Spent nuclear fuel pool is boiling

[LiberalEsto]

Spent nuke fuel pool may be boiling, further radiation leak feared

From KYODO News

TOKYO, March 15, Kyodo

"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.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said water levels 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. The firm said it has not yet confirmed the current water levels or started operations to pour water into the facility.

Unless the spent fuel rods are cooled down, they could be damaged and emit radioactive substances. The government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency urged TEPCO to inject water into the pool soon to prevent heating of the fuel rods."

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78267.html

(Snip)
"Edano said water temperature in the pools at the No. 5 and No. 6 reactors in the Fukushima plant has 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."


Is there any kind of suppressant foam that could be sprayed all over the reactor units?

[willing dwarf]

1. I keep wondering about a flying cement mixer

I remember hearing that they would encase the whole thing in concrete if it went into melt down, but how they ship in the concrete would be a big question. Still, if they can, I think the time has come.

(Or do like they do on Fringe and encase the area in amber.)

[madokie]

18. Lot of concrete is carried overhead and placed on high rise buildings dams bridges etc.

The bucket that carries the concrete would depend on the size but concrete itself weight a tad over 4000 lbs. a cubic yard.
With the weight capacity of the cranes or helicopters that we have today its possible to carry many cubic yards of concrete per load.

[mopinko]

21. those cranes take a long time to set up.

locating one, and getting it through the debris from the tsunami will be obstacle #1. but then it takes a bare minimum of a week to put it up.

[madokie]

28. I've seen them set up on job sites where they're a lot of shit to move to get them to where

they're needed in a matter of a couple days, even less than one day in some cases but that wasn't what I was addressing anyway.
We have sky lifts as they're called in the construction world that are capable of setting one of the cranes down in about any place and the fitting the boom extensions aren't all that difficult so that doesn't take much time either. Its just a matter of placing and bolting together.

Anyways just my construction experience coming through. :-)

[mopinko]

22. gremlins!

[ensho]

25. that's what they did in Russia - now all the pilots are heroes but dead

dead heroes.

it's 35 yrs. later and in some places over there they still check veg. and fruit for radiation before allowing in into the markets. still turning radiated veg. and fruit away!

[dixiegrrrrl]

44. Shit, here agri-biz would cheerfully sell the contaminated produce.

[Ganja Ninja]

2. Foam would be more of an insulator than a coolant. n/t

[LiberalEsto]

4. Thanks for that information

[madokie]

19. best i remember nothing beats water in carrying away heat

I may be wrong and if so someone let me know please.

[Statistical]

3. Seems trivial compared to the complexity of injecting water into the core.

The pond is simply a giant swimming pool with fuel rods at the bottom. You add water until the pond is full. If the water evaporates you keep refilling it as needed.

The heat output of spent fuel is much lower (it took 5 days for enough water to boil off to expose the core) so it *should* be trivially easy to add enough water to keep it "topped off". Think of a pot of water on the stove. You can't turn the stove off (unavoidable nuclear decay). As long as you keep adding water to the pot it will never run out of water.

Some more info would be nice.

"Is there any kind of suppressant foam that could be sprayed all over the reactor units?"
Fire suppressants work by blocking oxygen and thus preventing combustion and cooling the structure down. Nuclear decay is unavoidable and it produces heat. The only way to prevent a fire is keep the rods covered in water. You can't stop the nuclear decay you can simply remove the heat it creates.

[LiberalEsto]

5. Good information, thanks

Is water the only thing that can be used in this situation?

[FBaggins]

8. Probably not... but it's effective and available.

n/t

[Statistical]

10. Nuclear decay isn't a fire you can't put it out.

You can only deal with the heat. If you don't deal with the heat even eventually the fuel will overheat, melt, burst, and ignite. The only effective method to do that is water. Technically any heat transfer fluid would work but water is readily available and low cost (you are going to need a lot).

Imagine nuclear decay as a fire that will not go out. As long as the cooling is equal to the amount of heat produced temperature will remain the same. Say the cooling pond produced 400,000 BTU of thermal energy. That will evaporate about 400 gallons per hour. If you add 400 gallons of water to the pond each hour then both the temperature and water level will remain the same. IF you add less than 400 gallons of water then the water level will drop and temperature of water will rise.

