Fukushima fuel rods may have completely melted

Previously, the firm had said that only some of the fuel had burned through its inner pressure vessel and dropped into the containment vessel.
"Almost no fuel remains at its original position," Tepco said. The simulation shows that the fuel may have penetrated the concrete floor by up to 65cm, just 37cm from the reactor's outer steel wall.
Tepco said that about 60% of the fuel in the two other reactors that experienced meltdown had dropped onto the concrete base, but had caused less damage.

Fukushima fuel rods may have completely melted | World news | guardian.co.uk

"Decommissioning will take 30 years" and where will the decommissioned waste from Daiichi 1, 2, and 4 actually go? And what about the water being contaminated on a daily basis? Is the ocean that large to contain it? Does it seem like all these Nuclear "geniuses" designing, planning, organizing, constructing and operating either have a screw loose or can't recognize human fallibility? Do any nuclear plants have a fail safe cooling system like an uphill lake, biomass steam generated power supply to pump coolant, or what? If huge solar flares cause power failures on a National level, what is the backup? If EMP device is detonated, what is the backup? Is insanity endemic in the Nuclear Industry?

DaveFagan said:

Previously, the firm had said that only some of the fuel had burned through its inner pressure vessel and dropped into the containment vessel.
"Almost no fuel remains at its original position," Tepco said. The simulation shows that the fuel may have penetrated the concrete floor by up to 65cm, just 37cm from the reactor's outer steel wall.
Tepco said that about 60% of the fuel in the two other reactors that experienced meltdown had dropped onto the concrete base, but had caused less damage.

Fukushima fuel rods may have completely melted | World news | guardian.co.uk

"Decommissioning will take 30 years" and where will the decommissioned waste from Daiichi 1, 2, and 4 actually go? And what about the water being contaminated on a daily basis? Is the ocean that large to contain it? Does it seem like all these Nuclear "geniuses" designing, planning, organizing, constructing and operating either have a screw loose or can't recognize human fallibility? Do any nuclear plants have a fail safe cooling system like an uphill lake, biomass steam generated power supply to pump coolant, or what? If huge solar flares cause power failures on a National level, what is the backup? If EMP device is detonated, what is the backup? Is insanity endemic in the Nuclear Industry?

Click to expand...

stupidity at least. it never was a very good idea to build a big nuclear pile just to boil water for a steam generator. the cost/KwH is very high without factoring in the cost of accidents.

thanks for posting this Dave. eace

DaveFagan said:

Previously, the firm had said that only some of the fuel had burned through its inner pressure vessel and dropped into the containment vessel.
"Almost no fuel remains at its original position," Tepco said. The simulation shows that the fuel may have penetrated the concrete floor by up to 65cm, just 37cm from the reactor's outer steel wall.
Tepco said that about 60% of the fuel in the two other reactors that experienced meltdown had dropped onto the concrete base, but had caused less damage.

Fukushima fuel rods may have completely melted | World news | guardian.co.uk

"Decommissioning will take 30 years" and where will the decommissioned waste from Daiichi 1, 2, and 4 actually go? And what about the water being contaminated on a daily basis? Is the ocean that large to contain it? Does it seem like all these Nuclear "geniuses" designing, planning, organizing, constructing and operating either have a screw loose or can't recognize human fallibility? Do any nuclear plants have a fail safe cooling system like an uphill lake, biomass steam generated power supply to pump coolant, or what? If huge solar flares cause power failures on a National level, what is the backup? If EMP device is detonated, what is the backup? Is insanity endemic in the Nuclear Industry?

Click to expand...

You are exposed to more radiation by your local coal power plant than you would have been living in Tokyo.

DaveFagan said:

"Decommissioning will take 30 years" and where will the decommissioned waste from Daiichi 1, 2, and 4 actually go?

Click to expand...

We had a saying on the ship "dilution is the solution to pollution". What people may not realize is that water acts as a coolant for reactors, but it also provides some pretty good shielding.

DaveFagan said:

And what about the water being contaminated on a daily basis? Is the ocean that large to contain it?

Click to expand...

