HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » Clear view in unit 3's po...

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:05 PM

Clear view in unit 3's pool (Fukushima)

A camera inspection of Fukushima Daiichi 3's used fuel pool has revealed no damage to stored fuel, but a huge amount of concrete sediment on the racks.

Clearing wreckage and emptying the pool is among the top priorities for Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco). Removing the used reactor fuel from all four damaged units to the shared storage pool will considerably reduce the risk presented by the site and mark a major achievement in their decommissioning.

The investigation, carried out from 14-18 February has given the clearest view yet of conditions inside the pool, which was littered with heavy debris by the hydrogen explosion of 13 March 2011. Earlier this month Tepco moved a large truss out of the pool, which had previously lain along almost its entire length, blocking camera access. This operation dislodged the refuelling machine mast, which slipped into the water and came to rest without causing further damage.


looking down onto a fuel rack topped with debris and sediment

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Clear_view_in_unit_3s_pool_2202131.html


My guess is that they turned off the SFP pumps for a period of time so that the murky water would clear.

What are the odds that Gundersen will finally admit what the rest of us knew almost two years ago? There was no "prompt critical" explosion from within pool #3.

31 replies, 2847 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Clear view in unit 3's pool (Fukushima) (Original post)
FBaggins Feb 2013 OP
ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2013 #1
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #3
Xipe Totec Feb 2013 #26
PamW Feb 2013 #29
Xipe Totec Feb 2013 #30
RobertEarl Feb 2013 #2
FBaggins Feb 2013 #4
Vinnie From Indy Feb 2013 #5
FBaggins Feb 2013 #7
RobertEarl Feb 2013 #6
FBaggins Feb 2013 #8
RobertEarl Feb 2013 #9
FBaggins Feb 2013 #10
RobertEarl Feb 2013 #11
FBaggins Feb 2013 #13
RobertEarl Feb 2013 #15
FBaggins Feb 2013 #16
RobertEarl Feb 2013 #17
PamW Feb 2013 #19
RobertEarl Feb 2013 #22
PamW Feb 2013 #25
FBaggins Feb 2013 #21
RobertEarl Feb 2013 #23
PamW Feb 2013 #27
PamW Feb 2013 #31
PamW Feb 2013 #18
RobertEarl Feb 2013 #20
PamW Feb 2013 #24
kristopher Feb 2013 #12
FBaggins Feb 2013 #14
Ian David Feb 2013 #28

Response to FBaggins (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:15 PM

1. looks as appetizing as the tanked water in LA hotels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:40 PM

3. I understand that the taste was a bit "off".

And the color, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:48 PM

26. Cherenkov blue nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #26)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:29 PM

29. Cherenkov? I don't think so.

Totec,

If it were Cherenkov, you would see it brightest near the fuel assemblies, and then dying off as you go away from the assemblies. Take a look at an operating reactor core:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Advanced_Test_Reactor.jpg

That is a picture of the Advanced Test Reactor in Idaho. The reactor core wraps around those vertical tubes in a serpentine fashion; it's "S-shaped" in the part visible in the picture. See how the Cherenkov radiation is brighter in the active core, and quickly dies off.

The spent fuel pool picture doesn't look like Cherenkov to me.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #29)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:35 PM

30. That would be true if the reactors were active and thus the highest source of radiation

But if the reactors are shut down and the entire facility is radioactive, then there is no focused source of radiation.

But, then again, I'm not a trained nuclear engineer, just a curious laymen so, grain of salt & all...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:20 PM

2. Two years, right?

And they are just now getting a camera in there?

Granted, that explosion did lift a lot of nuclear material. 3 is deadly space.

Gunderson's theory is not yet disproven.

Mainly due to a lack of any other theory concerning: Just where did all that lifted nuclear material come from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:43 PM

4. Gundersen's theory was disproven as soon as we knew SFP3 held water.

It was almost entirely impossible prior to that point... but there was no chance that it was a valid theory once they knew there wasn't a big hole in the bottom of the pool. There wasn't anywhere near enough time for the water to heat up... then boil off... then the fuel to overheat and melt... then pool at the bottom and reach a configuration that could support a criticality. With water in the pool, such a chain of events would take at least 7-10 days... and the explosion was just three or four days after the tsunami.

And they are just now getting a camera in there?

Nope. There have been lots of pictures (including many that you've been directed to)... it's just that they were (almost literally) clear as mud because of the debris collapsed above the racks and the concrete particles clouding the water due to the circulation from the cooling pump.

Granted, that explosion did lift a lot of nuclear material.
...
Mainly due to a lack of any other theory concerning: Just where did all that lifted nuclear material come from?


Hilarious that you're "granting" something that was never true. These images are the final nail in the coffin proving that nonsense to be misguided (at best). There was no explosion within the pool. As you've been told many times in the past, it was a hydrogen explosion above the pool which could not possible blow fuel rods out of the pool.

As you've been told many times (is there an echo in here)... there has been no evidence of solid chucks of "lifted nuclear material". There were large amounts of more volatile elements (hydrogen, iodine, cesium) that were released in venting, and large amounts (of mostly iodine/cesium as well) of materials that leaked out of the cores with cooling water (and often into the sea). These were also microscopic elements... not pieces of fuel rods blown for miles around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:55 PM

5. So, under the bus with Gunderson is your point eh?

Why do you hate Gunderson?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinnie From Indy (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:08 PM

7. Under the bus?

He's been dead wrong from day one... and lead MANY people astray who relied on him to explain what was going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:01 PM

6. Yes

Nuclear material was lifted from containment.

Microscopic, indeed. That is what is really scary. Some was lifted all the way around the world. And is being filtered by lungs across the USA! Thanks, Tepco.

Still the question is: Where did all this material come from? The pool or from the core?

3 was known to have lots of plutonium. They called it MOX fuel. Did you know Duke here in NC experimented with MOX and decided they would best just not fuck with that shit? So 3 is a special case. 3 is pushing the science and no one knows just what happened there. It may be years before it can be examined close enough to know. I mean heck, there is not one nuke scientist who can spend much time close by, and the pools are covered with debris and no rods have yet been removed, so how can they study it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:15 PM

8. Sorry... you still haven't gotten any closer to knowing what you're talking about.

All of the reactors and pools had plutonium in them.

Paying attention to MOX fuel was always misguided. It didn't make an important difference in the amount of plutonium.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:30 PM

9. Duke paid attention to MOX

And Duke decided that it was too volatile. Too explosive, if you will. Too reactionary. Could not be properly controlled. In an already very dangerous environment - Duke's nuke plants - Duke decided MOX was beyond Duke's limit.

Tepco however, said, "We bad, just sit back and watch. We can handle this snake"...

And now the whole world sees a crumbled, half melted, nuke power plant building that for two years now remains out of human bounds. It has become the calling card for just how man can change this world. They have brought the power of the stars and the sun down to earth. But using the same mode of thinking as nazis and other power mongering greed heads, the resulting mess is like a venomous snakebite on the planet's life system.

What the nukers need to find, and find fast, is the anti-venom. But first quit denying the power they have unleashed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:39 PM

10. None of that's true.

And Duke decided that it was too volatile. Too explosive, if you will. Too reactionary. Could not be properly controlled. In an already very dangerous environment - Duke's nuke plants - Duke decided MOX was beyond Duke's limit.

Nope. Duke didn't see any reason to pay more for their fuel than they had to... it's the government that wanted to push MOX usage so that they could build a system for getting rid of surplus weapons plutonium. It's necessarily more expensive than regular fuel and provides little benefit to the reactor... so why use it unless the government gives you a reason to??? (which is why the government-owned TVA is their only current customer)

And now the whole world sees a crumbled, half melted, nuke power plant building that for two years now remains out of human bounds.

You keep saying that while being shown proof over and over that they are, in fact, working in and around unit 3? Don't you think that makes you look pretty silly?