The preferred method would be to pass the warm water through a heat exchanger (which takes the heat away to a larger body of water like cooling tower, ocean, of river) and then return the cooler water back to the pond. A closed loop. Essentially a much (like 1/1000th the size) smaller version of how they cool nuclear reactors.

However in an emergency simply filling the pond to replace evaporation will work just fine until the situation can be stabilized.

[amandabeech]

6. Does this just need to be topped off or are there circulating pumps

that are not working because the electrical grid is down?

[Statistical]

11. Prefered method (to use less water) would be to use pumps.

Circulate the "warm" water out of the pond through a heat exchanger which transfers heat to another loop (going to ocean, river, cooling tower) and then return cooler water to the pond. The advantage is that it is a closed system and thus doesn't need water added.

Given this is an emergency that is an unrealistic goal. Simply adding water to replace evaporated water will keep water level and temp stable. Not preferred because it will take a lot of water and will need to be continually replaced but it would work. The other issue is that using seawater would contaminate the equipment but that is a secondary issue.

[amandabeech]

15. Thanks for the info.

[kristopher]

63. Why don't you tote that hose into the building then.

[Buzz Clik]

7. It begs the question: what happens to our spent fuel since we have no disposal facilities?

Are we really going to stubbornly refuse to allow for safe disposal while we wait for a similar disaster to strike the US? Or do we simply assume that God is on our side and won't let this happen here?

[FBaggins]

12. Even with disposal, you need these pools.

Spent fuel cools down over a period of years... at which point it's safe to pack it up and do something else with it. But it needs to sit under water quite some time while fission product daughter elements die out.

[Buzz Clik]

16. How many pounds have we disposed at all? How many ounces?

What percentage of our nuclear languishes in pools waiting for safe disposal as the fear mongers block all alternatives?

[Statistical]

20. We have disposed of none.

Even most logical anti-nuclear power people know we need a comprehensive solution however they will always oppose any such solution because of the fear that it will enable more nuclear generation.

[Duende azul]

27. Weren`t you the tech-guy who the last days tried to tell everybody,

"no problem with the pools"?

With nuke apologists it seems to be a pattern: deny every risk until it materializes.

And since this seems to be an effort to shift discussion to final waste disposal, let´s have that discussion another day.

[Statistical]

29. No please don't put words in my mouth.

I said compared to the reactor it is a SIMPLE problem. I even stated it is a serious issue but compared to the reactor it can be solved simply.

If the pools are covered in water they won't burn. If they aren't covered you need to add water. It is that simple.

Keeping the reactor is far more complex as it is heavily damages, under extreme pressure, requires careful venting, and is producing much more power and radiation.

[Duende azul]

33. If I remember correctly, there was especially

one poster who presented the scenario that today materialized in the pools associated with three! reactors.
And if I remember correctly you tried to talk that down. I´ll give you that, in fact you said it would ber simpler than managing the reactor.
But´even that is yet to see. We don´t know shit how compromised these containers really are. Everything is a wild guess.
And as it seems today, the greatest load of radioactivity could have originated from the fire in # 4.

[FBaggins]

34. The situation presented yesterday (and the day before) is not what happened.

It was speculation of a far more significant scenario.

[kristopher]

64. You have been trying to downplay EVERY negative from the first instant.

And you have been consistently wrong. You *are* good at hoeing the Nuclear Energy Institute's line of propaganda though.

[Duende azul]

23. Obviously you didn`t understand the answer.

For the storage of spent fuel in pools in order to cool down, it`s totally meaningless what happens to the cooled down waste years later.
See, by design of the whole process they have to spend their years in pools.

Your repeated attempt to place the guilt of the associated risk on "fear mongers" is dishonest. Please spare us this bullshit.
No way around it, the responsibility lies with those who pushed for this idiotic high risk method of generating energy. Sorry, get used to it.

[Statistical]

13. Spent fuel "only" remains hot for about 15 years.

After that it is removed from cooling pond, cleaned, dried, inspected and sealed in dry casks. The spent fuel still produces some heat (casks are warm to the touch) but they aren't energetic enough to melt, burst, or ignite.


