Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

[elbows]

More bad signs:

1313: Austria will relocate its Japanese embassy from Tokyo to Osaka given the unpredictable situation of the quake-hit nuclear power plants, the Austrian foreign ministry has said, according to Agence France Presse.

 

[elbows]

Breaking news via Kyodo: TEPCO unable to pour water into number 4 spent fuel pool.

I assume that the spent pool facility at number 4 is very badly damaged, if its even a pool at all at this point.

 

[Barking_Mad]

edit post remove - repeat of post above

 

[xes]

Japan radiation leaks feared as nuclear experts point to possible cover-up
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/14/japan-radiation-leak-cover-up

 

[not-bono-ever]

Within Japanese Corporates , disclosure of " Accident" is usually shorthand for " Mistake"

eg Tokaimura / Sumitomo nuke problem in 1999 was described as an "accident " = "fuck up"

 

[elbows]

Via BBC:

1456: Tepco says it may start pouring water from a helicopter over Fukushima Daiichi's reactor four in the next few days, to cool the spent-fuel pool.

 

[Balbi]

Via BBC: 1456: Tepco says it may start pouring water from a helicopter over Fukushima Daiichi's reactor four in the next few days, to cool the spent-fuel pool.

Now that sounds like a suicide mission.

"Right chaps, we're going to drop water onto a superheated pool of nuclear fuel waste - there may be a risk of radioactive steam, so wear your wet weather gear!"

 

[TitanSound]

Interesting video explaining the basics about what's going on with the nuclear reactors and why the explosions happened.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Now that sounds like a suicide mission.

"Right chaps, we're going to drop water onto a superheated pool of nuclear fuel waste - there may be a risk of radioactive steam, so wear your wet weather gear!"

That's what they did with Chernobyl and it was.

 

[elbows]

Its pretty unclear how much radioactive shit is escaping from the site at the moment. The fire at unit 4 appears to have lasted for a few hours, and there are certainly several hours where various readings shot up. Data lags somewhat and can be inconsistent, but there are certainly some signs that levels dropped a lot after the fire was put out. Levels are still generally higher than in the first couple of days of the crisis though. And from a casual glimpse at a little bit of data from here and there, it seems that some wind was going south at some points during or immediately after the real bad stuff started happening, as recorded levels rose in the other plant thats further south, at some US bases to the south, and a little bit in the Tokyo area too.

I was under the impression that the explosion at unit 2 and the fire at unit 4 both happened at around 6-6.30am Japanese time, but I've seen some conflicting info from the IAEA about this. Their last update suggests that the unit 2 explosion actually happened much earlier, and the fire a couple of hours later than Id thought. Maybe I got confused, maybe they made a mistake, maybe some info was being withheld in Japan. More thoughts on this shortly. For now here is the IAEA stuff that has confused me:

After explosions at both Units 1 and 3, the primary containment vessels of both Units are reported to be intact. However, the explosion that occurred at 04:25 UTC on 14 March at the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 may have affected the integrity of its primary containment vessel. All three explosions were due to an accumulation of hydrogen gas.

A fire at Unit 4 occurred on 14 March 23:54 UTC and lasted two hours. The IAEA is seeking clarification on the nature and consequences of the fire.

 

[lopsidedbunny]

Number four I told caught fire due to the explosion nextdoor number three stuff raining down. The fire was put out then the problems of number two emerged. I am told number four was closed due to maintance... I have no evidence of this being the case as I hear number four reactor was below 100C.

Any plus side I am told that the Japanese Atomic Energy Agency has a habit of not being forthwith for a while... even before this event has happen. So whatever they say think the opposite, if it you hadn't done so already.

 

[elbows]

Certainly the cause of the fire at number 4 was at one point said to be down to debris from one of the other explosions, though I havent seen this confirmed yet. Its certainly one possibility. The other possibility is that the fuel pool at number 4 was already in trouble, and may have exploded in some way, followed by a fire.

Im still trying to figure out the timing of both the unit 2 and unit 4 incidents. I've worked out that the time IAEA mentioned for when the explosion at number 2 happened, a time many hours earlier than we were told about this, does match one other time. IAEA said 04:25 March 14th UTC, which is 13:45 in Japan. This is the same time that TEPCO first alerted Japanese government that the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling system had failed at Unit 2, creating a new emergency. Therefore 2 possibilities spring to mind - the IAEA may have misspoken by saying that this was the time of the explosion at Unit 2, when in fact that was just the time that things really started to get bad at unit 2, and the explosion didnt happen for another 16 hours. The other possibility is that IAEA are right, that this earlier time was when the 'explosive sound around unit 2' that has lead to containment damage fears actually happened, but this news was not fully disclosed for about 16-19 hours, and in the meantime we were instead treated to many hours of talk about rods at 2 being exposed etc, but no talk of explosion & core damage till 8AM Japan time 15th March.

 

[likesfish]

Now that sounds like a suicide mission.

"Right chaps, we're going to drop water onto a superheated pool of nuclear fuel waste - there may be a risk of radioactive steam, so wear your wet weather gear!"

Japanese though probably already formed an orderly que to volunteer
not that theres much alternative

 

[bi0boy]

Now that sounds like a suicide mission.

"Right chaps, we're going to drop water onto a superheated pool of nuclear fuel waste - there may be a risk of radioactive steam, so wear your wet weather gear!"

A spent rod pond is not in the same league as a raging graphite/core fire ala Chernobyl

 

[Balbi]

A spent rod pond is not in the same league as a raging graphite/core fire ala Chernobyl

I'm aware of that, but surely if the pools boiling dry then there's a steam element carrying all sorts of shit.

 

[elbows]

In theory the spent fuel may catch fire, so its a big issue. Some of the radiation readings on the site when the fire was in progress give some indication that this was an extremely serious matter and all efforts must be made to prevent further explosions and fires there.

The temperature has been going up a bit at unit 5 & 6 spent fuel pools, but there is apparently much less fuel in these stores than there is in the unit 4 one. This may be because some ongoing maintenance at unit 4 core required all of the fuel to be removed and kept in the spend fuel pool for a while, whereas at units 5 and 6 they are on a more basic shutdown where fuel from the core did not need to be relocated to the spent fuel pools.

 

[Dr Jon]

Interesting video explaining the basics about what's going on with the nuclear reactors and why the explosions happened.

Check out that dude's Periodic Table tie!

 

[audiotech]

This sounds very serious indeed.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Comment on Guardian CiF about scientists reaction to events:

Ironically they look a bit like the Catholic Church - every time new scientific evidence appears to discredit their position they come up with a different defence.

I have to say many have done themselves no favours with their blaze attitude in rubbishing any concerns about what has happened. I'm sure some had interests to look after but others have been pathetically dismissive and are now only notable by their lack of commentary.

 

[laptop]

In theory the spent fuel may catch fire, so its a big issue.

Also:

• the spent fuel contains maximum crud - that's why it's spent
• all that stands between it and us is the cladding and the water in the "pond"

 

[elbows]

The BBC have just noticed that there might have been an explosion at unit 4 and then a fire, rather than just a fire. Granted the news conferences & reporting were quite a shambles when this stuff was first announced, and updates from TEPCO and the government have not been great today (no surprise) but even so, this idea that there was an explosion at unit 4 is not new, it emerged somewhere around 2-3am UK time.

 

[elbows]

I have to say many have done themselves no favours with their blaze attitude in rubbishing any concerns about what has happened. I'm sure some had interests to look after but others have been pathetically dismissive and are now only notable by their lack of commentary.

I've not paid too much attention to mass media but this has certainly been the case on the internet.

Delivering sensible information about a range of disasters, or its sick PR equivalent, are both fraught with numerous problems, as seem with things like the pandemic, and nuclear issues in the past. Sensible disaster agency PR rules are that its so very important to have peoples trust, and to be as open as possible. But there are competing interests, such as the need to prevent panic, personal or professional denial, etc, which usually swing the balance the wrong way, failing to increase trust, and failing the public in the duty to provide timely information and be honest about the risks.

If anything the nuclear industry, agencies, experts etc are an extreme example of failure. Even putting to one side other agendas, financial interests, etc, some of these people are driven mad by the extremely emotional response that all things radioactive or nuclear have on the minds of many of the public. In an effort to counter this they go much too far the other way, at considerable risk to their long-term credibility. We appear to have a very vivid example of this with the present scenario, where I have seen numerous people go so stupidly far with the reassuring words that they are left with little to say now that things have taken a worse path, and they have undermined their own credibility.

If I were them I would follow a more sophisticated strategy that is not based on a wall of denial, downplaying and excessive reassurance, bit late for that now though.

Notable mention to the people who were trying to spin the disaster into some sort of success story early on, 'see how the plant has survived so well despite suffering things way beyond its design spec'.

But already they are moving on to the next line of PR defence. The future of nuclear energy around the globe is now considered to be under increased threat, so we can look forward to lots more talk along the lines of:

Downplaying the health affects of whatever stuff has got out.
Emphasising how old the plant was and how modern designs are so superior.
Emphasising how wonderful the safety culture & regulation is in such and such a country.
Talking about climate change & the other reasons why nuclear so important right now.

There are some truths to be found within most of these claims, but they will be played in an overblown and crude manner by those with agendas.

There are already articles in the press that make it sound like nuclear energy may now be doomed in certain countries. Its too early to be saying that, and it will take time to separate the emerging nuclear realities from the positions certain politicians in different countries may choose to take now, but wont necessarily stick to in future.

