• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What's the most scientifically reasonable solution for the Nuclear Reactor Crisis?

steve s said:
The best solution is to not build nuclear reactors in areas vulnerable to tsunamis.

Steve S
Click to expand...

You realize that Japan does not have much choice when itn comes to energy generation, right ?

WHat do you want them to do ? Give up modern society ? Remember modern society consume a lot of energy , be it in good generation/construction, building maintenance, heating, or even wigget using.
 
steve s said:
The best solution is to not build nuclear reactors in areas vulnerable to tsunamis. Steve S
Click to expand...

Aepervius said:
You realize that Japan does not have much choice when itn comes to energy generation, right ?

WHat do you want them to do ? Give up modern society ? Remember modern society consume a lot of energy , be it in good generation/construction, building maintenance, heating, or even wigget using.
Click to expand...
Would it be too much to ask to use this one thread for updates and explanations dealing exclusively with the situation as it develops at the existing Fukushima plant?

How many active threads are there for discussing the pros and cons of nuclear power in general?
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
When asked what he would do, he said the best option is doing something that was done on a similar crisis a while ago, in which war planes (or some other kind of planes) threw sand and boric acid, which proved much more effective.
Click to expand...
It depends what problem you're trying to solve. If you're trying to remove nuclear decay heat, it won't help very much. If you're trying to reduce fission in an operating reactor, he's right. I'm not sure which they're trying to do in which reactor at what time.
 
JoelKatz said:
It depends what problem you're trying to solve. If you're trying to remove nuclear decay heat, it won't help very much. If you're trying to reduce fission in an operating reactor, he's right. I'm not sure which they're trying to do in which reactor at what time.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, none of the reactors are currently active. The control rods were inserted and they successfully shut down when the earthquake hit. No fission.
 
steve s said:
The best solution is to not build nuclear reactors in areas vulnerable to tsunamis.

Steve S
Click to expand...

They were talking about this yesterday on TV. Evidently the newer models in the US have the backup generators and cabling and fuel supplies buried under ground. So the tsunami problem has been solved already.

And even if somehow the one-two punch in Japan happens, taking out the main power and the backup, the batteries will last long enough because they have a well-designed plan to shlep in big portable generators to any plant having a problem long before the batteries run out. In Japan, the batteries lasted 8 hours, but for some reason they didn't get any backup generators in there fast enough, nor could they lay a temporary cable fast enough.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
That assumes there's anything left for them to work with. Those buildings look to be in pretty bad shape physically. It's hard to imagine that the coolant system are all still completely intact. I suspect that isn't going to be an easy process in each and every case, but I agree it's a "must be done" step if they ever want to regain control.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is an assumption. Early on during the crisis I heard the cooling system failed because of lack of power, not structural damage. THat may or may not have changed with the H2 explosions however.
 
The Fallen Serpent said:
There has been a recorded tsunami of 524 meters in height.
Click to expand...


Not by an earthquake under the ocean offshore, however. If we're talking about a megatsunami of the size you mentioned, it'd have to be from something like an asteroid or comet impact, in which case I think nuclear reactor issues would be the least of our worries.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Not by an earthquake under the ocean offshore, however. If we're talking about a megatsunami of the size you mentioned, it'd have to be from something like an asteroid or comet impact, in which case I think nuclear reactor issues would be the least of our worries.
Click to expand...

More likely large landslides, like those seen relatively recently in Alaska, or much earlier at Storegga?
 
Corsair 115 said:
Not by an earthquake under the ocean offshore, however. If we're talking about a megatsunami of the size you mentioned, it'd have to be from something like an asteroid or comet impact, in which case I think nuclear reactor issues would be the least of our worries.
Click to expand...

I’ve read that tsunami’s of that height can be caused by landslides in a valley or fiord. In such cases water can go up the other side to a height comparable to the height of the land that slid into the water so if 100m of rock slide into the water you can get a wave that goes up 100m on the other side of the bay.
 
Height of a wave approaching shore, any wave, has as much to do with geometry of the coast and slope of the seabed as with the initial energy source.
It also depends on how much water is available at the source. A fat man getting into a full, but small, tub can't displace more than his own volume. A landslide, or quake in a shallow bay similarly can only move a certain amount of water, because there is only a certain volume to be moved.
I still don't know how much of the Fukushima problems is due to tsunami damage to diesel generators and how much is due to loss of power for cooling. If the main problem was loss of power, then improved sea walls might not have helped much; if the back up generators had been on the hill visible on the photos , there might have been no problem. It's such specifics that must be studied before redesign can be done.
In the photos I've seen, tsunami damage at Fukushima is minor compared to what hit some towns, suggesting the designers had indeed done their research.
 
lomiller said:
I’ve read that tsunami’s of that height can be caused by landslides in a valley or fiord. In such cases water can go up the other side to a height comparable to the height of the land that slid into the water so if 100m of rock slide into the water you can get a wave that goes up 100m on the other side of the bay.
Click to expand...

Quite so. But this "height" is the height that the water can reach up the slope. It generally doesn't travel at that height, but can merely slosh up to that height due to its kinetic energy.
 
"-NHK is also reporting that TEPCO will revise or scrap its cooling plan for the No. 1 plant, and perhaps the others, given the apparent inability of the primary containments to hold water. We again wonder why the primary containments are structurally unsound. Possible contributors: 1. Earthquake damage. 2. Direct core melt contact. 3. Hydrogen explosion damage. 4. Salt induced corrosion acceleration, if corrosion were already present. 5. Poor or improper welds or pipe penetrations."
http://atomicpowerreview.blogspot.com/2011/05/further-fukushima-daiichi-updates-515.html

Does anybody here have additional details?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom