(03-14-2011 02:09 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  I'm not here to pooh-pooh that this is a serious situation. It certainly is.

I don't intend to say that this is not a serious situation. But there are far worse problems they are facing right now.

(03-14-2011 02:09 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  However, I am already seeing a hyper-ventilating media storm about this story. How long before we start hearing them (our beloved MSM) advocating that NO nuclear plants get built in this country because of this disaster? You know, pushing their green agenda and using scare tactics to make sure that nuclear is not part of our energy solutions?

My bet is that it has probably already begun and I just haven't seen or heard it - yet.

Germany has already put a moratorium into effect.

When something is getting too hot, you cool it off.
When that something is a nuclear reactor, you do it any way you can and as quickly as you can.
This may still play out just fine in the end, but I still get the impression that people out-thought themselves early on, rather than bringing everything they had to bear on the problem. That may not prove up in the end, but right now the specter of operator error--or a least operator indecision--would appear to loom large.

For the record, the "exposed rods" they are talking about appears to mean that the rods are not covered in cooling water, not that they are exposed to the atmosphere. As long as the containment vessel holds, the rods won't be exposed to the atmosphere.
The fact that it has gone on this long suggests that it is not raging out of control. But the failure to get it totally cooled down is very worrisome. Are they truly doing all that they can?
The most disturbing thing I've heard is a suggestion by a Japanese nuclear expert that there is a leak in the cooling water system. That would expose some fairly serious radiation to the atmosphere. But I have not seen anything to confirm that.

(03-14-2011 02:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The most disturbing thing I've heard is a suggestion by a Japanese nuclear expert that there is a leak in the cooling water system. That would expose some fairly serious radiation to the atmosphere. But I have not seen anything to confirm that.

That would probably be a MUCH bigger deal to the people on site than it would to the atmosphere in general. That being said, I'd imagine they've had so much steam vented that it could appear that there would be a leak in the cooling system.

(03-14-2011 02:12 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-14-2011 02:00 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I am thinking the worst case senerio may be unfolding. Breach of containment. Through fire, explosion or burning through the bottom of containment.

With the link I supplied above, the meltdown at TMI penetrated something like 5/8 of one inch into the cladding. The fire/explosions that we've seen do not affect containment. The fire that caused a problem at Chernobyl is not a concern here because of the control rods used. The Soviets did some idiotic things.

I hope you are right. My question. When there is no water covering the rods, exposed, do they heat up enough to destroy the control rods allowing the reaction to speed up and produce more heat?

I suspect Japanese nuclear engineers are among the best in the world, based on their total dependance on that fuel source. I shudder to think what could have happened already in another country not prepared for this type of emergency.

And I also fear that many nuclear experts will die shortly from their exposure to these accidents.

(03-14-2011 12:28 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  So my basic argument was ... even if the risk of accident was 0.0001% ... the magnitude and scale of damage made it not worth the risk.

I don't think we know the full story of what's going on at Japan. There's already been an explosion inside Reactor #1. They resorted to flooding some of the reactors with seawater, essentially destroying them, which means they were on the verge of meltdown.

They are presently unable to determine whether reactors #1 and/or #3 have in fact already at least partially melted down. This would be the most serious high profile nuclear incident since three mile island.

Moreover, nuclear reaction trace elements like cesium are already being detected in abnormally high levels around the reactor. Radiation at the facility is already above normal year-long safe exposure levels.

Next time a tsunami hits N Dakota, I'll be in agreement w/ you 100%.

Japanese officials are telling people to stay indoors when the people's houses have been destroyed.

(03-14-2011 02:56 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-14-2011 02:12 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-14-2011 02:00 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I am thinking the worst case senerio may be unfolding. Breach of containment. Through fire, explosion or burning through the bottom of containment.

With the link I supplied above, the meltdown at TMI penetrated something like 5/8 of one inch into the cladding. The fire/explosions that we've seen do not affect containment. The fire that caused a problem at Chernobyl is not a concern here because of the control rods used. The Soviets did some idiotic things.

I hope you are right. My question. When there is no water covering the rods, exposed, do they heat up enough to destroy the control rods allowing the reaction to speed up and produce more heat?

I hope so too. I am not sure which melts first. My guess is that when it gets to that point, everything will melt together or rapidly in sequence.

An answer to your earlier question is that it may take 3-6 months for radiation in a shut down reactor to get to negligible levels, per this site: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/14/fu...ical-info/

(03-14-2011 03:06 PM)Last Thread Wrote:  I suspect Japanese nuclear engineers are among the best in the world, based on their total dependance on that fuel source. I shudder to think what could have happened already in another country not prepared for this type of emergency.

And I also fear that many nuclear experts will die shortly from their exposure to these accidents.

At TMI, no-one was exposed to serious radiation, including engineers. I've seen that one person onsite was killed in the hydrogen explosion at fukushima. I think the risk is not radiation exposure, but ingestion of radioactive elements. The engineers and workers onsite will be at greater risk, but I think the effects will be longterm, not immediate.

(03-14-2011 02:09 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  I'm not here to pooh-pooh that this is a serious situation. It certainly is.

However, I am already seeing a hyper-ventilating media storm about this story. How long before we start hearing them (our beloved MSM) advocating that NO nuclear plants get built in this country because of this disaster? You know, pushing their green agenda and using scare tactics to make sure that nuclear is not part of our energy solutions?

My bet is that it has probably already begun and I just haven't seen or heard it - yet.

If they aren't advocating NO nuclear plants yet, I wouldn't call it hyperventilating. The media always goes crazy over events, they're selling air time.

(03-14-2011 05:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If they aren't advocating NO nuclear plants yet, I wouldn't call it hyperventilating. The media always goes crazy over events, they're selling air time.

Very true. Polemicists are well aware of that and jump at the opportunity to get their agendas across.

(03-14-2011 01:39 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's pretty stupid to put one near a fault line, but I digress.

The thought crossed my mind as well. I guess for Japan they have little geographic choice, as the whole country is subject to major earthquakes. But those built on the infamous Ring of Fire does make one a bit uneasy.

(03-14-2011 05:30 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(03-14-2011 01:39 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's pretty stupid to put one near a fault line, but I digress.

The thought crossed my mind as well. I guess for Japan they have little geographic choice, as the whole country is subject to major earthquakes. But those built on the infamous Ring of Fire does make one a bit uneasy.

Why not build them at higher elevations. Develop some sort of gravity water flow as a 3rd redundancy.

(03-14-2011 05:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-14-2011 05:30 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(03-14-2011 01:39 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's pretty stupid to put one near a fault line, but I digress.

The thought crossed my mind as well. I guess for Japan they have little geographic choice, as the whole country is subject to major earthquakes. But those built on the infamous Ring of Fire does make one a bit uneasy.

Why not build them at higher elevations. Develop some sort of gravity water flow as a 3rd redundancy.

Newer generations of plants rely on convection to supply coolant after shutdown. That avoids the need for diesel generators.

They need a source of water ... most plants are close to the ocean or close to lakes or rivers for that reason.

Consider the comparable damage that would be done from other fuel sources. The biggest harm may well be from the lack of electricity, which is really what gives me some pause at this point from relying heavily on nuclear power.

Of the plants that shut down successfully, I really wonder when they will feel confident enough to bring them back online.

I think we need to design every possible redundancy. Including a new superior reinforced containment. We also need to update the fuel cycle. Embrace fully, reprocessing, and build long term waste storage facilities either on site or in close proximity. Build only in geological stable areas.

I'd agree that we need to apply lessons learned from this incident and past ones ... TMI, Chernobyl, etc. But we need to recognize the successes, weaknesses, and alternatives and what would have happened had things been somewhat different. What will happen in the coming months assuming that there is nothing catastrophic that happens to the surrounding area at this stage?

Nuclear power instills irrational fear because people associate the damage from nuclear weapons with energy production.

Some very promising technologies like sealed plants and the potential of using Thorium reactors have very impressive advantages in even this situation and areas like this in Japan.

One thing that has not been discussed yet about the nuclear disaster in Japan..............GODZILLA!!!!!!!!

(03-14-2011 05:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Why not build them at higher elevations. Develop some sort of gravity water flow as a 3rd redundancy.

Different designs allow for different fail-safes. Some have the rods suspended over water so if something goes wrong they drop and cool off.

(And there you have it, folks. Everything I know about nuclear reactor design.)

There's too many positives with nuclear to dismiss it. Its cleaner than fossil fuels. Its something that could make us more energy independent. No greater of a source than " Father Al" speaks of the benefits of nuclear. When my Dear Leader speaks of the benefits. I listen.


Carry on

And so should you..............

They are going to lose control of this.
They've screwed around instead of throwing everything at it from day one.
Just like BP and Obama last summer in the Gulf of Mexico.

When something is getting too hot, you cool it off.
When that something is a nuclear reactor, you err on the side of doing too much, not too little.