And now you're pretending that it has ANYTHING to do with MOX when you've jest been told that ALL of the reactors had plutonium in their spent fuel and cores?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:54 PM

11. Yep, Plutonium all over.

So you are claiming the government, in wanting to get rid of excess plutonium, was charging Duke power to process the plutonium for them? That they were making Duke pay to process the government's plutonium?

I think the way that usually works is the government gives them a contract and pays Duke for doing the work of processing the plutonium.

Duke tried it out and said no, too dangerous. They actually told the government to shove it! TVA has no choice, so they are the new guinea pig. After Fukushima, tho, bet TVA finds a way to tell the government to shove it. Problem is Hanover is full. And they won't let them just dump it on the ground like they used to. Tepco thought they could charm the plutonium snake and they got bit. So they are dumping into the ocean. Lets hope it all works out ok, eh?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:27 AM

13. Duke wouldn't be processing their plutonium for them

I think the way that usually works is the government gives them a contract and pays Duke for doing the work of processing the plutonium.

Nope.

The plutonium would be processed at the Savannah River site into fuel and sold to reactors. Duke was involved in testing whether such fuel would work in a standard reactor and then let the contract expire after the testing was complete and no production fuel was expected for several years. Plenty of companies (Duke included) have said that they'll look at it again once there's an actual product to purchase (putting pressure on the government to sell it at competitive rates, rather than the higher price that would be necessary to break even). Despite your fantasy to the contrary, they never made a single statement about it being too dangerous or volatile.

Duke tried it out and said no, too dangerous. They actually told the government to shove it!

The hilarious thing is that you don't seem to realize that facts matter. You can't just make stuff up and get away with it.

Please provide any evidence of Duke saying that it was too dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:02 AM

15. You got one thing right.

Was wrong saying Duke *processed* plutonium. Should have kept to just using it as fuel. My bad.

Duke is not using MOX. You claim it is because it costs too much and I say it is because Duke thinks it is too dangerous.

Government has quite a pile of plutonium. Reactors create plutonium. The only place that I know of that admits to using MOX is Tepco at #3. That and Duke tried using it.

There may be others and if so, you can bet they are looking real close at what happened at the #3 explosion, which seems to be the worst case. The contention here is that it was the worst because of MOX. And we know Duke is not using MOX. You say price is why. That the government is charging too much for utilities to get rid of their plutonium problem. Can you find a statement by Duke saying that MOX costs too much?

Look forward to your link from Duke as you can look forward to the link wherein I saw Duke's claim of too dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:21 AM

16. Nope. Got 'em all right.

Duke is not using MOX. You claim it is because it costs too much and I say it is because Duke thinks it is too dangerous.

And you're wrong... and I'm right. To be more specific... you claim that Duke has SAID that it's because it's too dangerous. Go ahead and try to back that up. Don't worry. I won't hold my breath.

Government has quite a pile of plutonium. Reactors create plutonium.

Something you apparently learned in this thread.

The only place that I know of that admits to using MOX is Tepco at #3.

I suspect you're correct... it is the only place that you know of. But in the real world dozens of reactors have been using it for years. Here's a tip for you - let this be you motto from now on: "Look it up before you make it up"

There may be others and if so, you can bet they are looking real close at what happened at the #3 explosion

Nope. Because (having science backgrounds that you lack), they knew already that MOX didn't have a thing to do with the #3 explosion. In fact... there really wasn't any MOX in spent fuel pool #3... they had only shifted to using it recently and it was substantially all inside the core.

Can you find a statement by Duke saying that MOX costs too much?

