Fukushima Status as of 6am EDT March 16th

Zero Hedge ^ | 3/16/2011 | Zero Hedge

[sam_paine]

One lesson I'm getting is, no matter how good your design and your 'Plan B' is, you had better have a Plan C and Plan D and Plan E and Plan F and so on for multiple catastrophic failures when something like this happens.

Actually, what I've been learning/seeing is that here or with three mile island it looks like too much human-operated backup plans are being run. Too many potentially-positive feedback loop options if operators are involved!

I've been reading about some of the passive fail-safe shutdown plant designs being sold nowadays like this AP1000 and others.

The problem is that research on nuclear energy on small scales is limited by the fear of mistakes...but...that's how you learn. So we don't see the kind of advances we expect from technology moving nuclear power forward.

[Professional]

Good answer, thank you.

And I’d bet money, that people like me that know little or nothing aren’t aware of all the things they can do to control these disasters. At least, I hope so...

[J Aguilar]

I do hope (as an engineer) the lessons learned from this episode are incorporated in future reactor designs.

They have already been incorporated in the modern reactor's design. In fact, a cold shut down was declared yesterday for all Fukushima 2 ("Daini") reactors, which features such units.

[raygun]

Oh, but there was one death: one of the evil-nuclear-power-plant (ENP²) cranes ran amok. Score:

ENP² crane: 1
worker: 0

Albeit, that occured at Fukushima #2 which is pretty fat, dumb, and happy in cold-shutdown mode. So not much grist for the hysteria-mill there (unless you're a rabid anti-crane fear-monger).

[tsowellfan]

Great work!

[thecabal]

Excellent post

[de.rm]

...yet, . . . tick, tick, tick.

[jwalsh07]

Fact Sheet Used Nuclear Fuel Storage at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

[sam_paine]

Thanks! I’m still not ready to buy TEPCO stock tho! =(

[TXnMA]

Interesting "fact sheet".. However, a significant number of the stated "facts" do not seem to match (what has been reported as) "reality". For example:

"Rapid evaporation of the water [in which used fuel is stored] will not occur. "

Perhaps that is the case -- but, lf so, why have used fuel rods apparently been exposed to air...if they are, indeed still "under sixteen feet of water"?

Alternately, based on the building design, it would appear that cracking of the sides/bottoms of several (elevated "for ease of handling during refueling operations") used fuel pools have cracked enough to lose water via leaks...

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NEI has been touted as a "neutral source of info". However, this"fact sheet" reads more like a GE/TEPCO marketing blurb than a technical assessment of reality.

When all is said and done I suspect that GE is going to be charged with irresponsible design for this marketing-driven compromise:

"The used fuel pools at the Fukushima Daiichi reactors are located at the top of the reactor buildings for ease of handling during refueling operations."

[TXnMA]

Thanks for the spreadsheet/link! It certainly helps in keeping the (growing) list of "players" straight...

FWIW, I have been working on analysis of the reactor building design. This engineer/physical chemist has (using "20/20 hindsight") found several (apparent) design flaws that are are almost unbelievably stupid...

[Kansas58]

I am very glad that you are not in charge.

Your idea is insane.

[Kansas58]

I am very glad that you are not in charge.

Your idea is insane.

[Kansas58]

You are also insane.
“Nuking” the plant does NOT make things better, in any way.

[Kansas58]

You are also insane.
“Nuking” the plant does NOT make things better, in any way.

[jwalsh07]

"Rapid evaporation of the water [in which used fuel is stored] will not occur. "

Impossible to know unless one knows when the rods were transferred from the core, how many are in the tank and if the tank is cooling or not.

"The used fuel pools at the Fukushima Daiichi reactors are located at the top of the reactor buildings for ease of handling during refueling operations."

Alost all Mark I containment systems have top of fuel pool at top of reactor building outside of primary containment. GE will not suffer liability from that, the plant has been there for 40 years.

The post was a general reference for folks. It wasn't meant to be the Fact Sheet from the Mount. :-}

[Fido969]

Interesting "fact sheet" but not comforting.

"Rapid evaporation of the water will not occur."

Oh, really? Then where did the water go?

"Exact evaporation rates would depend on the amount of used fuel in the pool and how long it has cooled. The rate at which the pool water level would decrease (due to evaporation or mild boiling) in the absence of cooling system function would not be expected to lower water levels by more than a few percent per day."

Well, they had barely days.

"The only way to rapidly drain down the pool is if there is structural damage to the walls or the floor."

You don't say!

"Given that there is approximately 16 feet or more of water above the used fuel assemblies, operators would have ample time (days to weeks) to find another way to add water to the pools before the fuel would become exposed. For example, water could easily be added using a fire hose."

Easily be added! An easy fix!

[jwalsh07]

Calm down, take your iodine tablets and pull on the lead underwear.

[Fido969]

Blah, blah. I’m just telling you what’s happening.

But you’re so smart, why don’t you just walk into the plant and fix it with some baling wire and duct tape?

[Fido969]

Let me add:

;-)

to my post!