Jump to content
BANGKOK
Sign in to follow this  
george

Meltdown Likely Under Way At Japan Nuclear Reactor

Recommended Posts

Can't imagine the global demand for Kobe beef and other J-foods will be too high for the coming years. :(

Talk about knock on catastrophes.

Edited by appropriate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear Experts Explain Worst-Case Scenario at Fukushima Power Plant

The type of accident occurring now in Japan derives from a loss of offsite AC power and then a subsequent failure of emergency power on site. Engineers there are racing to restore AC power to prevent a core meltdown.

By Steve Mirsky

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fukushima-core

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the densest seismic network in the world/such an earthquake prone area have Nuclear Reactors.

Of course they need the power it supplies...but still it makes one wonder.

The bigger question is: "Why build nuke reactors anywhere?"

Right now, everyone is fixated on Japanese reactors and the impacts of the earthquakes. Hello! Nuclear is much bigger than that. Any one or group of factors can imperil living things around a reactor. Earthquake is one of many.

In Thailand, the two biggest potential problems for reactors are.

>>>>> lax maintenance and/or lack of top-end technical skills - coupled with slowness to react and/or acting too rashly - to an emergency scenario.

>>>>> take-over or destruction by outside group. Could be southern insurgents (that's where at least one reactor is planned), or could be a future incarnation of the Reds or some similar hot-headed group.

Other problems could include: irresponsible dumping of radioactive trash, not decommissioning the plant when it should be decommissioned, peril to uranium while it makes its long trip from faraway, rising costs of yellowcake, inability or laxness toward doing proper maintenance, things getting stolen (the Thai army gets stuff stolen every month), the list goes on and on.

Nuclear power has drawbacks for myriad reasons. Concentrated solar is cheaper and cleaner and safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good link, LB, to Scientific American..

This excerpt sounds a lot like a description of Fukushima Daichi 1, at least up to the fission release. That's presumably how cesium and iodine got into the environment there..

Bergeron explained the basics of overheating at a nuclear fission plant. "The fuel rods are long uranium rods clad in a [zirconium alloy casing]. They're held in a cylindrical-shaped array. And the water covers all of that. If the water descends below the level of the fuel, then the temperature starts going up and the cladding bursts, releasing a lot of fission products.

And eventually the core just starts slumping and melting. Quite a bit of this happened in TMI [Three Mile Island], but the pressure vessel did not fail."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bigger question is: "Why build nuke reactors anywhere?"

Nuclear power has drawbacks for myriad reasons. Concentrated solar is cheaper and cleaner and safer.

Why? We are running out of oil and solar does not work except in a very limited way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I believe I've seen reference to this, but it's not been addressed in a very direct way...

At Fukushima Daichi 1 reactor, once they started pumping sea water into the containment area, I'm under the impression that means that particular reactor is toast... or... to put it more scientifically...would be unable to be returned to service in the future. It's done. Never operate again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm under the impression that means that particular reactor is toast... or... to put it more scientifically...would be unable to be returned to service in the future. It's done. Never operate again...

That probably sums it up. The sea water would completely contaminate the fuel and container(s) and any clean up operations would probably exceed the cost of building a new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#Japan chief cabinet secretary says risk of explosion at building housing #Fukushima Daiichi No. 3 reactor/[email protected]

That kind of makes sense, and it may not be the last we see of that... Your Scientific American article above provided a good explanation of why...

Former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) member Peter Bradford added, "The other thing that happens is that the cladding, which is just the outside of the tube, at a high enough temperature interacts with the water. It's essentially a high-speed rusting, where the zirconium becomes zirconium oxide and the hydrogen is set free. And hydrogen at the right concentration in an atmosphere is either flammable or explosive."

"Hydrogen combustion would not occur necessarily in the containment building," Bergeron pointed out, "which is inert—it doesn't have any oxygen—but they have had to vent the containment, because this pressure is building up from all this steam. And so the hydrogen is being vented with the steam and it's entering some area, some building, where there is oxygen, and that's where the explosion took place."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bigger question is: "Why build nuke reactors anywhere?"