Their statement at the time:

In 1999, Duke Energy Carolinas entered into a contract with Shaw AREVA MOX Services (MOX Services; formerly Duke COGEMA Stone & Webster, LLC) to purchase mixed-oxide fuel for use in the McGuire and Catawba nuclear reactors. Under this contract, beginning in 2007, MOX Services would fabricate batches of mixed-oxide fuel from stockpiles of plutonium derived from surplus weapons at a facility under construction at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River site in Aiken, South Carolina. Mixed oxide fuel is similar to conventional uranium fuel. Following review and approval by the NRC, four MOX fuel lead assemblies, fabricated in France, were irradiated for two fuel cycles (approximately three years) in Unit 1 of the Catawba Nuclear Station. In 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas and MOX Services engaged in discussions to renegotiate the terms of the contract prior to its expiration on December 1, 2008. The parties were unable to reach agreement and the contract automatically terminated on December 1, 2008. Duke Energy Carolinas has communicated to MOX Services that it continues to support the objectives of the surplus weapons disposition program and is interested in receiving a future proposal from MOX Services for the use of MOX fuel.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CFoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duke-energy.com%2Fpdfs%2FDukeEnergy10K.pdf&ei=_-ooUefLHo662gWhvoHYAw&usg=AFQjCNFG_WZl8WXs6mzoGrrRQpUwvyjDZA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #16)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:42 AM

17. Nothing about costs too much

All it says is that Duke tried it and now it is not using MOX. So, you're not done yet.

Oh, and where are these other reactors using MOX?

And about #3 core. Have they got a camera in there yet? Has Tepco even examined #3 core? Not as far as I know, so how can anyone be making a claim as to what happened with the #3 core? Claiming, as you do that "... they knew already that MOX didn't have a thing to do with the #3 explosion..." is quite a bold statement without any science to back it up.

There has never been an explosion of the scale of #3, and the core has not been examined, so no one knows what happened.

So, find the COST statement and then find the core examination claims and you're good to go. You really have made some bold claims here. Unfounded, and non-science based, bold claims coupled with personal attacks. Hmmmm, what could that possibly mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:12 PM

19. WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!

RobertEarl states:
Claiming, as you do that "... they knew already that MOX didn't have a thing to do with the #3 explosion..." is quite a bold statement without any science to back it up.

There's PLENTY of science to back up that the MOX had nothing to do with it.

First, MOX can't explode. MOX is only about 7% plutonium; that percentage is WAY too low. Saying that MOX is explosive is about as implausible as saying that a mixture of 1% gasoline in 99% water is explosive.

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization is setup to test for nuclear explosions. They are the United Nations organization that is setup to police the CTBT when / if it goes into effect. They have to be able to distinguish between a nuclear explosion and the effluent from a reactor accident.

Suppose there was a country that wanted to make nuclear weapons and test them even though they signed the CTBT promising not too. If they had a nuclear reactor, and they designed a nuclear bomb and tested it, the fallout from the explosion would be detected outside their country. They could then just claim, "We had a reactor accident, like Fukushima. That's where the fallout came from". How could CTBT prove that they actually exploded a bomb in violation of the Treaty.

It turns out that bombs use a fast or high-energy neutron spectrum; they have to. Reactors mostly use a slow or low-energy neutron spectrum. The distribution of fallout products from fissions depends on the energy of the incident neutrons. Therefore, the fallout from a bomb looks different in composition than the fallout from a reactor accident. That's how CTBTO can check to see if the fallout is from a nuclear explosion or a reactor accident.

In the case of Fukushima, the CTBTO says that the fallout they measure was from a damage reactor, and NOT a nuclear explosion like that IDIOT Gundersen claimed:

http://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/highlights/2011/fukushima-related-measurements-by-the-ctbto/

The CTBTO’s monitoring system, custom-tailored to detecting nuclear explosions, can detect a range of radioactive isotopes, among them Iodine-131 and Caesium-137. Looking at the ratios between the various radioactive isotopes – in particular Caesium-137 – enables the source of the emission to be identified. In the case of the current readings, findings clearly indicate radionuclide releases from a damaged nuclear power plant, which is consistent with the recent accident at Fukushima in Japan.

BTW, since you obviously don't know the requisite science; you should refrain from telling those that do know the science what has / has not been proven by the science. You are way over your head.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:26 PM

22. I know. How dare i question the science!!

I should be taken out and shot, right?