That is about 40 years worth of electricity in those spent fuel casks.

Regardless I agree we need a final deep geological repository. Even if we ended nuclear power globally tomorrow we need a place to store the accumulated spent fuel. Being anti-nuclear is a choice but pretending we can do nothing about the fuel is simply denial. Ending nuclear doesn't end the spent fuel storage issue. It may reduce the amount produced in the future (as likely any end will be a phase out) but it will still need to be stored. Likewise reprocessing reduces the amount of spent fuel that needs to be stored but it doesn't eliminate the issue. Much of the very old fuel (20+ years) is no longer suitable for reprocessing anyways.

So regardless if you are pro or anti nuclear we need a comprehensive solution.

[Buzz Clik]

17. +1

[Duende azul]

31. A comprehensive solution? How about thinking of that before starting the whole endevaour?

There were people opposed to this shit from the get go.

It´s like putting a load of toxic waste in your neighbour's front yards and ask them to please contribute to a solution.
While you CONTINUE to produce more toxic shit.
Ok this time the toxic shit isn´t really that dangerous and it comes in newly designed containers. Really, this time it´ll be ok.

And now you ask politely: "Hey buddies, we have a problem at hand. We are all in this together. Why are you so angry?"

[FBaggins]

35. We could just burn the "toxic sh1t" up and disperse it into the environment.

Doesn't that sound like a better plan?

[Duende azul]

40. First step: Stop producing more of it.

And than let´s talk about what to do with the existing shit.

Doesn't that sound like a better plan?

[FBaggins]

43. But we get almost half of our electricity from it

How are we supposed to just stop?

[Wilms]

46. I'd say 15 to 20 percent.

You have a link?

[FBaggins]

52. Nah... it's higher than that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/8/83/20100406070422!2008_US_electricity_generation_by_source_v2.png

[Wilms]

53. Your graph says 19.7%.

Let me know if you need any help comparing that to what I posted.

Just here to help. :hi:

[FBaggins]

54. 19.7? Nah... that's what it says for nuclear.

We're talking about coal, aren't we?

"It´s like putting a load of toxic waste in your neighbour's front yards and ask them to please contribute to a solution. While you CONTINUE to produce more toxic shit."

Yeah... that's gotta be coal he's talking about.

[Wilms]

55. The only place coal is currently referenced on this thread is the post I'm reply to.

Check again.

[FBaggins]

56. Really? #31 sure sound like it's talking about coal.

Wouldn't make sense to talk about compartively tiny amounts of toxic material while ignoring coal, would it?

I guess I just gave the poster the benefit of the doubt.


Did you see the photo up-thread of decades worth of nuclear waste from one plant? Ever seen how much coal it takes to run a similar-output plant for just a week?

[Wilms]

57. To a spin PhD., I'm sure it does.

C ya. :hi:

[Duende azul]

60. I like your style!

:hi:

[Wilms]

61. I'm just here to help.

:toast:

[FBaggins]

65. "Spin", yes. "Untrue", no.

This event could get to the point where a couple hundred people die.

More people die from coal mining alone every year than that. And that's before we discuss the health/safety/environmental impact of burning coal.

But maybe you'll come around when you learn that they also put out radiation (as well as massive piles of "toxic sh1t" that is also radioactive) ?

[Wilms]

66. In the short term. Maybe.

What of the longer-term. What about those yet to be born.

Your argument, like nuke-industry planning, is half baked, and now irradiated.

[FBaggins]

67. If those who are "yet to be born" don't have a healthy planet...

...will they ever BE born?

LONG term we're talking about different mix of energy sources.

Right now coal is a much greater danger to the long-term health of the planet and the people on it. We should almost entirely eliminate it before we move on to far safer, far cleaner energy sources like nuclear.

[Wilms]

68. When your done with your strawman, have a look at the Chernobyl kids.

Then go back to your nuke industry bask in the glow.

[FBaggins]

69. NOT a strawman. Chernobyl is one small spot on the planet.

Coal is killing kids all around the world.