Don't know what Japan is going to do with their waste water. But yes, the ocean is large enough to contain it easily, even if they only used that as their dump for nuclear waste (not likely to be the case though).

DaveFagan said:

Does it seem like all these Nuclear "geniuses" designing, planning, organizing, constructing and operating either have a screw loose or can't recognize human fallibility?

Click to expand...

Or maybe you just don't realize what those "geniuses" have in place to help backup nuclear reactors.

For instance, many reactors have automatic shutdowns upon loss of power and/or a "scram". Little info for ya.

Scram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yes, those "geniuses" actually do think of human fallibility, they just don't inform the world about every single precaution they have in place, especially here in the US, because not all human faults result in accidents, some cause intentional problems.

DaveFagan said:

Do any nuclear plants have a fail safe cooling system like an uphill lake, biomass steam generated power supply to pump coolant, or what?

Click to expand...

Yes.

DaveFagan said:

If huge solar flares cause power failures on a National level, what is the backup?

Click to expand...

If you're talking about solar flares taking out power, then the backup is the fact that the natural state of most, if not all, reactors is going to be shutdown. They are designed (especially here in the US) to take into account that problems may occur, especially after TMI, and there may not be someone who can safely shutdown the reactor(s).

DaveFagan said:

If EMP device is detonated, what is the backup?

Click to expand...

Shutdown will occur. Reactor stops making radiation causing events.

DaveFagan said:

Is insanity endemic in the Nuclear Industry?

Click to expand...

Why would you think this to begin with? Have we not had devastating disasters with other energy sources? Do we not have devastating natural disasters occur that cause a lot of damage on a pretty regular basis (mere years apart)?

It is one thing to say that the nuclear energy community of the world could do a better job at ensuring that there are backups and good contingency plans in place to try to prevent incidents like the one in Japan from occurring and/or becoming that bad. It is quite another to accuse the majority, if not the whole, nuclear community of being insane simply because you have no idea what the fail-safes and/or backup plans are, especially here in the US, if something did occur.

All of the deaths and lives cut short caused by nuclear accidents pales in comparison to the annual number of people who die as a result of mining coal or breathing in coal emissions.

If some madmen detonated a 1 megaton nuclear warhead in the upper atmosphere above say Ks, right in the heart of America, and hit the country with an EMP blast, the last worry you'll have is if the reactors shut down right. You'd be worrying about survival as society would cease and hell would unleash. You could easily see half the US population dying from the aftermath. Starvation, disease, violence, fires... hell would be the name of this land, and cursed would be it's people. (actually, to do a proper EMP attack you'd use three 1MT warheads, west coast, central, east coast. Just to cover all possibilities.

EMP damage is not permanent, you understand that right. That concept is nothing more than a Hollywood fantasy. While it would impact the area, things could be rebuilt and electricity would be restored.

Furthermore, the range of a 1 megaton be approximately 300 mile radius from the detonation point. So one detonation over middle American w/ a 1 megaton nuke will not result in a coast to coast EMP. Also, you need a sophisticated delivery system. MAD strategy would certainly be applicable in this scenario.

This was tested with the Starfish Prime detonation prior to the prohibition of above ground nuclear testing.

Wonders how a thread about the Fukushima meltdown and consequences got turned into a thread on nuclear warfare. LOL.

I'd like to see us take a closer look at thorium. From what I've read, it seems to have some potential.

DaveFagan said:

Previously, the firm had said that only some of the fuel had burned through its inner pressure vessel and dropped into the containment vessel.
"Almost no fuel remains at its original position," Tepco said. The simulation shows that the fuel may have penetrated the concrete floor by up to 65cm, just 37cm from the reactor's outer steel wall.
Tepco said that about 60% of the fuel in the two other reactors that experienced meltdown had dropped onto the concrete base, but had caused less damage.

Fukushima fuel rods may have completely melted | World news | guardian.co.uk

"Decommissioning will take 30 years" and where will the decommissioned waste from Daiichi 1, 2, and 4 actually go? And what about the water being contaminated on a daily basis? Is the ocean that large to contain it? Does it seem like all these Nuclear "geniuses" designing, planning, organizing, constructing and operating either have a screw loose or can't recognize human fallibility? Do any nuclear plants have a fail safe cooling system like an uphill lake, biomass steam generated power supply to pump coolant, or what? If huge solar flares cause power failures on a National level, what is the backup? If EMP device is detonated, what is the backup? Is insanity endemic in the Nuclear Industry?

Click to expand...

I think what he's saying is an understatement: the only thing keeping this from being labeled as another full fledged meltdown is because they're keeping quite.

Well - I've been considering it a full fledged meltdown for MONTHS regardless of what they 'say' has or hasn't happened. By lying and hiding: they save their selves a bit . . . by being fully truthful: they only hurt their selves.

The "ONLY" reason for nuclear power plants is that they plug into the existing distribution grid. It is not Green. It is not clean. It is not safe. OTOH it will keep the status quo of big money and the controllers of the distribution network in the big money. The only way to have efficient power is to generate it locally and collect any waste heat generated in the process for heating water for home heating or A/C or potable water. This also makes jobs at a local level. This also keeps money in the community where it is installed. This could reduce petrochemical pollutants by a factor of 8. It would also reduce demand for OIL and Gas to perhaps 13% of current levels. It cuts big money out of the loop and that is why it is not implemented. We have Corporate control of our gov't. Am I identifying the problem with sufficient clarity? I am always willing to repeat myself using different words.

Deuce said:

You are exposed to more radiation by your local coal power plant than you would have been living in Tokyo.

Click to expand...

Where do you come up with this nonsense?!?

Are you able to quantify this assertion?

I can assure you that mox fuel is FAR MORE DEADLY than coal exhaust.

BmanMcfly said:

Where do you come up with this nonsense?!?

Are you able to quantify this assertion?

I can assure you that mox fuel is FAR MORE DEADLY than coal exhaust.

Click to expand...

People are raely exposed to Mox fuels in dangerous quantities. I'd rather live next to a coal plant or work in a coal mine than stand next to a melting reactor. This ignores the fact that the dangers of nuclear energy come about very rarely, while coal plants are always dirtying our air.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

People are raely exposed to Mox fuels in dangerous quantities. I'd rather live next to a coal plant or work in a coal mine than stand next to a melting reactor. This ignores the fact that the dangers of nuclear energy come about very rarely, while coal plants are always dirtying our air.

Click to expand...

For sure, but the statement was directly that coal puts off more radiation than Fukushima radiation spread to Tokyo. From a person that has been made fully aware of the discussions of potentially evacuating Tokyo as a result of the radiation.

Now, more direct to your point; in terms of exhaust from coal plants, in north America coal plants have such a high level of filtration that all that is left is only water vapor and co2... And since co2 is a nutrient, a nutrient that is deficient in our atmosphere, there is ultimately far less concerns... Especially when the comparison is between coal and a MELTED DOWN nuke plant.

DaveFagan said:

The "ONLY" reason for nuclear power plants is that they plug into the existing distribution grid. It is not Green. It is not clean. It is not safe. OTOH it will keep the status quo of big money and the controllers of the distribution network in the big money. The only way to have efficient power is to generate it locally and collect any waste heat generated in the process for heating water for home heating or A/C or potable water. This also makes jobs at a local level. This also keeps money in the community where it is installed. This could reduce petrochemical pollutants by a factor of 8. It would also reduce demand for OIL and Gas to perhaps 13% of current levels. It cuts big money out of the loop and that is why it is not implemented. We have Corporate control of our gov't. Am I identifying the problem with sufficient clarity? I am always willing to repeat myself using different words.

Click to expand...

Actually: "The "ONLY" reason for nuclear power plants is that they . . . " are directly tied to our efforts to develop nuclear weapons and harness support for such.

BmanMcfly said:

Where do you come up with this nonsense?!?

Are you able to quantify this assertion?

I can assure you that mox fuel is FAR MORE DEADLY than coal exhaust.

Click to expand...

then do so, please...