Pam, there is this thing we call 'Free Speech', you may have heard of it?

And now here I go again, questioning the science. Here's the question:

Being that it is admitted that the CBTBO has declared that the reactor was damaged, what happened to cause that damage? IOW, what reaction process in that reactor caused it to spread its innards all over the world?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:37 PM

25. You have a right to your own opinion..

RobertEarl,

You have a right to your own opinion, which you may freely express.

But you don't have a right to your own facts. Science is about FACTS.

When you express your opinion, you do so with your own credentials to back them up.

However, you can't put on the mantle of science and say that something is the scientific truth. Leave that to people who are credentialed in science.

I think I've covered this; but here goes. The tsunami caused the reactor to lose the backup diesel generators that were producing the electric power to run the coolant pumps. Without the pumps the reactor overheated, the zirconium tubes that hold the fuel oxidized and crumbled, and let radioactive material into the reactor coolant. Because the reactor no longer had electric pumps to carry heat to the condenser so that the heat could be benignly dumped to the environment, the operators opened valves to vent reactor coolant steam to the atmosphere as a way to cool the reactor without the pumps. Because the zirconium tubes had failed, that reactor coolant was contaminated, and the operators were venting that contaminated reactor coolant to the atmosphere as a way to cool the reactor and avoid a bigger dispersal problem.

Any more questions?

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:19 PM

21. If you knew the history, you would know that's what "unable to reach agreement" meant.

They entered into a ten year deal in 1999 and the government was supposed to start making fuel available in something like 2006... but it kept getting delayed. By the end of the agreement (late 2008), the government couldn't tell them when they could start delivery (they still don't know and are now shooting at 2016), how much they would charge, or whether they could commit to a consistent supply for a long period of time.

The Duke statement really translates to "when you get your act together... call us and we'll consider it again". Far from "we won't touch the stuff! It's too dangerous!"

Oh, and where are these other reactors using MOX?

France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland. Russia is getting started and China isn't too far behind.

And about #3 core. Have they got a camera in there yet? Has Tepco even examined #3 core? Not as far as I know, so how can anyone be making a claim as to what happened with the #3 core? Claiming, as you do that "... they knew already that MOX didn't have a thing to do with the #3 explosion..." is quite a bold statement without any science to back it up.

Sigh... the "bold statement" is you having the guts to talk to others about what the science says. While, yes, they have gotten cameras into parts of #3... they wouldn't need to in order to tell what is and what is not physically possible.

There has never been an explosion of the scale of #3,

That's "make it up" again. Perhaps you should look it up first.

You really have made some bold claims here. Unfounded, and non-science based, bold claims coupled with personal attacks. Hmmmm, what could that possibly mean?

That you're blind to the irony?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #21)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:34 PM

23. Nothing about costs yet?

And all this time the nuclear experts can't get their shit together long enough to do a deal with Duke. Good for Duke. They are very cautious. Not like Tepco, eh?

I see that there is finally an admission that a Fukushima reactor experienced damage. Not just fuel pools, but reactor damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:52 PM

27. Actually, there was another hydrogen explosion..

RobertEarl,

Actually there was another hydrogen explosion like Fukushima Unit 3 and for the same reason.

That explosion happened at Three Mile Island Unit 2 during the accident there in 1979.

You didn't see a big explosion and mushroom cloud, because that explosion was totally contained by the Three Mile Island Unit 2 containment building, that big cylindrical building with domed top that contains the reactor.

In fact, the Three Mile Island containment building worked 100% to "bottle up" the accident.

There was a trivially small amount of radioactive material released as a result of the Three Mile Island accident; but it was not an "uncontrolled release". There was a region inside the containment that the operator Metropolitan Edison wanted to let operations personnel into. However, that area like all the inside of the containment was contaminated. In order to lessen the radiation dose to their workers, this one region of the containment was vented to the atmosphere to purge the radioactivity for the safety of the workers. That was an "on purpose" controlled release, within the legal release limits of the plant's license. That release was responsible for the total radioactive release due to the Three Mile Island accident. It was a trivial release; which is why when some of the residents sued Metropolitan Edison; their case was dismissed:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

As is clear from the preceding discussion, the discrepancies between Defendants, proffer of evidence and that put forth by Plaintiffs in both volume and complexity are vast. The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs, case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:44 PM

31. FBaggins is correct!!

FBaggins is correct.

