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.
@JOJO
As was the case with Chernobyl, people will continue to receive more radiation from bananas than from this event.
Quake shifted the earth’s axis by 25 cm. http://www.theage.com.au/world/quake-shifted-rotation-of-the-earth-20110312-1bsbb.html
Another effect of the earthquake/tsunami that hasn’t been addressed is the agricultural sector of Japan. In particular their importation of agri products from the US. How many know that Japan imports a great deal of rice from the US for example? 320,000 metric tons last year alone.
Here’s some info: http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do;jsessionid=8C528FA3476EA1CD90AC96E33216342A.agfreejvm1?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&paneContentId=5&paneParentId=70104&product=/ag/news/topstories&vendorReference=0353b2fa-34a2-481b-912d-1cb46058ad3a
@Jarmo
If that moron from Finland has to endure a magnitude 9 quake, perhaps he will not be so smug.
Doug Badgero says:
March 11, 2011 at 7:36 pm
This seems to be the best source for info on status:
Thanks for the link and your knowledge on the subject.
And thanks to all the other knowledgeable posters as well.
Have CNN on, and they are hyping nuclear horror stories…
Glad to see mention of the CANDU reactor by John and Colin. The Pickering plant is almost within sight of my parental home and built while I watched. I was never a fan of pressurized light water reactors for the reasons of: earthquakes, attacks and Homer Simpson errors.
While mention is often made of TMI, it is always best to see the data (i.e. numbers). The public exposure was the equivalent of eating two bananas (remember that bananas accumulate P40). Hardly Chernobyl.
As nukes are part of the future, hopefully sanity will prevail, not those fearing bananas, or who are bananas.
CANDU uses 5% U235 and requires the presence of heavy water to work. The water is held ‘up’ in the reactor by compressed air. If anything breaks the water falls out. The system shuts off. If they had been used in Japan there would have been no steam, no explosion, no heat, no chase for spare back up batteries, no melting cores and no fears.
It seems the era of the PLWR is about to be declared over. Thank goodness. This situation is ridiculous because it was really all about creating bomb-stuff in the first place.
Andy Dawson says:
March 12, 2011 at 5:44 am
“Nuclear reactor not damaged, explosion was from hydrogen containers.”
Hydrogen can also be generated by water contacting a very, very, hot metallic surface such as an uncovered reactor core, but hydrogen produced in that way should not reach the turbine hall. This is a known complication of a meltdown. If it is from the reactor, scratch one Japanese BWR.
Roger Harrabin, on the BBC, made an interesting comment. He said that, when safety is compared to the amount of energy generated, nuclear power is very safe. Surprisingly, he said that the most dangerous (per megawatt hour) is hydro electricity, probably because of dangerous dam failures.
I’ve visited Japan twice, many years ago. I was always impressed by the kindness and friendliness of the Japanese people. Like many others, I would like to express my sadness for this awful and incomprehensible disaster. I hope they will be able to quickly recover and rebuild. My thoughts are with them.
Chris
In the picture we see four white rectangular buildings. What contains these buildings? In the explosion video, it seems to be one of these buildings that blows up…
@JOJO says:
March 12, 2011 at 4:02 am
How does the radiation from a melt down in Japan stand up against radiation in bananas?
Can we have a follow up article comparing the two please?
Many a true word spoken in jest. I too would be very interested in a comparison between the two. Probably best to wait for them to assess just what was actually released into the atmosphere once they get things under control (as I have no doubt from reading the comments here, they will).
Thank you to all the commenters here for not indulging in the same disasterbating we seem to be seeing in the media.
I posted parts of this on an earlier blog track on WUWT about green energies . I was criticized by some who claimed that nuclear energy is completely safe today . The Japanese incident shows how risky nuclear energy still is.
Today we also face new risks such as terrorists, regional conflicts, risk of rising sea levels, the risk of lack of sufficient water to cool the reactors due to drought, and other unexpected natural disasters. How quickly and safely can we dismantle or move the nuclear plants and material versus coal or gas fired plants? How quickly can we rebuild? How much contamination and pollution is there with both options?
