Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake

Author Topic: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake  (Read 571707 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5828
  • Karma: 2646
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #550 on: Mar 21, 2011, 06:11 »
I dont see the 1-7 scale in there, seems to be a risk assesment vs actual scales.

it wood appear that if yew melt yore core 'n set fire two your moderator to send said core all over the countryside, you are hi on the scale.  if you melt your core 'n keep your containment intact to maintain control of your contamination you are low on the scale.  iIf you are in between those too, you are middle of the scale.
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

Offline tr

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: 218
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #551 on: Mar 21, 2011, 10:44 »
Site with some IR pictures of the 4 reactor buildings.  Unit 2 doesn't look so good.

http://bigdustup.blogspot.com/2011/03/infrared-ir-thermal-images-of-fukushima.html

Offline OldHP

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 502
  • Karma: 276
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #552 on: Mar 21, 2011, 11:12 »
Following this incidnet makes me realize the major media has ADHD.
Just last week this was the unending focus of the media.  Nothing but non-stop breathless reporting about how dire the situation was.
This week?  Nothing, it is forgotten.

 :->

Did you mean incident?

And did you happen to notice that we (the US) entered into military action in Lybia with major action from the Naval and Air Forces?  What means more to the media?
Humor is a wonderful way to prevent hardening of the attitudes! unknown
The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. Regan

Cycoticpenguin

  • Guest
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #553 on: Mar 22, 2011, 12:26 »
it wood appear that if yew melt yore core 'n set fire two your moderator to send said core all over the countryside, you are hi on the scale.  if you melt your core 'n keep your containment intact to maintain control of your contamination you are low on the scale.  iIf you are in between those too, you are middle of the scale.

Im in between really annoyed and really amused, so I will remain nuetral to this comment ;)


Offline RRhoads

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: 334
  • Gender: Male
  • it was like like that when i got here!
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #554 on: Mar 22, 2011, 11:05 »
Im in between really annoyed and really amused, so I will remain nuetral to this comment ;)


Hey Yngwie..dont get mad or frustrated..
Try this link.
 8)
http://www.google.com/
« Last Edit: Mar 22, 2011, 11:40 by RRhoads »

Online Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 17559
  • Karma: 5147
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #555 on: Mar 22, 2011, 11:35 »
This explains a lot and fills in a couple of holes for me.

In the U.S., only the most worn-out rods typically are removed and transferred to a spent-fuel pool for storage, where they can stay for decades. Thus, U.S., pools hold only the oldest spent fuel, which is also the coolest in terms of temperature and radiation.

By contrast, at Tepco and other utilities, it's common to temporarily remove all the fuel rods. The freshest are eventually moved back to the reactor pressure vessel and supplemented with new rods to replace the oldest ones, which are left in the storage pools.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704433904576212980463881792.html

Offline Roll Tide

  • Nearly SRO; Previous RCO / AUO / HP Tech / MM1ss
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Karma: 1447
  • Gender: Male
  • Those who wait upon God..rise up on eagles' wings
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #556 on: Mar 22, 2011, 12:42 »
This explains a lot and fills in a couple of holes for me.

In the U.S., only the most worn-out rods typically are removed and transferred to a spent-fuel pool for storage, where they can stay for decades. Thus, U.S., pools hold only the oldest spent fuel, which is also the coolest in terms of temperature and radiation.

The only units I have seen perform an inside the core shuffle  (instead of full-core offloads) are the places without enough room in the SFP to fully off-load the core. I have heard of PWR's that think they could reload faster this way....

Since Unit 4 was shutdown for 5 months, I don't think they were trying to set a record outage....
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
.....
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Offline hamsamich

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1454
  • Karma: 1358
  • Gender: Male
  • And did I hear a 9er in there?
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #557 on: Mar 22, 2011, 12:59 »
Full core offloads are all I remember, but I wasn't always on the refuel floor....

Online Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 17559
  • Karma: 5147
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #558 on: Mar 22, 2011, 01:21 »
All I remember are incore shuffles but then many plants had not gone to high density racks and many of the older plants were out of room. A lot of reracks were done in the 80s to accomodate full pools.



Note: I have not been in a power plant since the early 90's.
« Last Edit: Mar 22, 2011, 06:02 by Marlin »

Offline navynukedoc

  • RP/HP/RC
  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
  • Karma: 88
  • Gender: Male
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #559 on: Mar 22, 2011, 02:11 »
This was posted on this thread five pages and six days ago,....

http://resources.nei.org/documents/japan/Used_Fuel_Pools_Key_Facts_March_16_Update.pdf

it's a good read,.... 8)

 +K good stuff for us guys who have never been inside one of those! Thanks and Karma on this one!
"Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence" - George Washington

Offline roadhp

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
  • Karma: 198
  • Gender: Male
  • Playing in the bathtub!!!
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #560 on: Mar 22, 2011, 03:56 »
BWR's can do the shuffle thing because their fuel is self supporting, unlike PWR's that are just held in by the bottom latches and each other.  Most PWR's do a full core offload to take water level below the flange for S/G eddy current to set the nozzle dams.  BWR's don't have that problem, and with the smaller and therefore more numerous bundles, and the fact that they don't have to worry about an upender and transfer tube, a reshuffle just makes sense.
Brave, brave Sir Robin, set forth from Camelot!!!!

Online Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 17559
  • Karma: 5147
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #561 on: Mar 22, 2011, 04:25 »
This was posted on this thread five pages and six days ago,....

http://resources.nei.org/documents/japan/Used_Fuel_Pools_Key_Facts_March_16_Update.pdf

it's a good read,.... 8)

I read it but it does not mention a 100% off load of fuel during the maintenace cycle.

Offline Touche

  • Light User
  • **
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: 60
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #562 on: Mar 22, 2011, 07:49 »
I read it but it does not mention a 100% off load of fuel during the maintenace cycle.

An earlier post by peachie stated the following from a WANO Update (is the update accurate...*shrugs*)

"Miscellaneous Information—The number of spent fuel assemblies in the spent fuel
pool of each unit is as follows:
Unit : number / capacity
Unit 1: 292 / 900
Unit 2: 587 / 1240
Unit 3: 514 / 1220
Unit 4: 1331(*) / 1590
Unit 5: 946 / 1590
Unit 6: 876 / 1770
Common (Shared) fuel pool: 6375 / 6840
(*) 1331 includes 783 spent fuel assemblies and 548 unloaded from the reactor for the inspection."

This would seem to make sense for Unit 4 if it was preparing for, or performing, in-core inspections...if I recall correctly, there use to be a 10 year in-core ISI inspection that required a complete fuel offload...heck, one inspection resulted in a diver going into the vessel and I know we did a full core offload for that.

I am not a planner, but I would think the scheduled maintenance and plant capabilities would dictate either full off-load or in-core shuffle.

Online Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 17559
  • Karma: 5147
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #563 on: Mar 22, 2011, 08:33 »
I am not a planner, but I would think the scheduled maintenance and plant capabilities would dictate either full off-load or in-core shuffle.

   Understood, the article I cited states that these plants do it as a routine each cycle which is not normal for an American BWR putting a much larger heat source from decay heat in the spent fuel pool on a routine basis. This was cited in the WSJ article as one of the contributing factors for the unexpected heating and fires in the spent fuel pool. I get and got that there is a distribution of fuel bundles in different states of decay between the reactor, the spent fuel pool, and the dry fuel cells. The article states that the ratio of recently removed bundles in the spent fuel pool is higher than might be expected in an American reactor in a normal fuel cycle.

Offline Touche

  • Light User
  • **
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: 60
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #564 on: Mar 22, 2011, 08:54 »
   Understood, the article I cited states that these plants do it as a routine each cycle which is not normal for an American BWR putting a much larger heat source from decay heat in the spent fuel pool on a routine basis. This was cited in the WSJ article as one of the contributing factors for the unexpected heating and fires in the spent fuel pool. I get and got that there is a distribution of fuel bundles in different states of decay between the reactor, the spent fuel pool, and the dry fuel cells. The article states that the ratio of recently removed bundles in the spent fuel pool is higher than might be expected in an American reactor in a normal fuel cycle.

Agreed  :)

Something I forgot to ask (I was in a hurry to leave for home)...What is the typical number of fuel bundles in this type of reactor? Does 548 account for a full offload?

Offline roadhp

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
  • Karma: 198
  • Gender: Male
  • Playing in the bathtub!!!
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #565 on: Mar 23, 2011, 10:49 »
It really doesn't matter for a BWR unless the weir gate is closed since the fuel pool and the cavity are connected.  The only difference would be the close packing in the reactor side verses the larger spacing and therefore better heat transfer capacity in the fuel pool.
Brave, brave Sir Robin, set forth from Camelot!!!!

Offline playswithairplanes

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
  • Karma: 53
  • Gender: Male
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #566 on: Mar 23, 2011, 12:03 »
According to several reports, the Tokyo Water Supply has reported I-131 contamination in the tap water at 210bq/L. Which is 5676 uuCi/L. Report says it's twice the limit for infants.
Airplanes and submarines... they are similar it's just the density of the fluid that separates them

eldeelf

  • Guest
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #567 on: Mar 23, 2011, 12:50 »
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/22/chernobyl-cleanup-survivors-message-for-japan-run-away-as-qui/

I found this article yesterday and was up last night thinking of all the things wrong with this. Just wanted to post this so others would see the bad information be put out by the media. This lady did a great thing but now has decided to turn it into something bad. I just hope others see the truth as I did. We really don't need this adding to the fears people already have about Nuclear Power.

Offline navynukedoc

  • RP/HP/RC
  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
  • Karma: 88
  • Gender: Male
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #568 on: Mar 23, 2011, 01:09 »
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/22/chernobyl-cleanup-survivors-message-for-japan-run-away-as-qui/

Good point. Something I keyed in on was the "Chernobyl Necklace". Thyroid issues are common even in people who have never been to Russia. Way to go to scare people even more.
"Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence" - George Washington

eldeelf

  • Guest
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #569 on: Mar 23, 2011, 02:21 »
I know I am outraged by this article and the comments made by people. I wish someone would just state the facts for once. You are so right about the Thyroid issues. I wish there was better reporting on the issues and not opinions.

Offline IRLFAN

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
  • Karma: 38
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #570 on: Mar 23, 2011, 05:18 »
Good point. Something I keyed in on was the "Chernobyl Necklace". Thyroid issues are common even in people who have never been to Russia. Way to go to scare people even more.

I've never been to Chernobyl, and I had half of my thyroid removed 7 years ago.  Thyroid problems are also genetic, my maternal grandmother died from a thyroid tumor.  Back then there were no thyroid hormone replacements.
Democracy is 4 wolves and 1 sheep
voting on what's for dinner.

Liberty is the sheep with a .357 magnum
telling the wolves where to stick it.

Offline namlive

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #571 on: Mar 25, 2011, 01:00 »
Konnichawa,
I have been reading the IAEA reports which seems to have the best information. I have been busting my hump on unit conversions. This is what I have been able to make of the situation in numbers we understand. Contamination levels up to 40 miles from the plant has reached levels of 150K on a 1 meter LAS or 15K dpm/100 cm2 beta-gamma, most of which is I-131. No alpha has been detected. This gives a general area dose rate of .9 mr/hr. At one point at about 20 miles from the plant, the dose rate (I assume from the plume since the numbers were smaller closer to the plant) were as high as 17 mrem/hr.
The gatehouse reached a maximum of 1,200 mrem/hr, this was 28 mr/hr as of yesterday. This maximum was when they had a high dose area of 40 rem/hr between units 3 and 4 with unconfirmed readings as high as 100 R/hr. Their dose limit was 10 REM and turn back number was 1 Rem/hr. When they exceeded that in the control room, they upped the limit to 25 rem and 10 rem/hr. So far of the "50" workers, 17 have received exposures greater than 10 REM.
There is a possible Chernobyl scenario as unit 4 SFP is covered with nearly 90 tons (I have a hard time with that number) of sea salt which is acting as an insulator for the spent fuel. This does not allow cooling while at the same time allows hydrogen to build up. If unit 4 SFP has even a slight hydrogen explosion, this could be an accident where lives are lost due to radiation with 1331 spent fuel bundles in the pool with the most recent defueling of the reactor Nov. 2010. I want to publically thank a person we all know as "Bruce" for my level 1 Japanese Rosetta Stone.
I apologize if this is a repeat of information. I didn't read all 20 pages.


No one gets out alive.

matthew.b

  • Guest
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #572 on: Mar 25, 2011, 02:12 »
Sea water is 3.5% solids.  To get 90 tons of salt would require the evaporation of 2500 tons of seawater.  To evaporate that much water in 15 days would require about 6500 MW average power so I don't buy the 90 tons of salt claim.

I could buy that 90 tons of seawater - that could happen with 200MW of average power.

I wonder what their efforts to get freshwater to the plant are?   


Nuclear Renaissance

  • Guest
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #573 on: Mar 25, 2011, 03:05 »
Can a member explain why a plutonium MOX fuel poses a greater danger in a breach situation than regular low-enriched uranium fuel? Is it appreciable?

Offline navynukedoc

  • RP/HP/RC
  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
  • Karma: 88
  • Gender: Male
Re: Japan's Nukes Following Earthquake
« Reply #574 on: Mar 25, 2011, 03:44 »
I wonder what their efforts to get freshwater to the plant are?   

"Tokyo Electric Power Co. is stepping up efforts to switch from sea water to fresh water for cooling the reactors and used fuel storage pools. The United States government has urged the switch to fresh water as soon as possible and is providing two U.S. Navy barges, each of which can carry up to 1,000 tons of water. The ships are scheduled to reach port about 60 kilometers from the Daiichi plant in about three days. Japanese workers at the site will install pipes and hoses to carry the water to the plant."

from source http://nei.cachefly.net/newsandevents/information-on-the-japanese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region/
"Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence" - George Washington

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2024 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?