ALL nuclear power reactors have plutonium in them ( assuming they've been operating ) whether or not you put MOX in them.

The Uranium fuel in a power reactor is only about 3% to 4% made of the fissile Uranium-235. U-235 is really the reactor's fuel. The other 96% to 97% of the Uranium in the reactor is non-fissile Uranium-238.

The Uranium-238 can be fissioned but only by very high energy or fast neutrons fresh from fission. The VAST majority of the neutrons in the reactor (>99%) are slow neutrons and Uranium-238 will NOT fission with slow neutrons.

However, when slow neutrons hit Uranium-238; it will capture the neutron, and then radioactively decay to Plutonium-239:

U-238 + n --> U-239 --> Np-239 --> Pu-239

Uranium-238 absorbs a neutron, temporarily becoming U-239; which then "beta" decays to Neptunium-239, which again "beta" decays to Plutonium-239.

That is happening all the time in an operating reactor. The operating power reactor is continually making plutonium, and it is both being burned / fissioned ( 40% of the energy you get from a power reactor comes from fissioning Pu-239 that was created in situ ), and some of that Pu-239 is left over in the spent fuel.

The spent fuel also has fissioned products which are removed when you make MOX.

EVERY Plutonium atom that is in MOX has been in a reactor before; that's where it got made.

FBaggins is correct; this whole folderol about Unit-3 being "special" because MOX was added is really nothing more than a "red herring". ALL those reactors had plutonium in them, whether MOX was added or not; and the reactors are designed to run perfectly well with plutonium in them.

As I stated above; nearly half (40%) of the energy you get from a commercial power reactor comes from burning plutonium.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:55 AM

18. Gundersen is a FIRST CLASS IDIOT!!!

FBaggins,

As you know, Arnie Gundersen is a first-class IDIOT.

I remember his video in which he claimed that the Unit-3 explosion was a "nuclear explosion". I can give you a whole litany of why he was 100% WRONG about it being a nuclear explosion.

However, one part of his explanation, the above picture certainly disproves. Gundersen claimed that the Unit 3 fuel pool had to be empty / dry. The reason he came to that conclusion was because the mushroom cloud of the Unit 3 explosion had a stem with material moving upwards.

IDIOT Gundersen claimed that could only happen if it was "focused". He said that the explosion had to take place deep down inside an empty / dry Unit 3 fuel pool, and that an explosion at the bottom of the pool was "focused" upwards by the vertical walls of the fuel pool.

Gundersen is a DAMN IDIOT masquerading as someone who is scientifically competent.

Mushroom clouds are the hallmark of a Raleigh-Taylor instability that you get whenever you have an explosion. Mother Nature doesn't like to push more dense fluid with less dense fluid. When you have an explosion, you have hot, less dense air sitting under the cooler, more dense air above the explosion. The air underneath has to support the air above. Hence you have less dense fluid exerting a force on a more dense fluid. When that happens; you get a mushroom cloud.

If anyone thinks about it; we got mushroom clouds when we exploded nuclear weapons high on metal towers in the Nevada desert with nothing around. Where were the focusing walls in the Nevada desert.

If you are not a scientist, and don't know your science; and you hear Arnie Gundersen saying anything technical; your best bet is to consider that anything that IDIOT says is 100% WRONG.

This is just another in a long litany of things that Gundersen has been proven wrong on. Anybody that believes him in the future, has got to be as abjectly STUPID as Gundersen.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:15 PM

20. Arnie is one great guy

And he has his theories. And he has not been proven wrong. What we do see is some nukers getting all worked up over his theories without offering any cogent real science backed explanations as to what really happened.