Nuclear power may be safe in the hands of rational people, operating and maintaining safe plants, in safe locations, during stable geological and political times. Much of the world is not this way, nor are the times ahead projected to be environmentally, politically and geophysically stable. Before we throw out the fossil fuel baby lets be sure of what lies ahead and which option really has the greater risk. Both options have some risks. ? Are we jumping from the fossil fuel pan into the nuclear broiler?
We need cooler heads who properly present all the viable energy options and their risks instead of just preaching doom and gloom in a panic and calling for more nuclear plants.
There may very well be good cases where the cleanest and latest technology based fossil fuel energy options may still be the best solution. Until alternative cleaner energies like solar, wind and geothermal can be developed in plant sizes comparable to those of fossil fuel plants, we should not rush into nuclear energy as the main large capacity option to replace our current fossil fuel plants.
Someone asked about the Union of concerned Scientists
Looked up this group and found this intesting article posted last week (and attached link to the report). THey are saying that the nuclear energy is too heavily susidized (I say regulated) to allow solar and wind to compete fairly… Come on anthony that is good for a laugh.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/columns/jeffrey-tomich/7d858196-3f7d-11e0-a61b-0017a4a78c22.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf
“Additional [nuclear power] subsidies would also provide nuclear
power with an unfair competitive advantage over emerging
renewable energy solutions such as solar and wind,
which can reduce global warming emissions faster and
more cost-effectively than nuclear power, and with less
risk. The nuclear industry already stands to benefit from
any future price placed on global warming emissions;
this report clearly shows why any additional subsidies to
this industry are both unnecessary and unwise.”
Certainly no bias against nuclear power and in no way a proponent of green technology…HOBO
Globe and Mail reports that radiation levels outside are decreasing http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/fears-of-meltdown-calm-after-explosion-at-japanese-nuclear-plant/article1939779/
Whatever the outcome, this is a serious setback for nuclear. I am not arguing the science/technology of newer nuclear designs, but the inevitable public reaction. So where do we go from here? I think and hope that this will also be a setback for CAGW hysteria which is based on model projections and not empirical data. We have had 20 years of global warming, 1977-1998, in the last 63 years. That warming is NOT unprecedented, not even unusual; the trend line of about 0.7C +/- 0.2 C per century continues as far as one can interpret ongoing trends. Unless and until global warming shows some indication of of following CAGW model projections, we need to repeat over and over to the media and to the global warming fearful: look at the data, look at the data, LOOK AT THE DATA.
This event will be excellent in ferreting out those at WUWT who really believe in critical thinking and objective analysis of facts, and those that just say they do. There is a lot of quality comment being made here. Here’s how to tell the difference between the baloney and reality: Do the comments relate to the actual event, do the comments relate to physically possible phenomena, do the comments logically and rationally assemble easily verifiable information. I have been hunting for decent information on this event, and was gratified that I found it at WUWT.
Good, reliable and objective information is available, insist on finding and using it. Use the same methods we use when dealing with AGW babble.
This is bad, if accurate.
If the explosion was caused by hydrogen, there are a couple of possible sources.
One of those would non-related to the reactor and that would be as a result of a leak of the gas coolant that is used in the electrical generators. Generator hydrogen fires and explosions have occurred in a number of plants around the world, most of them at plants powered by coal or other fossil fuels.
Another possible source would H2 generated from a damaged core. If there has been core damage to the point that hydrogen is being released, then this is a “severe accident.”
Wikipedia is saying that they will be using sea water to cool the core and adding boric acid to prevent criticality.
These are “severe accident” mitigation strategies and are likely preplanned.
United States nuclear power plants are mandated to have Severe Accident Management Guidelines (SAMG). These guidelines call for an “ad hoc” approach to dealing with the events that have damaged the core — use the best resources available to cool and cover the core and keep it subcritical, even if those resources are not the safety systems designed to do that. The drastic actions of using seawater and boron are likely to be just that and would probably be options identified in a Japanese version of SAMG, if they have taken that approach. (Boiling water reactors do not use boron.)
The hydrogen explosion in SAMG parlance would have actually been a deflagration — a burn — rather than an explosion. The resulting pressures of the deflagration, though, could conceivably have put enough pressure on the building to produce the images seen on the video.
Re Dave Springer says:
March 12, 2011 at 4:08 am
“Justified or not this’ll put the kibosh on nuclear power plants as an answer to alternative energy for a couple of decades. I suspect LFTR (liquid flouride thorium reactor) has its own set of problems that may or may not have economical workarounds even if containment isn’t one of those problems – things that seem too good to be true usually are.
What gets me is that a crowd (this one) so down on climate models would be so trusting of worst-case scenario models in nuclear reactor design. I’ve no doubt the models predicted that these nukes in Japan could withstand this assault on their integrity but as we can plainly see the model was not competent.
I wonder what kind of damage was sustained by Japan’s wind farms? One thing’s for sure – none exploded or went into meltdown. I suspect they’re all still standing and spinning helping to make up for the loss of nuclear energy.””
David please divide the total energy thus far produced from all wind farms into the total energy produced from all nuclear facilities. Now take that result and multiply all the wind farm accidents and bird deaths, tell me your result?
Now, using the same number, also divide the non planned down time of all wind farms into the total hours of wind generation and then compare that to the same number vs nuclear.
Do the same with other forms of energy. Despite this accident, nuclear, even with older plants, has proven far safer then most other energy. Please do not encourage emotionalism when important decisions need to be made. Cars are far more dangerous then nuclear plants, yet we continue to drive.
As to “”I suspect LFTR (liquid flouride thorium reuactor) has its own set of problems that may or may not have economical workarounds”” Your feelings, do not sound very scientific.
Alternative energy policies are creating economic disasters which will force us into nuclear, sooner then you think.
Mr Springer, here, I statrted research for you. http://www.wind-works.org/articles/ASummaryofFatalAccidentsinWindEnergy.html
Fatal accidents in wind energy
By year:
Year 08 09 10
No. 9 5 5 19 fatalities last three years
JOJO says: March 12, 2011 at 4:02 am
How does the radiation from a melt down in Japan stand up against radiation in bananas?
Can we have a follow up article comparing the two please?
This is a great idea insofar as a standard unit everyone understands, where exposure would be in units of banana equivalents. ‘Rads’ and ‘picocuries’ are just too abstract.
We are next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents
In the 25 years since Chernobyl there have been 7 deaths, verses 19 fatalties in wind in the last three years, with nuclear providing many times the energy of wind.
boballab,
Thanks for that extra info as it certainly clears up the confusion I’ve been having thanks to bad info in Google Maps/Earth. Moral of the story – don’t rely on the search facility within Google Maps/Google Earth (and Wikipedia). Always check at least 3 different sources.
I’m about to do a new thread on Digging in The Clay that recounts my experience this morning in following this incident on the internet and MSM.
To the comment that TMI suffered a “partial meltdown”.
I’d call the top 2/3’s of the reactor “melting down”, more than a partial meltdown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Alas, the containment system for a PWR (pressurized water reactor) versus a BWR seems much better capability wise.
Max
I keep hearing the word “unimaginable” used by virtually all media. Nonsense. Unfortunately, we have been bombarded with graphic images of all sorts regularly for a very long time. It seems the press has jettisoned its duty to exercise caution when reporting events like this to avoid fomenting panic. The media is now completely focused on spreading fear and anxiety. There is no longer any limit to the hyperbole and exaggeration. What a despicable display.
David
I just saw the Greenpeace Nuclear expert on the news. My wife, who isn’t political at all, turned to me, unprompted, and said, “why would they ask a Greenpeace nuclear expert? They HATE nuclear power.”
Yep. That’s why.
BBC hate nuclear. Just as mainstream opinion was starting to think, ‘hey, we could solve this Global warming/change/disruption malarkey with nuclear, this has to go and happen’.