Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
andrew
andrew
0
Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 15:08
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland - WhiteBlue Country (not the region)

Re: Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post

forty-two wrote:Presumably, even if the concrete would ever properly cure, all that heat below it would result in an increase in pressure from within, which could lead to a pressure-cooker explosion?
It would cure but with overheating due to the exothermic setting of cement plus the heat from below would mean that it sets to quickly and will fail.

Keepng the concrete at a low enough temperature would be extremely difficult.

User avatar
forty-two
0
Joined: 01 Mar 2010, 21:07

Re: Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post

My thoughts exactly Andrew.

I know that even a tiny amount of concrete when used for a driveway crossover (the bit of pavement between a house's front wall and the roadway) needs to be watered overnight to both keep it cool and prevent the exothermic reaction from "boiling off" the water mixed with the concrete before it can cure.

I would have thought that this would be far more of a problem for a larger mass of concrete WITHOUT an internal heat source, let alone one with shedloads of decay heat going on for god-knows how many months/years?

I think that this was less of an issue in Chernobyl because the explosion effectively "blew apart" the bulk of the radioactive material and that this effectively stopped the chain reaction from being able to continue, within the reactor (as was) at least.

From memory, in Chernobyl, they dropped tons and tons of sand onto the site before they went in with the concrete. I thought that this was to put out the fire, but perhaps it was to provide a medium to sit between the nuclear mass and the concrete poured on top?
The answer to the ultimate question, of life, the Universe and ... Everything?

marekk
marekk
2
Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 00:29

Re: Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post

They can't do anything until they restore/build some closed loop cooling system for reactors and fuel ponds.

Only then, as they stop to flood all the buildings with fresh water, can they really begin with decontamination and clean up work.

As a temporary solution, they can try to cover the buildings - but not with concrete, i think fabric covering would be more appropriate and can be done in short time.

After this is done, they can slowly start to think about long term solutions.
They will have lot of time, as i don't think anyone will be able to start with decommissioning work in reactor buildings in next 10 years.

User avatar
forty-two
0
Joined: 01 Mar 2010, 21:07

Re: Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post

Perhaps not strictly technical (depending upon your viewpoint) but the authorities in China have issued a warning to the F1 Fraternity:

Source:
http://f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_co ... Itemid=157
F1SA wrote:As for the risk of radiation from the Japanese nuclear crisis, while radiation has not been detected in Shanghai, it is evident in some other parts of China.

Therefore, teams are likely to consume large quantities of their own food and bottled water this weekend.
The answer to the ultimate question, of life, the Universe and ... Everything?

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post

It looks like the scepticism about the condition of #2 is justified in some way.
http://blogs.forbes.com/oshadavidson/20 ... wer-plant/

Conditions May Be Deteriorating at Japanese Nuclear Power Plant

Five weeks after the crisis at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station first began, there is new evidence that the situation may have taken a turn for the worse.

Intensely radioactive water from reactor Unit 2 is filling a nearby tunnel faster than workers can empty it, and radioactive levels of seawater near the plant increased sixfold following an aftershock on Saturday.

According to Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) owner/operator of the 6-reactor power plant, radioactive contamination of groundwater by Unit 2 is 17-times higher than it was just one week ago. The problem is thought to be caused by an unknown leak or leaks in the basement of the unit’s turbine building or in the tunnel itself.

A spokesman for Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Commission told reporters that “We want to determine the origin and contain the leak, but I must admit that tracking it down is difficult.”

On Friday, workers dumped more sandbags of zeolite, a radiation absorbing material, into the sea by Unit 3.

Radiation Threat to Marine Life

Little is known about the effects of radiation on marine life, despite a long history of such human-caused contamination from using the ocean as a dumping ground for nuclear waste from France, the U.K., and the former Soviet Union. An unknown amount of radiation also came from US nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific. The explosion and fire at the only previous nuclear power disaster on this scale, at Chernobyl in 1986, deposited a significant amount of radiation in the ocean.

A recent article by journalist Elizabeth Grossman quotes Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution:

Given that the Fukushima nuclear power plant is on the ocean, and with leaks and run off directly to the ocean, the impacts on the ocean will exceed those of Chernobyl, which was hundreds of miles from any sea….My biggest concern is the lack of information. We still don’t know the whole range of radioactive compounds that have been released into the ocean.