#3, as you know, Pam, is a one of a kind explosion and it will take many days of close examination of the whole assembly by nuclear scientists to finally come to a determination of what went wrong. That proper examination should be able to begin when the building can be humanly examined. Offhand, I'd say it could begin in 10 years, maybe more, maybe less. How long before humans can begin eyeballing the core, do you think, Pam? 10 years mol?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #20)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:29 PM

24. Arnie is an IDIOT!!!

RobertEarl,

Because you are not a scientist, and don't know the scientific truth; you "think" that Arnie was correct.

However, real scientists that know the Physics know that Arnie was "blowing smoke". Arnie has been wrong at every turn as FBaggins has also said. Arnie told us that the Unit 3 spent fuel pool had to be empty, because he said the explosion started at the bottom of the empty pool and the vertical walls of the pool were what channeled the debris upwards to form the stem of the mushroom cloud.

That's just PLAIN WRONG. We now have the pictures courtesy of FBaggins, and they show fuel assemblies anchored in their docks, and that they are submerged in water. NONE of that is consistent with what Arnie stated. He said we had a dry pool with disassembled fuel assemblies so that the individual fuel cylinders were exposed. He said that dry pool was full of hydrogen, the hydrogen exploded, the hydrogen explosion imploded those exposed fuel cylinders, that caused a nuclear explosion, the nuclear explosion was focused by the vertical sides of the empty pool to cause the stem of the mushroom cloud.

ALL that is Arnie Gundersen's claims; and ALL of it, 100% is WRONG. We have the evidence in that picture.

Do you know real science when you hear / see it? The stuff that Arnie stated, that I paraphrased above is not science. It's ALL WRONG.

As the pro-nukes have explained, the plant lost power due to the tsunami taking out the backup diesel generators and their fuel tanks. The core overheated due to lack of cooling. When that happens the zirconium that makes up the tubes that contain the uranium-dioxide ceramic fuel pellets overheats and oxidizes in the presence of water. The hot zirconium literally "steals" the oxygen atom from the water molecule to make zirconium oxide. When you take the oxygen atom away from the water molecule, H2O; that leaves H2, hydrogen gas. The operators were venting the coolant system to the boxy reactor building, and from there outside via those tall exhaust stacks. However, because of the hydrogen being produced in the core by the oxidation of zirconium; that hydrogen built up to explosive levels in the boxy reactor building. A spark from a closing electric switch or something ignited the hydrogen in that building and you got an explosion. That explosion blew mostly structural material, with some radioactive material that was vented to the building with the hydrogen. However, most of the radioactive releases came from venting the reactor coolant system to the atmosphere.

That explains everything scientifically, the explosion, and the fallout that CTBTO analyzed.

The core is probably in a similar state to the Three Mile Island core, and we got a good look at that about 3 years after the accident. It remains to be seen how anxious the Japanese are to get in there.

If you have any remaining questions, just ask, and I can give you the correct scientific answer, and not the garbage that comes from Arnie.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:03 PM

12. High radiation bars decommissioning of Fukushima plant

High radiation bars decommissioning of Fukushima plant
February 21, 2013

By HISASHI HATTORI/ Senior Staff Writer
Preparations for the mammoth task of decommissioning crippled reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant are being stymied by continued high levels of radiation from the triple meltdowns there two years ago.

Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the plant, has had to install more tanks to store radioactive water, which continues to swell by several hundreds of tons daily.


...The reactor was offline for regular inspections when the magnitude-9.0 Great East Japan Earthquake struck on March 11, 2011, generating towering tsunami that swamped the plant.

In the days that followed, a hydrogen explosion tore through the No. 4 reactor building. It raised alarm worldwide that the storage pool for spent nuclear fuel in the building might lose its water through evaporation, resulting in the discharge of voluminous amounts of radioactive substances.

That was narrowly averted...

More at: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201302210064

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #12)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:27 AM

14. Wrong thread

Perhaps you intended to start a new OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:58 PM

28. Uh-oh. I think I see a Despair Squid. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread