2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 18 Mar 2011 11:33

Singhaji,
robots need radiation-hardened electronics to run them. Not quite sure if the hardening done for satellite circuitry will be enough nuclear plant radiation leaks though. The electronics used in nuclear power plants are hardened but i'm not sure if they can operate for long periods. Reason being high radiation leads to breakdown and if there is sufficient radiation to get past the amount of hardening done, then we'll end up with robots that dont work. {Lots of papers in IEEE nuclear science transactions about rad hardening in vlsi. One of our profs works on these. }

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Mar 2011 11:44

I was thinking along the lines of avoiding all digital electronics and going with simple analog electro-mechanical systems and 'vacuum tube' tech. more than one way to skin a cat.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 18 Mar 2011 11:51

Either that or make heavy duty equipment that can use lead (or similar material) enclosement of sensitive electronics and function in these type of situations. We have bmp's and tanks that can operate in NBC environments isnt it. Machines custom-built to operate in radiation heavy environments can be made with humans working on them too! Will need to be custom-built but definitely doable.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Mar 2011 13:21

it looks as though the HV power line has been reconnected, one of the reactors will be connected once the hosing operation is completed. seems during today that they expect to get at least one set of cooling pumps operational. others by sunday

in all this hoo-haa fanned by the media on the power plant, the focus has completely been lost on the 100,000's who are in desperate need of food, medicines and heating

IAEA Tsunami update site

should be the most knowledgeable and most objective source of info

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2011 13:56

Hey folks, another person doing need less hoo haa on his soap box

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... st=Twitter

Japan nuclear incident "grave and serious" accident

==================================

More Zaid Hamid types ranting

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... um=twitter

A major crash at the Japanese Fukushima nuclear power plant may entail the same disastrous aftermath as an awful blast at the Ukrainian Chernobyl nuclear power plant, chairman of the Ukrainian State Committee for Nuclear Regulation, Yelena Mikolaichuk told reporters here.

====================================

Something which should have been done on day 1/2 itself

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pa ... um=twitter

Fukushima Daiichi's operator reportedly said on Friday the utility was not ruling out the option of entombing the plant in concrete as a last resort to prevent a catastrophic radiation leak.

The method was used during the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine in 1986.

"It is not impossible to encase the reactors in concrete. But our priority right now is to try and cool them down first," an official from the Tokyo Electric Power Co told media, reports Reuters news agency.

You see we need to show its not Chernobyl, otherwise what does it tell us US are like Russians only.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2011 14:38

Marten wrote: Slight disconnect in the narratives

Slight?

That's, shall we say, a slight bit of a understatement?

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Mar 2011 14:49

It's almost sickening to see the fervent anticipation and prayer for a Chernobyl type of meltdown at Fukushima just so that some debating points can be scored.

Also it's one thing for press to sensationalize events and for the Ukrainians to score a few brownie points by comparing it with the Chernobyl disaster that will forever hang like a Albatross around their necks. It's quite another for participants in what is supposed to be an "informed" discussion going to town with such reports.

What happened in Chernobyl has been posted many times but what heck here's it again.

The Chernobyl disaster was a unique event and the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power where radiation-related fatalities occurred. However, the design of the reactor is unique and the accident is thus of little relevance to the rest of the nuclear industry outside the then Eastern Bloc.

On 25 April, prior to a routine shutdown, the reactor crew at Chernobyl 4 began preparing for a test to determine how long turbines would spin and supply power to the main circulating pumps following a loss of main electrical power supply. This test had been carried out at Chernobyl the previous year, but the power from the turbine ran down too rapidly, so new voltage regulator designs were to be tested.
A series of operator actions, including the disabling of automatic shutdown mechanisms, preceded the attempted test early on 26 April. By the time that the operator moved to shut down the reactor, the reactor was in an extremely unstable condition. A peculiarity of the design of the control rods caused a dramatic power surge as they were inserted into the reactor.

There's a discussion on the positive void coefficient of the RBMK reactor, a subject which, if I'm not mistaken Ramana and AmberG have already covered.