[Wilms]

70. Still talking about coal?

Why should I be surprised? It's obvious the lack of imagination is in part what brought us to this juncture.

[FBaggins]

71. "Lack of imagination" is EXACTLY my problem. You pegged it.

Lack of ability to imagine things that aren't actually true and pretend that they are because something frightens me. A lack of the short-sightedness that seems to cause others to skip from one crisis to the next... changing decades-long priorities on a whim. So much for global warming. What's next?

Yep. I'm entirely lacking in those areas.

[Wilms]

72. Did you cut and paste that from an argument months back.

You know the ones; "It can't happen anywhere other than Chernobyl because we're on top of stuff", etc.

But now sure is a good time to wind up the spin machines. They're gonna be working real hard to put lipstick on this undeclared disaster.

[LiberalEsto]

32. Put it on a rocket and send it to the sun?

Would that be feasible?

Or Mars?

[Statistical]

37. Wouldn't need to go to Sun or Mars simply out of the solar system.

The problem is what happens if the rocket explodes during launch and rains down tons of radioactive material over thousands of square miles. Rockets do explode. Not very often but they do.

[LiberalEsto]

42. Good point. nt

[SpoonFed]

73. +1

what color lipstick is it FB?

[Duende azul]

38. Is that sarcasm?

I have to ask, these days it`s hard to tell.

If it´s a real question: we are witnessing the complete meltdown of a high-risk but oh-so-safe technology with a purported "only once in a million years" chance of failure...

now show me the "once in a million years" failproof rocket and I´ll even help you pack it...

[LiberalEsto]

41. No, I'm really wondering if it's possible

But I know less than zero about space technology.

[wtmusic]

49. The risk of it crashing back to Earth, and being spread far and wide

is higher than dealing with it here.

[wtmusic]

48. +1 nt

[willing dwarf]

9. According to interview with Peter Bradford former NRC leader

If the containment vessel breaks--or is already broken, cracked and leaking due to the earthquake--and if the meltdown keeps going, officials would have to switch from trying to cool the reactor to burying it with tones of sand and cement; essentially bombing it with dirt in numerous and very dangerous air sorties by cargo planes and helicopters.

Here's the link: http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/527586/could_japan%27s_disaster_happen_in_the_u.s./#paragraph3

[Statistical]

14. Sadly most of the pilots at Chernobyl died from those sorties.

[GliderGuider]

24. The situation here would be a bit different

No burning graphite to create a radioactive plume, for instance. It would still be extremely hazardous, but they might only lose a quarter of the pilots instead of all of them...

[FBaggins]

26. Sounds like there will still be a plume

it's just that it's steam and not nearly as radioactive.

The busted tourus on the one reactor probably means an almost constant release of steam.

[GliderGuider]

30. Yes, not anywhere near as intense as Chernobyl's.

Without the particulates from burning carbon and the finely divided fuel particles resulting from a core fire clinging to them the risks will be much lower. It will still take extraordinary heroism if it comes to flying missions like that.

I suspect there are a lot of heroes at the plant today.

[thereismore]

36. I wonder if the corporation that owns the plant should be in charge anymore. nt

[Statistical]

39. I would say no. It is interesting that plants closer to the earthquake shutdown safely.

This company has had been under a cloud of suspicion about fraud, safety violations, coverups, and negligence for years (maybe decades).

[FBaggins]

45. Were the closed plants along the coast?

The tsunami is really the source of the emergency. There's little reason to believe that we would even know the name "fukushima" if those generators did their job.

[Wilms]

47. Ban tsunamis? n/t

[FBaggins]

50. I'd vote for it.

:)

Alternatively... you could place reactors with that in mind... or design them with a contingency.

[Wilms]

51. Oh but they DID "design them with a contingency".

:sarcasm:

[CJvR]

59. There always are.

Everyone remembers the story of the Titanic band but hardly anyone remembers the engineering officers who all stayed at their posts and kept the ship's machines running for as long as possible, right down to the 14'th EO ( refridgeration IIRC )

[willing dwarf]

58. Oh that is dreadful!

[kristopher]

62. They were going to use heli to put water on it through the hole

That was deemed not feasible because the hole is so far from the pool.

No other plan available at this time.