.
Chief cabinet secretary Yukiyo Edamo appeared on television shortly afterwards to identify the blast was a hydrogen explosion. He said contact had been made with the plant manager whose belief is that the containment structure, important to nuclear safety, remains intact. The rationale for that statement, Edamo said, was that water injection operations have continued and pressure readings from the reactor system remained within a comfortable range.
Pressure and radiation readings
Pressure readouts from the period after the explosion were within a relatively normal range: 380 kPa at 11.13 and 360 kPa at 11.55am. These compare with comfortable levels yesterday of 250 kPa, reference levels of 400 kPa, and a high of 840 kPa recorded at unit 1 on 12 March.
Radiation readings on site remained low after the blast, albeit elevated from normal operation. In the service hall the reading was 50 microSieverts per hour. At the entrance to the plant the figure was 20 microSieverts per hour.
At 12:30pm, the radiation dose measured at a monitoring point on the Fukushima Daiichi site indicated a level of 4 microSieverts per hour. However, a subsequent reading at 1:55pm showed a reading of 15 microSieverts per hour but an increase of radioactive material was not confirmed. A monitoring post at the Fukushima Daini plant – some 10 kilometres south of the Fukushima Daiichi plant – indicated no change in the radiation dose there.
Cooling and pressure control
Fukushima Daiichi 3 was yesterday the subject of sustained efforts by engineers working to ensure that adequate cooling water was available for decay heat removal. Seawater was being injected into the reactor vessel and pressure had been relieved to comfortable levels.
A statement from Tepco shortly after the blast said that pressure had risen again to 530 kPa by 6.50am. The company determined this was ‘abnormal’ at 7.44am and declared the matter officially to government. It began to gradually relieve the pressure, and carried out a “tentative evacuation” of the site, until it reached a level of 490 kPa at 9.05am.

From Kyodo News:
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said the plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. confirmed that the 11:01 a.m. blast did not damage the container of the No. 3 reactor, allaying concerns that the explosion may have caused a massive release of radioactive substance. TEPCO said three workers, including its employees, were injured by the blast. All of them suffered bruises. ”According to the plant chief’s assessment, the container’s health has been maintained,” Edano told a press conference.
——————–
Here are some of the best updates available on the Japanese nuclear power plant situation (14 March 2011), following the massive earthquake and subsequent tsunami. In short, the nuclear reactor situation at Fukushima units #1 and #3 has stabilised with full containment intact (see below), and all other plants in the affected area are in cold shutdown.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/14/japan-nuclear-updates/


more

World Nuclear News provides a regularly updated commentary:
Efforts to manage Fukushima Daiichi 3. The bottom line:

Unit 1: Seawater injection continues and it is thought the reactor core is now sufficiently cool. Safety regulators consider reactor pressure of 353 kPa an indication of a stable condition.

Unit 2: The normal reactor core isolation cooling system is in use. Fuel rods are covered by about 3.8 metres of water.

Unit 3: Operations to relieve pressure in the containment of Fukushima Daiichi 3 have taken place after the failure of a core coolant system. Seawater is being injected to make certain of core cooling. Malfunctions have hampered efforts but there are strong indications of stability.

Summary
Reactors 1, 2 and 3 were in operation at Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (Tepco’s) east coast Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant when the magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck. Three other reactors were already shut for inspection but all three operating units underwent automatic shutdown as expected. Because plant power and grid power were unavailable during the earthquake, diesel generators started automatically to supply power for decay heat removal.

This situation continued for one hour until the plant was hit by the tsunami wave, which stopped the generators and left the plant in black-out conditions.
The tsunami wave that hit the plant measured at least 7 metres in height, compared to the maximum 6.5 metre case the plant was designed to cope with.
The loss of power meant inevitable rises in temperature within the reactor system as well increases in pressure. Engineers fought for many hours to install mobile power units to replace the diesels and managed to stabilise conditions at units 2 and 3.
However, there was not enough power to provide sufficient coolant to unit 1, which came under greater and greater strain from falling water levels and steady pressure rises. Tepco found it necessary yesterday to vent steam from the reactor containment. Next, the world saw a sharp hydrogen explosion destroy a portion of the reactor building roof. The government ordered the situation brought under control by the injection of seawater to the reactor vessel.

.......

Professor Barry Brook, an environmental scientist at the University of Adelaide, said the effect on the Australian debate depended on whether it would be ”argued on a rational basis or an irrational basis”.