The interaction of very hot fuel with the cooling water led to fuel fragmentation along with rapid steam production and an increase in pressure. The design characteristics of the reactor were such that substantial damage to even three or four fuel assemblies can – and did – result in the destruction of the reactor. The overpressure caused the 1000 t cover plate of the reactor to become partially detached, rupturing the fuel channels and jamming all the control rods, which by that time were only halfway down. Intense steam generation then spread throughout the whole core (fed by water dumped into the core due to the rupture of the emergency cooling circuit) causing a steam explosion and releasing fission products to the atmosphere. About two to three seconds later, a second explosion threw out fragments from the fuel channels and hot graphite. There is some dispute among experts about the character of this second explosion, but it is likely to have been caused by the production of hydrogen from zirconium-steam reactions.

Leaving aside the verdict of history on its role in melting the Soviet 'Iron Curtain', some very tangible practical benefits have resulted from the Chernobyl accident. The main ones concern reactor safety, notably in eastern Europe. (The US Three Mile Island accident in 1979 had a significant effect on Western reactor design and operating procedures. While that reactor was destroyed, all radioactivity was contained – as designed – and there were no deaths or injuries.)
While no-one in the West was under any illusion about the safety of early Soviet reactor designs, some lessons learned have also been applicable to Western plants. Certainly the safety of all Soviet-designed reactors has improved vastly. This is due largely to the development of a culture of safety encouraged by increased collaboration between East and West, and substantial investment in improving the reactors

It's well documented that the faulty design of the RBMK reactor and incredibly sloppy project management resulted in the Chernobyl disaster. There was no natural disaster and the accident occurred on a fine day in April

Now to compare this accident with the Fukushima incident which has occurred due to a classic Black Swan event is... Well never mind!

It always helps to keep a sense of perspective. The situation in Fukushima is in no way near Chernobyl. And at the risk of being called a US stooge and a paid GE agent "whose roji roti depends on this", I would mount a fervent prayer that it doesn't go that way and they manage to get it under control.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Mar 2011 14:57

sanku - during the long discussion on khanua on mil forum a few months ago, you did exactly the same noise generation. whatever point of view was presented you agreed with and then ended by saying that all data presented basically confirmed your central hypothesis - regardless of what other conclusions were being presented! at the moment, you are not adding anything of value to the situation analysis of the serious incident at fukushima - how on earth can you come up with a postulation that the fukushima plant should have been encased in concrete on day 1??!??!
henceforth i shall follow the vina-doctrine and ignore your posts

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Mar 2011 15:02

Lalmohan wrote:how on earth can you come up with a postulation that the fukushima plant should have been encased in concrete on day 1??!??!

Lal Mullah,

Take your eyes off the Lal Chicks, the answer to your question was in his post.

Here it is:

You see we need to show its not Chernobyl, otherwise what does it tell us US are like Russians only.

Fukushima is not a human tragedy that has befallen very decent folks who are already reeling from 10 of thousands of deaths and devastation.

It's all about US vs Russia! After the Chernobyl self goal there's a desperate need for a goal against the US side for a ==.

Of course nevermind the fact that the Russian themselves have moved on and have learnt from the mistakes in Chernobyl, just as Three Mile was a great learning experience for the US and this would be as well for the global nuclear community.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2011 15:22

Lalmohan wrote: henceforth i shall follow the vina-doctrine and ignore your posts

If you are reading this, be my guest, I wasn't exactly forcing you in the first place.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 Mar 2011 15:38

Latest

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world ... japan.html

As the crisis seemed to deepen, Japan’s nuclear safety agency raised the assessment of its severity from 4 to 5 on a 7-level international scale, news reports said. Level 4 is for incidents with local consequences while level denotes broader consequences. It was not immediately clear why the action had been taken. The partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 was rated 5 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 was rated 7.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 18 Mar 2011 15:41

Amidst senseless scare mongering ( I am NOT referring to this forum/thread) in the so called responsible media here is some guru and a respectable voice that is talking sense....

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2011 ... about.html

Posting select excerpts, please read the entire article and also about this man.

All the scare-talk about radiation is irrelevant. There is no radiation danger, there will be no radiation danger, regardless of how much reactor melting may occur. Radiation? Yes. Danger? No

Statements that there is no safe level of radiation are an affront to science and to common sense.

Yet in Japan, you have radiation zealots threatening to order people out of their homes, to wander, homeless and panic-stricken, through the battered countryside, to do what? All to avoid a radiation dose lower than what they would get from a ski trip.