DaveFagan said:

The "ONLY" reason for nuclear power plants is that they plug into the existing distribution grid. It is not Green. It is not clean. It is not safe. OTOH it will keep the status quo of big money and the controllers of the distribution network in the big money. The only way to have efficient power is to generate it locally and collect any waste heat generated in the process for heating water for home heating or A/C or potable water. This also makes jobs at a local level. This also keeps money in the community where it is installed. This could reduce petrochemical pollutants by a factor of 8. It would also reduce demand for OIL and Gas to perhaps 13% of current levels. It cuts big money out of the loop and that is why it is not implemented. We have Corporate control of our gov't. Am I identifying the problem with sufficient clarity? I am always willing to repeat myself using different words.

Click to expand...

Nope, NO, nyet, etc.
How does nuclear reduce our need for oil? Nuclear is pretty much good for only one thing, making electricity. Very little electricity is generated by burning oil, less than 3%. It was much higher in the days of the Carter administration. He helped get rid of them...
We have multiple methods of generating electricity, that part of our energy needs can be easily met.

OIL for transportation fuel is our main energy issue, and nukes will have very little impact on our need for oil, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, etc.
The primary impact that nukes make is the making of base load electricity with practically zero emissions due to operations. Coal is also a base load fuel but it is dirty. Natural gas is the next cleanest, and is ideal for peaking plants or even base load in smaller population densities.
Solar and wind are not alternatives to either peaking or base load, they are supplements.
Big money is required because big power plants are expensive. Free enterprise means we allow profit, it is the American way.

BmanMcfly said:

For sure, but the statement was directly that coal puts off more radiation than Fukushima radiation spread to Tokyo. From a person that has been made fully aware of the discussions of potentially evacuating Tokyo as a result of the radiation.

Now, more direct to your point; in terms of exhaust from coal plants, in north America coal plants have such a high level of filtration that all that is left is only water vapor and co2... And since co2 is a nutrient, a nutrient that is deficient in our atmosphere, there is ultimately far less concerns... Especially when the comparison is between coal and a MELTED DOWN nuke plant.

Click to expand...

again, no, please do some research. Scrubbers, bag houses, etc. at coal plants are not that efficient. Coal is not pure, it has radioactive elements in it that exit the coal stack and get into our air, along with sulphur, mercury, and a lot of other nasty stuff. Then there is all the ash that has to be hauled away and stored somewhere.
The only nice thing about coal is that we have so much of it...

BmanMcfly said:

For sure, but the statement was directly that coal puts off more radiation than Fukushima radiation spread to Tokyo. From a person that has been made fully aware of the discussions of potentially evacuating Tokyo as a result of the radiation.

Click to expand...

Who cares about just radiation? There are many other things that can kill. Also, I'd like to see evidence pointing to the chances of an evacuation of Tokyo.

MSHA Fact Sheets - Injury Trends in Mining

BmanMcfly said:

Now, more direct to your point; in terms of exhaust from coal plants, in north America coal plants have such a high level of filtration that all that is left is only water vapor and co2... And since co2 is a nutrient, a nutrient that is deficient in our atmosphere, there is ultimately far less concerns... Especially when the comparison is between coal and a MELTED DOWN nuke plant.

Click to expand...

Many Eyes : Deaths per TWh by energy sources

UtahBill said:

again, no, please do some research. Scrubbers, bag houses, etc. at coal plants are not that efficient. Coal is not pure, it has radioactive elements in it that exit the coal stack and get into our air, along with sulphur, mercury, and a lot of other nasty stuff. Then there is all the ash that has to be hauled away and stored somewhere.
The only nice thing about coal is that we have so much of it...

Click to expand...

Oh, sorry, it's around 90% efficient in reducing pollution.

And then with the "clean-coal" there's even less pollution escaping...

More over, this is a strawman, since the COMPARISON was between living next to a coal plant vs living next to a NUCLEAR REACTOR THAT"S MELTED DOWN. Not one in peak operation.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

Who cares about just radiation? There are many other things that can kill. Also, I'd like to see evidence pointing to the chances of an evacuation of Tokyo.

MSHA Fact Sheets - Injury Trends in Mining

Many Eyes : Deaths per TWh by energy sources

Click to expand...

"It was a crucial moment when I wasn't sure whether Japan could continue to function as a state," he said.

Click to expand...

