Pick a number, and that reactor is described as being near a meltdown. The news coverage coming out of Japan is even more confused when American media deciphers it. Hopefully hard facts come in soon…
Meltdown occurred according to Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency
URGENT: March 12 00:00 PST: Explosion at Nuclear Facility
VIDEO of explosion at nuke plant.
Reuters Live Earthquake News Feed
Several people appear to be injured at Fukushima nuclear plant – NHK
Walls and roof of a building at site destroyed by blast – NHK via Sky News
UPDATE: 22:50 PST: BREAKING NEWS: Pressure successfully released from Fukushima No. 1 reactor: agency
UPDATE: 21:47 PST: Meltdown underway at Reactor #1? http://twitter.com/#!/dicklp
Fukushima fuel cores are melting at 2000C and dropping onto steel floor. Steel melts at 1500C. Could still be brought under control, but Four other Fukushima nuke reactors are struggling with similar problem. If multiple meltdown begins, it will be uncontrollable.
Nuclear reactor coolant systems are running on batteries, and the coolant has reached the boiling point. Extremely critical situation currently at several earthquake affected nuclear reactors. Officials are concerned that a Three Mile Island 1979 meltdown could happen here. Reuters Link
From the LA Times:
Conditions appear to be worsening at a nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture in northeastern Japan, according to local media.
The Kyodo news agency reported that the cooling system has failed at three reactors of Fukushima No. 2 nuclear power plant. The coolant water’s temperature had reached boiling temperature, the agency reported, citing the power plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power.
The cooling system failure at the No. 2 power plant came after officials were already troubled by the failure of the emergency cooling system at the Fukushima No. 1 plant, which officials feared could cause a meltdown.
Dave Springer says:
March 12, 2011 at 9:43 am
“Uranium mining appears to be quite the hazardous profession. […]
In January 2008 Areva was nominated for an Anti Oscar Award.[13] The French state-owned company mines uranium in northern Niger where mine workers are not informed about health risks, and analysis shows radioactive contamination of air, water and soil. […] This alone dwarfs the deaths related to wind energy.”
You intentionally didn’t pick Australian Uranium mining standards, i guess. So the right answer to that would be pointing to the “safety standards” the Chinese use in mining of rare earths used in wind power construction, and the environmental havoc and diseases it causes in the rural population. Do you still think you want to follow that alley?
CNN March 12, 2011 1:25 p.m. EST
@Julian:
“My Japanese wife who has been watching live satelite Japanese TV tells me the Japanese media are saying it was the control room above the reactor that exploded and the cover to the main reactor was not damaged. Hydrogen caused the explosion.”
The control room is not located above the reactor even in the 1960’s design of Fukushima. Further, if it was the control room that exploded, there would be reports of dozens of fatalities as I am sure there are several people in the control room. Also, if the hydrogen is from the reactor, it is undoubtedly accompanied by very high (but localized) concentrations of airborne radioactivity. For these reasons, I think the report is erroneous. I think my scenario above is most likely (with some details incorrect, no doubt) that is consistent with the media reports that are available.
I keep seeing this report that Japan’s coast has moved 8 ft. There is no data or links to data. Which direction did it move? Anyone know where the original data is?
Pamela the Japanese and even US experts have all stated that the reason things failed is because they only prepared for a high 7 to low 8 magnitude quake. They based that on what they saw from the historical record that the fault there only generated up to that size quake. So they built to that standard and of course Mother Nature camne along and saw “Psyche!”.
I am hopeful that this will be nuclear’s finest hour. Power plants subjected to a 9.8 magnitude earthquake, devastating tsunami, and considerable damage, yet no harmful radiation releases, and a successful shutdown/(possible) decommissioning.
The ultimate proof of the safety of a system isn’t how long it goes without a problem under normal operating conditions, but rather what happens during the worst possible situation.
If these plants are successfully shut down, unless you think you live in an area that could see a natural disaster worse than this one, you should have little to fear from a nuclear power plant.
@littlepeaks
“I do not know how a nuclear power plant would hold up in a tornado, but I surmise that the answer would be very well.”
Turkey Point south of Miami survived hurricane Andrew in 1992.
Update Fukushima
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fukushima-explosion-update-core-presumed-intact-sea-water-used-bring-temperature-down-radiat
From The Oil Drum Drumbeat: March 12, 2011 discussion.
Before and after photos
See cutaway diagram. What appears to have blown off is the weather cover over the fueling deck.
Pamela Gray says: “First, large nuclear plants are inherently weak, as they are responsible for supplying too large of a percentage of power. When one fails, too many people and businesses are without power. Rebuild with multiple smaller units across the power grid. Second, large plants built on a major earthquake fault is a fool’s plan. Third, if that country is so prepared for a tsunami, why all the towns, roads, railroads, and businesses sitting on the beach?”
Pamela, I generally agree with your postings. However, I am in an argumentative mood today (part of just getting over a nasty flu). First, smaller power plants tend to not be as efficient as larger power plants. Second, the whole country of Japan is a major earthquake fault, ring-of-fire and all that. Third, when you build something that is five miles away from the beach, you really don’t expect a tsunami to take you out. Some reports are saying that the last time a tsunami of this size occurred may have been 1400 years ago. You can plan for ten-year disasters, sometimes 25-year disasters, and maybe 50-year disasters. But when you get into 500-, 1000- or 2000- year disasters, all bets are off. I’m sure that the disaster-planners of Japan would like to just shave off the top of all the mountains, and build up there where everyone would be safe from floods and tsunami, but they would probably unleash a myriad of other problems that would be just as devastating.
wiki appears to be up to date on the event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant
The translator here:
http://www.ustwrap.info/multi/yokosonews::nhk-gtv
said that 4.5 hrs ago (at 11:30 Japan time) that the Japanese nuclear commission measured the radiation level around the affected Fukushima plant was 70 microsievert, which I believe is about 7 mrem. If true, this is not a significant level. On the other hand, if the discharged gasses were carried out to sea, there may have been greater levels earlier.
mdadams
Dave Worley says:
March 12, 2011 at 10:35 am
No rush, it’ll be a while before another nuke is built in the US.
The first components for Vogtle Unit#3 were delivered last fall.
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2010/09/10/first-components-arrive-at-plant-vogtle-for-unit-3.aspx
If you are really interested in the health effects of radiation then read this:
http://www.nwmo.ca/3.2
Its lengthy, and contains primers to understand the issues.
I suspect more people will have died in the Bronx bus Crash than from radiation at this time, in Japan, when it is all over.
Janice said
“Third, when you build something that is five miles away from the beach, you really don’t expect a tsunami to take you out.”
It’s actually on the coast.
Andy
Although these events with the reactors are serious I feel they will pale in comparisons to the damage from the tsunami. I know nuclear radiation scares a lot of people but we really need to keep things in perspective. I really truly hope and pray that the story on the following link is not true. But if you remember the last big tsunami the actual horrific reports about the tragedy took several days to unfold.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/03/12/2011-03-12_minamisanriku_has_9500_residents_missing_from_town_after_earthquake_tsunami_rava.html
Crispin, not quite. CANDU uses natural uranium which has a U235 concentration of 0.7%. There are two heavy water systems, the first is the moderator in the calandria tank, and the second is the heat transport system from the reactor to the steam generators. The operating temperature in the moderator at nominal power is about 80 C. The whole calandria and fuel channels are surrounded by a large shield tank containing several thousand tonnes of light water. The core temperature in the fuel channels at nominal power is about 380 C (it varies a bit depending on the reactor. For any significant release of material from the reactor core all of this water, 600+ tonnes of heavy water and several thousand tonnes in the shield tank all has to be boiled off first. It takes several days at a minimum.
The problem with PWRs or BWRs is that they have relatively little water in the reactor systems and can be boiled off in several hours without emergency core cooling. It’s also an inherently more stable reactor than any other type with a smaller void coefficient than any other power reactor type. These are among the reasons why CANDU is generally known to be have about an order of magnitude smaller possibility of any significant release of radiation under any accident condition.
Dave Springer, you just disqualified yourself from commenting on nuclear issues as soon as you reference CCNR. Being a bit coy about the fact that it’s an antinuclear propaganda group, aren’t you? For your information, despite the fact that underground mining is one of the world’s most dangerous professions, uranium mining has an industrial accident rate of less than half the industrial average from all activities. Go check the IRR for Cameco and Areva if you don’t believe me.
So no, Janice, it’s not particularly hazardous the way it’s routinely practiced and the high standards which it has to meet. Please learn something about the uranium mining practices and standards before presuming to pass judgment on it.