A rational debate would acknowledge that Japan’s largest recorded earthquake produced an incident at a 40-year-old reactor that was ranked at a level less than the Three Mile Island emergency, he said. ”I think the nuclear reactors have come through remarkably well.”

 

[ElMondoHummus]

the post you have included as a quote is baloney...not much to do with actual events. the wiki article is reasonable.

The rods in a BWR don't drop...they are inserted with high pressure air into the bottom of the core...which did occur and would occur automatically

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant

glenn

Actually pretty much every single news report does contradict this. The issue being is that even if you shut the reaction down it still needs to be cooled. TThe cooling systems were working and failed after the tsunami hit. So the reality is that everything pretty much was going all right until they lost power.

Yeah that is actually kind of bizarre. The newer systems automatically shut themselves down and none of this idiotic need for redundant power systems. Namely because the cooling is passive and not active.

My mistake, folks. I felt that the source was reasonable. Which is why I posted. As noted, subsequent reports have shown it to be inaccurate. My apologies, but that was posted in good faith, not with any motive to be disinformative.

I think the worlds third biggest economy could have afforded a more modern, safer design than keep one running with technology that is 50 years old.

All I know is that Fukushima I was built in the late 60's, which would of course imply that the original design was from that same era. What they would've done in the subsequent years to upgrade the facility is information I do not have at hand.

 

[macdoc]

and this summarizes the 50 year old design performance very well...

A rational debate would acknowledge that Japan’s largest recorded earthquake produced an incident at a 40-year-old reactor that was ranked at a level less than the Three Mile Island emergency, he said. ”I think the nuclear reactors have come through remarkably well.”

If the world had actually pursued nuclear energy we

a) would not be cooking ourselves anywhere near the level we are ( see France )

b) "walk away" reactors would be common place.

c) the nuclear arsenal would be decommissioned in large part....a particularly satisfying swords to plowshares conversion.

But no .....the nimby idjits rule. ..

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Macdoc and others have underscored a fact that I really, really wish would be highlighted in news broadcasts. And that's that, for as big an emergency as this is, containment appears to be working. The core material appears to still be enclosed. This in the face of 1. A freakishly large earthquake, 2. A tsunami, 3. A hydrogen gas explosion, and 4. Coolant failure.

Is this a critical situation? Yes. But wouldn't it also be fair to say it also underscores the success of a decades old design as well? It's worked so far, and while it's taking some extraordinary effort to keep things from getting worse, the structure has also held the core material inside.

 

[technoextreme]

Macdoc and others have underscored a fact that I really, really wish would be highlighted in news broadcasts. And that's that, for as big an emergency as this is, containment appears to be working. The core material appears to still be enclosed. This in the face of 1. A freakishly large earthquake, 2. A tsunami, 3. A hydrogen gas explosion, and 4. Coolant failure.

You mean a hydrogen gas explosion that most people were expecting. I love the CNN video of the fear mongering and they had the expert on saying,"Yeah we kind of knew this was going to happen. Its no big deal."

 

[dudalb]

I think most people will be swayed by what they see, and nuclear power just became political poison. Again.

BUt not as poisonous as people's budgets being devoured by rising energy costs.

 

[dudalb]

Perhaps "conventional" and "alternative" energy aren't the only choices. There is also the option finding a way of living on the planet that doesn't require using the amount of energy that the transient fossil fuel bonanza has convinced us we need.




!

Welcome back to the Middle Ages........

 

[Kuko 4000]

But wouldn't it also be fair to say it also underscores the success of a decades old design as well? It's worked so far, and while it's taking some extraordinary effort to keep things from getting worse, the structure has also held the core material inside.

Well, it remains to be seen of course, I hope that's how it all ends up. One more thing to add, the experts in Finland are saying that the radiation levels that people could be exposed to currently are not that dangerous, they compared an hour of exposure to a single chest x-ray.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Since the start of the troubles at the Fukushima I-1 reactor, coal fired power plants have caused or contributed to the deaths of nearly 800 people.

Do you have a source on that?

Yes, I do.
James lovelock says pollutants from coal-based electricity generation kill 170,000 people annually

Next Big Future says 30,000 per year in the US, 500,000 in China.

I came up with the 800 figure based on an estimate of 150,000 globally. But as you see, estimates are all over the map. Coal is highly problematic as it contains so many different pollutants in addition to just plain giant gobs of carbon (including 5 tons of uranium released every year per gigawatt of coal power) that finding exactly how many people it kills is extremely difficult.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

How's this for a headline:

Fukushima Death Toll Stubbornly Remains at Zero, Anti-Nuclear Lobby Frustrated, but Hopeful