Other problems could include: irresponsible dumping of radioactive trash,

Yes of course & many would say that there is no safe way to get rid of nuclear trash.

Some say after a period of 50 years it is safe & of course there is *talk* of a reactor that could someday consume the trash.

Yet here & now they produce nuclear waste for years & have no safe way to get rid of it.

So yes I agree with your bigger question & while some may claim lack of oil the truth for both is as elcent said

unlimited human insanity mixed with greed and power-games is the most likely answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan is a "hi-tech" well organised country, that has spent a lot of time, thought and money on dealing with earthquakes....

Imagine if this happened in another country with nuclear power plants!

And like all the well organized high tech countries, its engineers are convinced that they can calculate and predict every eventuality, making them believe that they can build anything anywhere, assuring everybody that everything is safe and every possibility has been evaluated, tested and the neccessary precautions taken.

Unfortunaelty nature shows us again and again, that no matter how well organized and high tech we are, at the end nature is stronger. In this case the testing for earthquakes was made under assumptions that were lower than reality, and I wonder how it could escape tsunami used engineers, that once the earthquake cuts off power, the flood coming after it, could wash away all the back up stystems.

Yes, we might be lucky that it happened in Japan where standards are high. But it still is another example of the human being palying with a fire he will never be able to fully control. There is only one way to resolve the problem permanently. Get rid of nuclear plants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan is a "hi-tech" well organised country, that has spent a lot of time, thought and money on dealing with earthquakes....

Imagine if this happened in another country with nuclear power plants!

And like all the well organized high tech countries, its engineers are convinced that they can calculate and predict every eventuality, making them believe that they can build anything anywhere, assuring everybody that everything is safe and every possibility has been evaluated, tested and the neccessary precautions taken.

Unfortunaelty nature shows us again and again, that no matter how well organized and high tech we are, at the end nature is stronger. In this case the testing for earthquakes was made under assumptions that were lower than reality, and I wonder how it could escape tsunami used engineers, that once the earthquake cuts off power, the flood coming after it, could wash away all the back up stystems.

Yes, we might be lucky that it happened in Japan where standards are high. But it still is another example of the human being palying with a fire he will never be able to fully control. There is only one way to resolve the problem permanently. Get rid of nuclear plants.

do you realiseI more or less agree with you?

The powers that be are now so concerned with the concept of "carbon footprint" that they have ignored other aspects of environmental pollution

Edited by Deeral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />Japan is a "hi-tech" well organised country, that has spent a lot of time, thought and money on dealing with earthquakes....<br />Imagine if this happened in another country with nuclear power plants!<br />
<br /><br /><br />

Or thinking about one country who would like to build one like Thailand , and nearly can handlle even not internet infrastructure......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the densest seismic network in the world/such an earthquake prone area have Nuclear Reactors.

Of course they need the power it supplies...but still it makes one wonder.

The bigger question is: "Why build nuke reactors anywhere?"

Right now, everyone is fixated on Japanese reactors and the impacts of the earthquakes. Hello! Nuclear is much bigger than that. Any one or group of factors can imperil living things around a reactor. Earthquake is one of many.

In Thailand, the two biggest potential problems for reactors are.

>>>>> lax maintenance and/or lack of top-end technical skills - coupled with slowness to react and/or acting too rashly - to an emergency scenario.

>>>>> take-over or destruction by outside group. Could be southern insurgents (that's where at least one reactor is planned), or could be a future incarnation of the Reds or some similar hot-headed group.

Other problems could include: irresponsible dumping of radioactive trash, not decommissioning the plant when it should be decommissioned, peril to uranium while it makes its long trip from faraway, rising costs of yellowcake, inability or laxness toward doing proper maintenance, things getting stolen (the Thai army gets stuff stolen every month), the list goes on and on.

Nuclear power has drawbacks for myriad reasons. Concentrated solar is cheaper and cleaner and safer.

I agree with your statement.

Arguements where they are saying "we're running out of this and that" don't consider that they running out of creativity. They have made money their Gawd..

Honestly, I even believe the oil is a curse for mankind.

We have not tamed nature but damned it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...