TEPCO moved 660 tons of radioactive water from the Unit 2 tunnel to a giant cask on Wednesday, lowering the water level in the tunnel by about three inches. By Saturday morning, however, the water level in the tunnel had returned to its previous position and then rose another inch.

Also, the Japanese public television network NHK reports that radiation in underground water is 38-times higher than it was a week ago.

How Far Away is Safe?

Despite assurances from the government that areas outside of designated evacuation zones are safe, debate continues over the safety of areas farther from the plant and when it will be safe for evacuees to return.

Part of the debate stems from the mixed signals sent by other nations. The U.S. told American nationals to evacuate from a 50-mile zone around FDI. France instructed its citizens to leave Japan entirely.

Changing instructions by the Japanese government itself is another factor contributing to confusion and alarm among the Japanese people.

An opinion piece published in yesterday’s Kyodo News is generating more debate on what actions need to be taken to deal with the nuclear crisis. The editorial was written by Alexey Yablokov, a Russian scientist who edited a book about the public health and environmental effects of the Chernobyl disaster.

“Based on Chernobyl experiences,” says Yablokov, “it is necessary to understand that it may be impossible to quickly get back to life before the catastrophe and to accept the post-Fukushima realities as soon as possible.”

His editorial includes suggestions such as expanding the exclusion zone around FDI to “at least” 30-miles, mass distribution of chemicals such as potassium iodine so that people can protect themselves against some forms of radiation, and the creation of a special government committee to deal exclusively with “problems of contaminated territories during the first most complicated years.”
Europeans and Americans may not be very concerned about the leaking radioactivity into the Pacific - as it is far away - but one should not forget that natural resources are global in this age. How long will it take the contamination to travel to waters that are used by species that are caught and sold globally? Pacific salmon, herring, cod and tuna? Do we need more radioactivity in the food chain on top of mercury and pesticides?
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

autogyro
autogyro
53
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 15:03

Re: Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post

Part of the debate stems from the mixed signals sent by other nations. The U.S. told American nationals to evacuate from a 50-mile zone around FDI. France instructed its citizens to leave Japan entirely

I would not take the American advice because the problem is with American reactors and they advised on their placement.
France has the best experience of nuclear power.

This disaster will soon be the single biggest negative effect on the world economy and our living environment.

Why was it allowed to happen?

andrew
andrew
0
Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 15:08
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland - WhiteBlue Country (not the region)

Re: Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post

If only someone had stopped the earthquake! #-o

Nothing was allowed to happen. This earthquake was unprecedented in its magnitude. Smaller earthquakes have hit Japan and this has never happened. It is new territory.

manchild
manchild
12
Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 10:54

Re: Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post

andrew wrote:If only someone had stopped the earthquake! #-o

Nothing was allowed to happen. This earthquake was unprecedented in its magnitude. Smaller earthquakes have hit Japan and this has never happened. It is new territory.
There was much smaller earthquake yesterday or so, 5.something that caused failure at another NPP in Japan, smoke and the works. But it seamed to be covered up quickly.

BTW, thought this might be useful to see since it is a technical topic.

Image

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post

andrew wrote:If only someone had stopped the earthquake! #-o

Nothing was allowed to happen. This earthquake was unprecedented in its magnitude. Smaller earthquakes have hit Japan and this has never happened. It is new territory.
I call bullshit on this theory. Everybody who has followed the reporting on the Fukushima accident knows that the direct cause of the accident was not the earth quake but the lack of protection against the 14m high tsunami which was caused by the off shore quake. It took out the diesel backup power and the mains which disrupted the cooling of reactors and fuel cooling pools causing partial melt downs.

Due to criminal negligence of TEPCO and the Japanese nuclear authority the more than 30 y/o plant had no safety upgrades despite massive evidence in the scientific community that 20m tsunamis are expected at the Honshu northern east coast at least all 800-1,000 years. It is even possible to name the individuals in TEPCO who failed to act on the information that was generated following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. The US NOOA, the US NRC, the IAEA and the Japanese NISA have all issued methods and guidelines to evaluate maximum inundation and run off and have issue guidelines on the necessary safety upgrades.