It would be ironic if American nuclear power were phased out as unsafe, without having ever killed or injured a single member of the public, to be replaced by coal, gas and oil, proven killers of tens of thousands each year.

not to speak of arming fanatic barbarian terrorists of ME with even more $$$$

AOA

Purush · Post by **Purush** » 18 Mar 2011 16:06

^ The point about the fuel leaving the containment vessel is what I was thinking about too. A five inch thick 'wall' of steel should be a darn good heat sink, no? What is the size of the containment vessel, heat capacity of the steel (316L or LN type I assume), melting pt of the steel, temp/power and mass of the fuel etc..knowing these numbers, a rough estimate of the distance the fuel will travel through the steel wall can probably be calculated. I am discounting the effects of alloy/intermetallic formation and subsequent property change at the fuel/steel boundary etc.

Perhaps some mech/thermal engg member could run the numbers?

Ofcourse, if there is an explosion and ejection of nuclear material into the surroundings, above calculations are useless.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2011 16:07

Purush wrote:^ The point about the fuel leaving the containment vessel is what I was thinking about too.

The issue in this case is complicated by "live" fuel outside the containment chamber.

Purush · Post by **Purush** » 18 Mar 2011 16:14

I am talking about the situation in reactor 3 or whichever has the fuel still in the chamber, not the ones where the fuel is stored.
I am outside (posting from my phone) and wont be home until late, else I could have helped in gathering the property data for the steel and fuel.
Edit: wont there be a containment chamber even for the stored fuel?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Mar 2011 16:34

the containment chamber for the stored fuel is the 10m deep water pool which is thick concrete with a steel lining

the water acts not just to cool but also moderate the fuel - the tanks are running hot and evaporating but there is no confirmation either way of the actual water levels in tank 4. other tanks appear to be ok, and temperatures are known. IAEA website and the Japanese Nuclear Agency (not TEPCO) sites are carrying that data

boron sheets are used to provide further moderation, and boric acid can be sprayed on the water to help in an emergency. the latter appears to have been contemplated, but i have not seen anything that says it was actually done.

the fire trucks have been hosing down the reactor vessels - reports on NISA website

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 18 Mar 2011 16:37

The fact that they are pumping water from outside through choppers and also fire trucks means this chamber holding spent or removed rods is exposed to the sky. Not sure if this is usual design or because the roof got blown off..

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 18 Mar 2011 16:41

Roof got blown up. I dont think you ever have a open roof

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 18 Mar 2011 16:53

krishnan wrote:Roof got blown up. I dont think you ever have a open roof

I mean a real roof of concrete that is supposedly a containment covering, not some rain-proofing sort of roof to keep out the mozzies..

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Mar 2011 16:55

the pool contains downwards, i think guruloge here have already explained that the reactor, leave alone the pool can only melt, not explode

Purush · Post by **Purush** » 18 Mar 2011 17:07

Pardon me for some basic questions, but I am a bit confused..aren't these guys scared of two things, in this order of severity...
1. Explosion/fire and dispersal of nuclear fuel over a large area
2. Complete loss of coolant and overheating followed by meltdown of the fuel, which then exits the containment chamber ....(and does what exactly subsequently?)

What is the real danger of the fuel going 'critical' and culminating in a nuke bomb type explosion? What are the conditions for the fuel (mass/temp wise) for this to happen?

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 18 Mar 2011 17:11

Purush wrote: What is the real danger of the fuel going 'critical' and culminating in a nuke bomb type explosion? What are the conditions for the fuel (mass/temp wise) for this to happen?

The minute the rods were inserted stopping the fission reaction (which happened within 6 or 7 seconds after the quake), there is no chance of that. Not original gyan but derived gyan...can check around

The only chance is for the fuel to overheat, melt the casing, melt through the steel (which did not happen at TMI despite much higher quantity melting), melt through the concrete second layer of containment and then go straight through the core of earth and emerge at other end of the earth somewhere in Africa...just kidding..

http://mitnse.com/2011/03/17/on-worst-case-scenarios/

Read the above worst case scenarios..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Mar 2011 17:22

Purush wrote:Pardon me for some basic questions, but I am a bit confused..aren't these guys scared of two things, in this order of severity...
1. Explosion/fire and dispersal of nuclear fuel over a large area
2. Complete loss of coolant and overheating followed by meltdown of the fuel, which then exits the containment chamber ....(and does what exactly subsequently?)

What is the real danger of the fuel going 'critical' and culminating in a nuke bomb type explosion? What are the conditions for the fuel (mass/temp wise) for this to happen?

Well this is what I think I know.

The nuclear fuel will not explode. Explosions are secondary - like hydrogen from the reaction of water with Zirconium at high temperatures.

In a melt down the nuclear fuel becomes a mass of molten radioactive metal from which fumes of vaporised radioactive compounds/elements evaporate and those fumes contaminate the environment. The main mass of molten fuel will burn a hole in the ground and keep sinking until it gets diluted with melted soil and rock and cool down. If there is underground water en route that water channel will become contaminated.

The fuel cannot explode like a nuke bomb. You need some serious enrichment for that.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Mar 2011 17:27

Purush wrote:Pardon me for some basic questions, but I am a bit confused..aren't these guys scared of two things, in this order of severity...
1. Explosion/fire and dispersal of nuclear fuel over a large area

This happens thus,

1) (your point 2) Complete loss of coolant and overheating followed by fuel pellets breaking the constraint where they are held inside the reactor.

2) the nuclear fuel, becomes hot, falls through the inner containment structure inside the reactor, and forms a lump, this lump is "like a bomb" in the sense its a relatively concentrated material which heats up rapidly and can melt through both reactor and outer containment chamber and have a minor explosion due to pressure built up spewing junk all around.

This is what happened at Chernobyl, although they did not have a outer steel containment. However no one knows what a lump of fuel lying at the base of containment chamber will do. (The exact question you asked in the previous post)

2. Complete loss of coolant and overheating followed by meltdown of the fuel, which then exits the containment chamber ....(and does what exactly subsequently?)

There is a different issue, as well, the fuel, which was live was being temporarily stored outside the containment chamber in a cooling pool which is loosing its coolant. This essentially means a bunch of radioactive material directly exposed to the enviornment.

This is the killer, since by all accounts this has already happened. The radioactive material as seen open exposure to atmosphere having lost its water and concerete cover both, and any water dumped on it to cool it turns to steam, most probably carrying radioactivity and spreading around.

This fuel is supposedly MOX fuel and contains Plutonium.

What is the real danger of the fuel going 'critical' and culminating in a nuke bomb type explosion? What are the conditions for the fuel (mass/temp wise) for this to happen?

Exact physics answers in numerical terms I do not know. The claims are from "almost certain" to "currently stable"

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Mar 2011 17:41

fuel rods are 20-something % encriched U, for bums you need 98%
the rods if allowed to heat continuously can degrade and melt, releasing U238 into the surrounding materials - which is highly radioactive. this is why it is inside a 5-6 inch thick pressure vessel

in this particular design, the cooling water is radioactive - but with short half-life Caesium and Iodine, so if this escapes as steam there IS radioactive leakage. but as we have seen - it is quickly reduced to a low level of radiation and not widely dispersed

however, if people have to work in an environment where this steam is coming out, they can only be allowed to be there for short periods or they will ingest more than safe levels of this radiation
the workers are more at danger from the steam and from the steam's constituents (hydrogen mostly) exploding than from the radiation

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 18 Mar 2011 18:01

Japan Reactor Crisis: Satellite Pictures Reveal Damage - National Geographic

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 18 Mar 2011 18:31

I think technical issues and nuclear related issues could be discussed in another thread
probably here

Let this thread be on disaster discussions only. Just a suggestions

Meanwhile Japan's Nuclear and industrial safety agency has raised the level to 5 , equal to what was in 1979 Pennsylvania Three mile Island disaster.

Japan has raised the alert level at a stricken nuclear plant from four to five on a seven-point international scale for atomic incidents.

The crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi site is now two levels below Ukraine's 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog warned in Tokyo the battle to stabilise the plant was a race against time.

The crisis was prompted by last week's huge quake and tsunami, which has left at least 16,000 people dead or missing.

The Japanese nuclear agency's decision to raise the alert level to five grades Fukushima's as an "accident with wider consequences".

Meanwhile, further heavy snowfall overnight all but ended hopes of rescuing anyone else from the rubble after the 9.0-magnitude quake and tsunami.

Millions of survivors have been left without water, electricity, fuel or enough food; hundreds of thousands more are homeless.

According to the latest figures, 6,405 people are dead and about 10,200 are missing.

I was under impression that there was partial meltdown at Three mile island disaster.
Is it true?

I sure hope there is no such thing in fukushima. Japanese have really excelled in disaster management post quake and tsunami. Their calm and methodical approach , to which many of brf members are first hand witness, is simply amazing.The calm they have displayed is really extraordinary. No news of looting , rioting or even a word of protest. Only some concerns about information sharing.

It also goes on to exhibit the point that by and large design of nuke reactor was quite robust to have managed this far,hough not robust enough to withstand quake and tsunami of 8.9 scale.That is an old design going way back to 1970 of BWR type GE (unkil) supplied. Do we need to read something into this, the way western media has played the role. Not concentrating on efficient management of disaster by japanese,rather playing up the impact on tokyo, does not lend more credibility to them.

Another issue seems to be that there are too many reactors cramped in a small area , all for a different reason, but that does complicate the crisis management.

I am sure that newer designs would have incorporated better safety measures. Lessons from this disaster would be appropriately taken and implemented . This disaster should not reflect as such on the merits and demerits of nuke case but if alternatives are available that should be explored first. After all, accident at nuke plant can not be at par with accident at thermal plant or rail accident or car accident or other natural disaster. Radiation effects in the disaster area is going to be long term .

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Mar 2011 18:40

western media like sensational stories - thats what gets eyeballs and $$ to flow
the more sensational, the better
a headline saying "Japanese authorities coping relatively well in disaster management" does not attract eyeballs as much as "its all gone hideously belly up and we're all going to die!!!"
so, you have to filter that out

someone raised the point earlier about 1971 oil shock and japanese reliance on nuclear power. i believe that some 15% of capacity in japan is nuclear - much lower than many OECD countries. however, not having any oil or other resources has been a major factor in japanese strategic thinking for some time. afterall, their part in WW2 was largely driven by the need to secure south east asian resources like oil and rubber

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 18 Mar 2011 18:50

chaanakya wrote:
I was under impression that there was partial meltdown at Three mile island disaster.
Is it true?

Yes, but it did not penetrate the steel containment layer. Please see my earlier post with links...

It is presumed to happened at Fukushima too...going by indirect evidence, mostly radiation levels. They will only know for sure when things cool down enough to dismantle and figure out what is where that may take a couple of years or so.

But as experts point out, meltdown is not end of world. It is bad yes.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 18 Mar 2011 19:12

Lalmohan wrote:
someone raised the point earlier about 1971 oil shock and japanese reliance on nuclear power. i believe that some 15% of capacity in japan is nuclear - much lower than many OECD countries.

Not someone, but I pointed out, unless you wish to ignore.

The information is firsthand though Govt websites of Japan do give indications to that effect.

Here is some quote
http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/energy_el ... index.html

japan's first commercial nuclear power plant started operation in Ibaraki Prefecture in 1966. As of the end of December 2009, Japan has fifty-four reactors operating around the country, usually accounting for around one-third of the country's total electric power output. By fiscal 2018, the nuclear output share is expected to reach 40 percent. Currently, there are three plants under construction, as well as another ten that are in the advanced planning stages.

While placing the highest priority on nuclear safety and public trust, Japanese electric power companies will continue to develop nuclear power generation as a base-load power source that plays an important role in Japan's electric power supply in order to secure a steady supply of electricity and address global environmental issues.

This is what wikipedia tells us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan

The ratio of nuclear power generation to total electricity production increased from 2% in 1973 to 23.6% in 1990.

So it is 30% and going on to 40% well from 2% in 1973.
I have graphs and ppts given by Japanese energy officials which indicate 1970 as watershed year ( though I can't share for obvious reasons.) just as we see 1947 or 1971 as watershed years in our discourse.

Nuke energy is not a favorable model worldwide.

This report seems to indicate that.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... tical-mass

This month, Finland's Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor was supposed to begin generating power, a tangible sign of the revival of the nuclear industry outside of Asia after nearly 30 years of no new construction because of accidents, cost-overruns and other issues. Instead, the reactor won't be completed for more than three more years, its price is nearly 60 percent more than anticipated, and it is mired in costly legal squabbles between the builder, Areva, and the Finnish utility, Pohjolan Voima.

In the U.S., since 2003, 17 applications for 26 new reactors have been filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but not one is yet under construction.

Despite dozens of new nuclear plants ordered or built in Asia in recent years, "increased deployment of nuclear power has been slow both in the United States and globally," wrote the authors of a new Massachusetts Institute of Technology review of the state of nuclear power.

Those figures, say the authors of the report, an update on a similar report in 2003, mean that "even if all the announced plans for new nuclear power plant construction are realized, the total will be well behind that needed for reaching a thousand gigawatts of new capacity worldwide by 2050."

One thousand gigawatts is the number the M.I.T. professors estimated would be needed to ensure that nuclear power provided 20 percent of global electricity needs as well as cut emissions of greenhouse gases from power plants. In the U.S., the number would be jumping from 100 to 300 gigawatts of nuclear-sourced electricity by 2050.

After all, once operating, nuclear power plants burn nothing and therefore emit no carbon dioxide as fossil fuel–burning power plants do. (There are, of course, significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with building and fueling nuclear facilities).

But the price of new nuclear power has "escalated dramatically," according to the report, jumping by 15 percent a year to reach as much as $4,000 per kilowatt compared with $2,300 for coal-fired generation and just $850 for natural gas. And the industry is asking for at least $100 billion in federal tax subsidies and loan guarantees for the 26 reactors currently planned.

The situation is no better in Europe, according to Steven Thomas, a professor of energy studies at the University of Greenwich in London: Finland cannot complete its new reactor; the U.K. has yet to get started on any projects; and a new nuclear reactor in France, after 18 months of construction, is 20 percent overbudget and requires complete subsidy by the French government.

"The nuclear power industry in Europe is in the midst of the same kind of regulatory and financial uncertainty that makes the future of the industry murky at best in this country," Thomas said during a conference call with reporters. "We've been waiting for the renaissance for 10 years."

Nor has there been a solution to the issue of nuclear waste. In the U.S., the plan to use Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert as a repository for spent nuclear fuel rods is in limbo, opposed by the Obama administration. Reprocessing nuclear fuel, currently underway only in France, has proved prohibitively expensive, and it raises concerns about the proliferation of plutonium for nuclear weapons.

These are the links to MIT report

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuc ... ummary.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuc ... r-full.pdf
and 2009 update
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuc ... te2009.pdf

Conclusions in brief

The report maintains that "The nuclear option should be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power."

"Fossil fuel-based electricity is projected to account for more than 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020," said Deutch. "In the U.S. 90% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation come from coal-fired generation, even though this accounts for only 52% of the electricity produced. Taking nuclear power off the table as a viable alternative will prevent the global community from achieving long-term gains in the control of carbon dioxide emissions."

But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.

The study examines a growth scenario where the present deployment of 360 GWe of nuclear capacity worldwide is expanded to 1000 GWe in mid-century, keeping nuclear's share of the electricity market about constant. Deployment in the U.S. would expand from about 100 GWe today to 300 GWe in mid-century. This scenario is not a prediction, but rather a study case in which nuclear power would make a significant contribution to reducing CO2 emissions.

"There is no question that the up-front costs associated with making nuclear power competitive, are higher than those associated with fossil fuels," said Dr. Moniz. "But as our study shows, there are many ways to mitigate these costs and, over time, the societal and environmental price of carbon emissions could dramatically improve the competitiveness of nuclear power"

Update points out that

Today, there are about 44 plants under construction around the world in 12 countries, principally China, India, Korea, and Russia. There are no new plants under construction in the United States.

The slow pace of this deployment means that the mid-century scenario of 1000 GWe of operating nuclear power
around the globe and 300 GWe in the United States is less likely than when it was considered in the 2003 study.

and concludes

The central premise of the 2003 MIT Study on the Future of Nuclear Power was that the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in order to mitigate global warming, justified reevaluating the role of nuclear power in
the country’s energy future. The 2003 study identified the challenges to greater deployment and argued that the key need was to design, build, and operate a few first-of-a-kind nuclear plants with government assistance, to demonstrate to
the public, political leaders, and investors the technical performance, cost, and environmental acceptability of the technology. After five years, no new plants are under construction in the United States and insufficient progress has been
made on waste management. The current assistance program put into place by the 2005 EPACT has not yet been effective and needs to be improved. The sober warning is that if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical
and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation.

Points made by sanku ji has been well discussed in the report.
I would also request the moderators to move tech posts to relevant thread.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 18 Mar 2011 19:13

Suppiah wrote:
chaanakya wrote:
I was under impression that there was partial meltdown at Three mile island disaster.
Is it true?

Yes, but it did not penetrate the steel containment layer. Please see my earlier post with links...

It is presumed to happened at Fukushima too...going by indirect evidence, mostly radiation levels. They will only know for sure when things cool down enough to dismantle and figure out what is where that may take a couple of years or so.

But as experts point out, meltdown is not end of world. It is bad yes.

Thanks and I agree with bolded part.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Mar 2011 19:30

chaanakya-ji; bhyphor ju getting upsets?
when mujahids dive through BRF inbetween pretending to do work, sometimes quotes are difficult to track to GPS precision
humble apologies onlee

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 18 Mar 2011 19:40

There is a different issue, as well, the fuel, which was live was being temporarily stored outside the containment chamber in a cooling pool which is loosing its coolant. This essentially means a bunch of radioactive material directly exposed to the enviornment.

This is the killer, since by all accounts this has already happened. The radioactive material as seen open exposure to atmosphere having lost its water and concerete cover both, and any water dumped on it to cool it turns to steam, most probably carrying radioactivity and spreading around.

This fuel is supposedly MOX fuel and contains Plutonium.

This is inside reactor unit#3 and not in the storage pool of unit#4, isn't it ? Storage pool is apparently completely exposed to the environment when the water levels drop.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 Mar 2011 19:56

BBC Op-Ed on Radiation poisoning

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 18 Mar 2011 20:10

shiv wrote:The fuel cannot explode like a nuke bomb. You need some serious enrichment for that.

This is not correct. The fuel can explode though it is more like a 'dirty bomb' than a proper nuclear bomb.

Chernobyl definitely had a 'criticality' explosion as well as a steam explosion. There is much speculation that the absence of a containment structure actually prevented a much worse explosion as the fuel core was quickly disassociated preventing further 'criticality'. The explosion in Chernobyl was powerful enough that any containment dome would have most likely been blown off as well. Most media miss this point.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Mar 2011 20:18

A few comments today:

Sanku, Please dont get hyper and attack/sly remarks/innuendo on others. By now we have your opinion. I already asked many times not to indulge in polemics. If you continue others will respond and it will lead to general degradation of the thread. We have Shiv alluding to unmentionables in a thread to discuss a disaster.

So cease and desist.

chanaakya, Dont get hot. Its not like your are being denied the Pulitzer by lalmohan.
-------
Fuel can explode like a bomb but its yield will be low. All the reactor safe shutdown proceducres are to avoid that and the meltdown.

----------
The sat picture shows left most reactor has the ctmt wall blown. 3/4 reactors the containment is breached or blown. See how the metal grid is still standing. its like the walls were never desgined for explosion. They are more like blowout walls desiged to fall off and vent the explosions. In PWRs such a thing never happens. The ctmt is much stronger to take 707 level a/c impact.

General comments. I won't call this death of nuke power plants but definitely Light Water Reactors are questionable right now.

Spent fuel storage in massive amounts at the reactor site is another questionable thing.

Need massive rethink and need to resist commercial interests pressure to proceed unchanged.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Mar 2011 20:43

Theo_Fidel wrote:
shiv wrote:The fuel cannot explode like a nuke bomb. You need some serious enrichment for that.
This is not correct. The fuel can explode though it is more like a 'dirty bomb' than a proper nuclear bomb.

Really? I didn't know that.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 18 Mar 2011 21:01

vina wrote:
Amber G. wrote:Very good! (This is why physics is practical to get answers - at least to know the range)
One critical thing is (and it is good news), cooling depends on "boiling the water" which requires much more energy (5 times more than heating it from 20 to 90 degrees)
IOW 4185 joules (per Kg) to raise 1 Deg C)
but 2,240,000 joules (per Kg) to boil 1 Kg (from 100 degree water to 100 degree steam)
(They push the (sea) water, then let it boil and went) ( so you need less water but some how push the water in (inside with steam pressure))
Amber G . A nice Fyzzics answer . That constant heat of boiling is the top end in terms of amount of heat you can transfer out, true.