Bottom line for me is always that when it comes to nuclear, even if the risks are very low the stakes are always going to be very high, thats the problem. Given the massive blow the nuclear industry has now suffered, with all their slow image rehabilitation of recent decades likely destroyed in just a matter of days, it would be tempting for even those in power to conclude that the stakes just arent worth it. But the problem is that there are many other vital high-stakes games that have to be played to keep our countries running, and the 'interesting' energy situation over the decades to come will make it very hard for them to throw away the nuclear option. If they could get renewables to scale up to the necessary extent then they could decide to ditch nuclear, but in reality that seems rather difficult, and I return to the idea that much will have to be done to tackle energy issues on the demand side. I believe this will happen anyway, even with nuclear, so without it we get some numbers which seem extremely incompatible with our economies, levels of consumption etc.

 

[Barking_Mad]

From Kyodo news

A nuclear crisis at the quake-hit Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant deepened Tuesday as fresh explosions occurred at the site and its operator said water in a pool storing spent nuclear fuel rods may be boiling, an ominous sign for the release of high-level radioactive materials from the fuel.

The government ordered the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., on Tuesday night to inject water into the pool at the No. 4 reactor to cool it down ''as soon as possible to avert a major nuclear disaster.''

TEPCO said the water level in the pool storing the spent fuel rods at its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant's No. 4 reactor may have dropped, exposing the rods. Unless the spent fuel rods are cooled down, they could be damaged and emit radioactive substances.

The firm said it has not yet confirmed the current water level or water temperature in the pool and will try to pour water into the facility from Wednesday through holes that were created following an explosion earlier Tuesday in the walls of the building that houses the reactor.

Due to high radiation levels at the No. 4 reactor, workers on Tuesday were unable to prepare for the pouring of water into the troubled pool. Difficult conditions have led the utility to evacuate around 730 of the 800 workers from the site, according to TEPCO.

The firm said its workers were only able to remain in the central control rooms at the Fukushima plant for 10 minutes to avoid exposure to excessive radiation levels. They have retreated to a remote site to monitor data on the reactors, it added.

At 6:14 a.m. on Tuesday, a blast occurred at the No. 4 reactor and created two square-shaped holes about 8 by 8 meters in the walls of the building that houses the reactor. At 9:38 a.m., a fire broke out there and smoke billowed from the holes.

The utility said it could not deny the possibility that the early morning explosion was caused by hydrogen generated by a chemical reaction involving the exposed spent nuclear fuel and vapor.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said at a press conference, ''We believe very high-level radioactive substances have not been emitted continuously from the No. 4 reactor,'' citing radiation monitoring data at the plant.

The nuclear agency said the water temperature in the pool stood at 84 degrees C as of 4 a.m. Monday, higher than the normal level of 40 to 50 degrees. Usually, the upper tip of the fuel rods is at a depth of 10 meters from the surface of the pool, it said.

Agency officials said the fuel rods will not reach criticality again as they have been stored in racks containing boron to prevent it.

Edano said water temperatures in the pools at the No. 5 and No. 6 reactors at the Fukushima plant have been rising as well.

The three reactors were not in service when a magnitude 9.0 earthquake jolted Fukushima Prefecture and other areas in northeastern Japan on Friday.

The agency said among the three, the situation is the severest at the No. 4 reactor because all the fuel rods are stored in the pool due to the change of the reactor's shroud. At the No. 5 and No. 6 reactors, up to one-third of the rods are being kept in the pools. The more fuel rods are kept in a pool, the more radioactive substances could be emitted.

The new development followed a critical situation at the No. 2 reactor at the Fukushima plant earlier in the day, in which part of the reactor's containment vessel was damaged following an apparent hydrogen explosion at 6:10 a.m.

TEPCO said the problem could develop into a critical ''meltdown'' situation, in which fuel rods melt and are destroyed, emitting massive amounts of radioactive materials into the air.

 

[elbows]

Let us hope that the square holes created in the exterior of unit 4 were not caused by sides of the pool blowing out.

I suppose the only good news today was that, according to what little we know, they put the fire out, radiation levels dropped, and the situation at the 2nd nuclear plant that is km's further south seems to presently be well under control.

The full story of unit 4 seems to be emerging only very slowly, with just a couple of new bits of info released since the first announcement. News and detail today seems to have been more limited than in previous days, although this may be partly down to vastly reduced numbers of staff at the site, which assume will severely impact on their ability to carry out operations at the various different reactors.

The only new thing I've heard about reactor 2 today is that the damage is estimated at 'less than 5%' which is fairly meaningless without knowing a whole lot more about the nature of the damage.