This accident was waiting to happen and it is easy to place the responsibility for the criminal negligence at TEPCO and the Japanese Nuclear Safety Authority. I reckon at the moment they simply keep the responsible people in office to have someone they can hang the blame on later. The accident is by no means over and most optimistic estimates take a year until the re criticalities are back under full control. Until such time further massive damages will be caused by the ongoing radiation leaks to the air, the ground water and the sea. I'm not even talking about further damages to the contaminated areas which will deepen as decontamination cannot even start there due to the instability at the NPP site.

It is sad to see ignorance calling this an unforeseeable disaster. It wasn't by any means.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

andrew
andrew
0
Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 15:08
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland - WhiteBlue Country (not the region)

Re: Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post

Claiming that this was allowed to happen is something I don't agree with. You don't allow an earthquake to happen. It doesn't go through passport control and get asked if they are carrying anything they shouldn't and what is the nature of their visit: business, pleasure or mass destruction.

The plant failed due to the effect of the earthquake damage, not day to day running in normal circumstances. The plant has also survived smaller earthquakes until this huge one hit.

Understand? #-o
Last edited by Steven on 22 Apr 2011, 13:09, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed personal comments

autogyro
autogyro
53
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 15:03

Re: Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post

Thank you WB, I think your comments are correct and by now obvious to everybody.

Richard
Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post

Some pics of the remote tools that are available for Fukushima

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13114310

Richard
Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post

re concrete - Yes, exothermic heat is an issue for curing concrete. However it is possible to cast huge sections of concrete if you get the mix right, otherwise we'd find it a bit hard to build dams, bridges and tall buildings. These can often have sections over 10m thick.

Personally, I think building a sarcophagus should not be too much of a problem. The big problem issue will be sub soil containment. Given the fact that all rock is fractured, and rocks in seismic zones are especially fractured, we have to assume the ground can never be fully sealed. I'd go for soil freezing & pressure grouting to create a caisson, followed by ground de watering within the caisson (ie pumping a well dry).

That would only be a temporary fix, the long term solution would be to remove the radioactive source, ie the fuel rods.

Richard
Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post

WhiteBlue wrote: Everybody who has followed the reporting on the Fukushima accident knows that the direct cause of the accident was not the earth quake but the lack of protection against the 14m high tsunami which was caused by the off shore quake. It took out the diesel backup power and the mains which disrupted the cooling of reactors and fuel cooling pools causing partial melt downs.
WB - while I agree that the pump failure appears to be the biggest contributory cause, we don't know if the other parts actually survived the quake in working order. Were the pipes and tanks intact after the quake? For example, how much cracking occurred in the the spent fuel tanks?

User avatar
forty-two
0
Joined: 01 Mar 2010, 21:07

Re: Fukushima Technical Discussion

Post

andrew wrote:Yet again, you hit out at anyone who dares to disagree with you. How mature!! As I don't want to be the one who ruined the thread, I'll explain the extremely simple point I was making.

Claiming that this was allowed to happen is something I don't agree with. You don't allow an earthquake to happen. It doesn't go through passport control and get asked if they are carrying anything they shouldn't and what is the nature of their visit: business, pleasure or mass destruction.

The plant failed due to the effect of the earthquake damage, not day to day running in normal circumstances. The plant has also survived smaller earthquakes until this huge one hit.

Understand? #-o
The way I see this, blaming the inevitable earthquake for this is a bit like blaming the moon for the destruction of a precious sand-sculpture on the beach when the tide came in!

In my fictional scenario, the sculpture was destroyed by the incoming tide, which hadn't been seen for at least 10 hours, so it was assumed it wouldn't come back in again. Nothing to do with the builder of the sculpture choosing to build the sculpture "so close to the sea" of course?

I think that it was inevitable that a massive earthquake would hit Fukushima (or anywhere else around the ring of fire come to think of it) eventually, so the site was incredibly badly chosen, and the safeguards put in to protect it in the event of such a disaster were also wiped out by the aftermath, which was predicted many years before it happened and yet they did nothing.


Do you see where I'm coming from on this one Andrew?
The answer to the ultimate question, of life, the Universe and ... Everything?