But the Yin Jin Ear Ring answer will depend on heat transfer rates. To keep the zircon cladding from going Paki and melting, it needs a minimum heat transfer rate away from the cladding. I don't know what and how much boiling is allowed in the BWR (maybe just on the surface/bubble forming kind of stuff, which is efficient), but if you allow full boiling of the coolant and working fluid (same in the BWR), then the heat transfer rates away from the fuel rods will fall and the cladding and fuel temp will rise and can go Paki! Depends on design details of BWR I guess.

The max heat transfer rates are if the water is in liquid state. That is why in PWR /PHWR reactors, the water is pressurized and never allowed to boil! The reason why the BWR is thermodynamically more efficient than the PWR is because in BWR unlike the PWR, there is no heat transfer (which is lossy) from inner loop (which is in contact with the fuel) to the outer loop (which drives the generators).

Vinaji - I have all the respect, and admire many who have devoted years of their life studying "heat transfer"..and it is no exaggeration that the physics of heat transfer is order of magnitude more important in this case than other branches such as nuclear fission..(Even for Microsoft, they would have avoided a lot of headaches and re-engineering efforts on Xbox if some one did not goof up in its heat-sink design)..

But still...(:) this is not a normal situation, you have a crippled cooling system and if you can only circulate x amount of water those numbers ( 2,240,000 J v 4000 J) are important. It's not the question of most-efficient heat transfer with working pumping but more like (for now) a simpler math problem .. ("If you need 50 people(with their pump) to "feed and bleed" method you will need about 400 people to do the circulating water method - /smile/ ).. anyway this is what was being recommended and that method is the one being used... (Yes, the situation is far from ideal - large portions of rods being exposed out side water..they are depending on heat conduction of Zr metal vs circulating water etc.)

Recent news clip (10 AM EDT today):

..The elite Tokyo Hyper Rescue component of the Tokyo fire department has arrived on scene and is conducting missions of roughly two hours in length, during which they spray the pools for 7-8 minutes, wait for steam to dissipate, and spray again.

I mention this because about a day ago I was watching CNN (helicopters being used to dump water) and brf posts made me think about the latent heat of Ice/water (about 320000 J/Kg)...I know one can't pump ice, and sea water is much more readily available
.. but if ice is available and if it can be dumped (in spent fuel pool).. it could cut down on the helicopter trips by half or more... (or can one throw (tons of it) accurately as a projectile ? ).. anyway I spent some time sending some emails.. just in case.

Spent fuel rods in the pool (if water is not there for a long time) is still a very serious concern (IMO) ..not only if fire breaks out but also lack of depth of water - 10-15 meter deep water acts, as badly needed radiation shield (equivalent to about half a meter of lead)... and sheer amount of spent fuel material is huge.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 18 Mar 2011 21:07

ramana wrote: General comments. I won't call this death of nuke power plants but definitely Light Water Reactors are questionable right now.

Spent fuel storage in massive amounts at the reactor site is another questionable thing.

Need massive rethink and need to resist commercial interests pressure to proceed unchanged.

I wonder if offsite storage of spent rods is possible at all (at least until they cool down, which is 2-3 yrs) after all this not a backup tape drive...

I doubt if this would lead to nuclear renaissance as they call it, becoming kaput. Slow down yes, but look at both Unkil and Sarkozy both are saying we are better, we will learn. Only some like Germany are pulling back anyway they have huge green lobby. China is making some announcement-ware but they have little choice.

As someone US expert pointed out about Chernobyl, there were no nuclear lessons to be learned there - just administrative lessons. One day they may say the same for this incident.

Speaking of India, our leftist 'intellectuals' and Stalinist rapist goons whose ideological fellow travelers and paymasters mishandled Chernobyl, built shoddily, sent workers to death without any protection and lied through their teeth for days and months (until the Swedes made noise from 3,000km away) are at the fore-front of this anti-nuclear lobby...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Mar 2011 21:10

AmberG, in one US PWR in the late 70s there was design to pump ice-cooled water in the containment spray system. It was called Ice Containment system.

It was considered innovative at that time but not practical as it introduces one more failure link (refrigeration plant ) in the heat removal system. The problem was some economical guy wanted to reduce the pump capacity /pipe diameter to account of the savings from pumping ice cooled water!