 

[Dr Jon]

...
Bottom line for me is always that when it comes to nuclear, even if the risks are very low the stakes are always going to be very high, thats the problem. Given the massive blow the nuclear industry has now suffered, with all their slow image rehabilitation of recent decades likely destroyed in just a matter of days, it would be tempting for even those in power to conclude that the stakes just arent worth it. But the problem is that there are many other vital high-stakes games that have to be played to keep our countries running, and the 'interesting' energy situation over the decades to come will make it very hard for them to throw away the nuclear option. If they could get renewables to scale up to the necessary extent then they could decide to ditch nuclear, but in reality that seems rather difficult, and I return to the idea that much will have to be done to tackle energy issues on the demand side. I believe this will happen anyway, even with nuclear, so without it we get some numbers which seem extremely incompatible with our economies, levels of consumption etc.

Yeah. Unfortunately, we are going to need nuclear if we are to maintain anything like civilisation as we know it. It would be better if we had gone for Thorium Fuelled Accelerator Driven Sub-critical Reactors for Power Generation:

Importantly from a safety perspective, because an ADSR is subcritical, the nuclear chain reaction must be fed from an external source of neutrons. This is provided by a beam of accelerated protons or heavy ions "chipping" neutrons from a target within the reactor itself through a process known as spallation. The accelerator thus plays a role in controlling the ADSR analogous to that of control rods in a conventional reactor, but with the important difference that the reactor can be shut down very rapidly by switching off the accelerator. The amount of long-lived nuclear waste produced by ADSRs is much less than for conventional reactors, and they have the further advantage of being able to transmute and render safe waste from conventional reactors using the excess neutrons created in the spallation process. ADSRs thus have the potential to provide a more sustainable, cost-effective and safer form of nuclear power in the future.

 

[lopsidedbunny]

Interesting video explaining the basics about what's going on with the nuclear reactors and why the explosions happened.

Good Video

 

[elbows]

Some level data I was looking at seems to suggest that levels at the plant started to rise again at around 11PM Japanese time. They had been gradually falling from the silly highs that occurred around 6am-10am, but then suddenly shot back up. I am unable to determine whether this is down to the nature of the data, or whether something has happened. If something has happened and tomorrow pans out anything like today did then I suppose we may start to hear about this from around 11pm-2am uk time.

 

[elbows]

Latest from the IAEA:

Unit 4 was shut down for a routine, planned maintenance outage on 30 November 2010. After the outage, all fuel from the reactor was transferred to the spent fuel pool.

Units 5 and 6 were shut down at the time of the earthquake. Unit 5 was shut down as of 3 January 2011. Unit 6 was shut down as of 14 August 2010. Both reactors are currently loaded with fuel.

As of 00:16 UTC on 15 March, plant operators were considering the removal of panels from units 5 and 6 reactor buildings to prevent a possible build-up of hydrogen in the future. It was a build-up of hydrogen at units 1, 2, and 3 that led to explosions at the Daiichi facilities in recent days.

 

[elbows]

I was under the impression that the explosion at unit 2 and the fire at unit 4 both happened at around 6-6.30am Japanese time, but I've seen some conflicting info from the IAEA about this. Their last update suggests that the unit 2 explosion actually happened much earlier, and the fire a couple of hours later than Id thought. Maybe I got confused, maybe they made a mistake, maybe some info was being withheld in Japan. More thoughts on this shortly. For now here is the IAEA stuff that has confused me:

WellI got my answer to this. IAEA changed the wording of their release to correct the time.

Changed from this:

However, the explosion that occurred at 04:25 UTC on 14 March at the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 may have affected the integrity of its primary containment vessel. All three explosions were due to an accumulation of hydrogen gas.

To this:

However, the explosion that occurred at 21:14 UTC on 14 March at the Fukushima Daiichi unit 2 may have affected the integrity of its primary containment vessel. All three explosions were due to an accumulation of hydrogen gas.

 

[lopsidedbunny]

Spoke to someone who know a bit about what's going on. Building one was design to blow from the top half of the build it is seem to be a Hydrogen building up due to Zirconium in contact with steam being vented to relieved the pressure. For whatever the reason it blew due to a spark or some kind. Building three blew due to variation of both water and steam pressure destroying the outer casting of the building. It's been suspected due to the blast may had caused a fire with in Building four with the contents of building three raining down. It's hard to know why for certain why it was the case as there has been a number of earthquakes so it could be that problem added to the equation. Building two blown within the condenser cooler so assuming slowing/stopping water supply into the reactor. Going back to Building four for whatever the reason for Building four blew two holes in the side of the building. The big worry is isn't Uranium leaking which is bad in any case the big worry is Zirconium. Zirconium is used to hold Uranium as a casing. Both Building five and Building six are heating the same way as Building Four, these three buildings were under maintenance, lastly the Japanese Atomic Agency has a habit of not being very truthfully about what they know or telling even before this earthquake happen.