Tokyo faced evacuation scenario: Kan | The Japan Times Online

AND THAT"S AFTER ALL THE DOWNPLAYING of the seriousness of a nuclear meltdown.

Oh, and also, the EPA raised the "safe" levels of radiation up to 100 000X previous safe levels, but ONLY for the duration of the worst of this disaster.

And to your last two points, yes, there are more casualties per capita with other forms of energy... but nobody cares about when a nuke plant is running well, it's that WHEN things go wrong, and on a long-enough time line things WILL go wrong... with nuclear, THINGS GO HORRIBLY WRONG!!!!

BmanMcfly said:

Tokyo faced evacuation scenario: Kan | The Japan Times Online

AND THAT"S AFTER ALL THE DOWNPLAYING of the seriousness of a nuclear meltdown.

Click to expand...

It's useful to have a plan. That doesn't mean that there is a good chance of it being implemented.

BmanMcfly said:

Oh, and also, the EPA raised the "safe" levels of radiation up to 100 000X previous safe levels, but ONLY for the duration of the worst of this disaster.

link?

And to your last two points, yes, there are more casualties per capita with other forms of energy... but nobody cares about when a nuke plant is running well, it's that WHEN things go wrong, and on a long-enough time line things WILL go wrong... with nuclear, THINGS GO HORRIBLY WRONG!!!!

Click to expand...

You can't just do that. If you are concerned with the well-being of people, you need to look at the health costs of the plants in general. Some plants have accidents. The vast majority don't. Fukushima is only the second nuclear disaster in history to seriously impact the health of the community. What would you rather have, the possibility of a lot of deaths and illness?

UtahBill said:

Nope, NO, nyet, etc.
How does nuclear reduce our need for oil? Nuclear is pretty much good for only one thing, making electricity. Very little electricity is generated by burning oil, less than 3%. It was much higher in the days of the Carter administration. He helped get rid of them...
We have multiple methods of generating electricity, that part of our energy needs can be easily met.

OIL for transportation fuel is our main energy issue, and nukes will have very little impact on our need for oil, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, etc.
The primary impact that nukes make is the making of base load electricity with practically zero emissions due to operations. Coal is also a base load fuel but it is dirty. Natural gas is the next cleanest, and is ideal for peaking plants or even base load in smaller population densities.
Solar and wind are not alternatives to either peaking or base load, they are supplements.
Big money is required because big power plants are expensive. Free enterprise means we allow profit, it is the American way.

Click to expand...

Apparently we are in a paradigm. My pespective is of local energy viewed with a clear eye to the planets future. You see the same view from a rectal observation point. Everything you talk is about Big Energy and distribution at utility scale. Energy, jobs, efficiency, energy conservation, are done by solar, wind, etc. at a local level. Try the right cheek, left cheek exercise.

DaveFagan said:

Apparently we are in a paradigm. My pespective is of local energy viewed with a clear eye to the planets future. You see the same view from a rectal observation point. Everything you talk is about Big Energy and distribution at utility scale. Energy, jobs, efficiency, energy conservation, are done by solar, wind, etc. at a local level. Try the right cheek, left cheek exercise.

Click to expand...

when both your butt cheeks are sitting on a cold chair in a cold house with no lights, no fan to blow the hot air out of your furnace, etc. THEN you will want power even if it is big nukes.
About 20% (you can look it up) of our electricity is from nuclear power. Who are we going to cut off? Where will we get power that operates 24/7? Wind and solar are not dependable, and the storage of power from those sources are likely to be more expensive than a nuke plant....
I spent most of my working life in and around nuclear power, been an operator, Instrument tech, metrology tech.
I don't disagree with local power, especially since so much of it from big plants is lost in transmission over long distances. I would rather see lots of smaller reactors on local grids than see half the country go dark because some podunk utility in some hillbilly state decided to skip some essential maintenance...
Look at this way, the FRENCH are the world's leaders in nuclear electricity. Are they smarter than us? Damn right they are. They don't store their spent fuel, they reprocess it and burn it again....

I heard there was a car accident in Atlanta today.....let's ban all cars. Ship happens.

Note to self: don't live in the fall out zone of a nuke plant.