Pamela, your point about scale is foolish. The same problems of scale and the loss of a large station affect large fossil and hydro as well. And there have been many more catastrophic hydro losses than there have been nuclear. As a testament to how you have all been brainwashed, during the same month as TMI in 1979, a large hydro dam in Gujarat Province in India ruptured and drowned 10,000 people in less than 15 minutes, and the press never reported a word about it. It was too caught up in Walter Cronkite’s stupid “worst industrial accident ever”.
Your comment about coastal development is equally foolish. The entire world has been developing heavily its coastlines for the last half century. Japan is no different.
Littlepeaks: ask Florida Light and Power about nuclear plants and high winds. Turkey Point gets routinely hit by hurricanes every year or so. The US midwest is riddled with large coal-fired thermal stations, and none of them are significantly affected by such weather conditions even thought they are built to much less rigorous standards than a nuclear power plant.
J.Felton: typical natural background radiation exposure is about 3.5 mSv annually. Two-thirds of this comes from the earth as radon gas and most of the rest comes from cosmic radiation. Live in Denver and your radiation exposure is double because of the elevation and increased cosmic radiation. Live in Winnipeg or anywhere else like it and your radiation exposure is doubled because of the granite bedrock. Live on Copacabana Beach in Brazil, and your natural background radiation exposure is about 10 times because of the thorium in the beach sand. For the record, the highest level of chronic radiation exposure for which no short term or long term effects have ever been observed is about 2,000 mSv. Such an exposure would have a large effect if delivered as a prompt dose within seconds or a few minutes.
The maximum permissible dose to the public from nuclear activities is 2 mSv and to plant workers it’s 20 mSv per year. The action level (the point at which a utility must take action) is typically 1/10th that amount.
Please be aware that radiation exposure and radiation dose are not the same thing. Mere radiation exposure tells you little about the radiation dose, or effect it will have on living creatures.
Fuel rods *** starting to melt ***
NOT meltdown through the reactor container
See: Japan Reactor Fuel Rods May Have Begun to Melt, Atomic Safety Agency Says
“If the fuel rods are melting and this continues, a reactor meltdown is possible,” Kakizaki said. A meltdown refers to a heat buildup in the core of such an intensity it melts the floor of the reactor containment housing. “
You can also try these on for size.
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/author.cfm?at_id=283
There are about 10 articles here, about half of which deal with nuclear power and relative risks.
jtom says:
March 12, 2011 at 10:54 am
“I am hopeful that this will be nuclear’s finest hour. ”
I hope so too. Must admit I wonder why they don’t have a water-pool higher than the plant, so that gravity can provide emergency coolant.
Watching with horror the video from Sendai Airport-Terminal.
Good grief, they have my sympathy.
Another blow to nuclear energy.
“Holy cow, the president of an official EU’s EESC body has declared that the earthquake was a sign from Mother Nature that we need to combat global warming. I want these crooks to be outlawed!”
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/03/another-blow-for-nuclear-energy.html
Andy, I was not speaking of the nuclear reactor, but of generalities such as canals, highways, buildings and such. Though it appears the nuclear reactor actually did quite well, considering both the earthquake, which did not breach containment, and the tsunami, which took out the generators but not the structure itself. Probably one of the few structures left standing that was right on the beach. And building right on a fault line is sometimes the safest place, because you are aware of the fault line. Build away from known fault lines, and you never know what is really underneath you. Seen that in California a number of times, where the most damage is done from fault lines that are unknown up until they move.
“The reports of a 4 to 10 inch change in the Earth’s axis and a possible movement of Japan 8 feet testify to the power of this event. I’m impressed that all the plants didn’t have serious problems with radiation releases. Some good engineering (and rapid response by the operators) there.”
You forgot to mention the earth rotation has now sped up…
“Late Friday, scientists at NASA revealed the quake shaved more than a microsecond from the day. The quake, which lasted about two minutes, sped up the earth’s rotation by about 1.6 microseconds. (One microsecond is one-millionth of a second.) NASA geophysicist Richard Gross said the quake shifted the Earth’s mass, which caused the change in speed.
While the speed change was only slightly more than what was caused by last year’s earthquake in Chile, it was considerably less than the quake in Sumatra in 2004. That quake sped up the Earth’s rotation by 6.8 microseconds. “
Don’t forget that this plant is a relatively small (< 500 Mwe) plant designed in the mid-late 1960's that went online in 1971. The design standards were not as strict as today's. I don't know how much modernization the plant has had, ie. TMI related modifications.
Hobo says:
March 12, 2011 at 7:00 am
Someone asked about the Union of concerned Scientists
As we used to say about the UCS back in the 70s, they are neither.