TEPCO mulls release of decontaminated water

[robdogbucky]

TEPCO mulls release of decontaminated water

The Tokyo Electric Power Company is studying a plan to decontaminate seawater pooled at the Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant and discharge it into the sea.

TEPCO says about 3,000 cubic meters of radioactive seawater has been stagnant in the basement of the plant's reactor and turbine buildings since being hit by a tsunami following the March 11th earthquake....

...The utility says the concentration of radioactive cesium in the water is 30 times the permissible limit, but that it contains no other radioactive materials exceeding the safety limits...

...The chief of a fishing cooperatives' association in Fukushima Prefecture expressed shock and bewilderment at the utility's plan.

Wednesday, June 08, 2011 19:55 +0900 (JST)

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/08_30.html



RE: Below story. What about those ships that landed in Rotterdam and Chile that had radioactivity in their cargos?


Japanese Containers Test Positive for Radiation on Arrival in Rotterdam
By Maud van Gaal and Alaric Nightingale - May 10, 2011 10:34 AM PT
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-10/radiation-found-in-19-japanese-containers-in-rotterdam-five-quarantined.html

Chile Detects Radiation in Cars on Ship from Japan
2011-05-03 10:53
http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/news_asia/2011-05-03/chile-detects-radiation-in-cars-on-ship-from-japan.html


Who is zooming whom here? How the fuck can there be the first cargo ship leaving now when these two ships showed radioactivity in May?


This is on NHK today:



First container vessel departure since quake

A container ship has left a major port in northeastern Japan for the first time since the March 11th quake and tsunami, marking a step forward in the recovery of the region's distribution system.

Mobile cranes loaded containers onto the ship at Sendai-Shiogama Port in Miyagi Prefecture on Wednesday. The vessel left for Tokyo with 70 containers of automobile tires made in the disaster-hit area.

The disaster damaged 4 cranes at the port, the only major international hub in the Tohoku region.

Complete recovery of the port is likely to take more time, as full operation of the cranes is not expected to resume until next year.

Wednesday, June 08, 2011 16:28 +0900 (JST)

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/08_24.html




??????????

[divvy]

1. I would hope they would put it back into the reactors

I would have hoped that filtered water would not be dumped into sea, but that it would be the water injected into the reactors... That way you aren't adding to the problem with future injections.

I agree that regulatory reform (their regulatory oversight has been dismal) and very much hardened emergency response (facilities and organization) is needed. My beef with the response has not been with the 50 heroes, but "where is the beef" in the rest of the response? That filtration system doesn't sound very extensive... that it would take weeks to design and build. There are truck mounted systems that could have come from the US faster than that! Those 50 heroes can't handle this by themselves, but it seems like they have had to... I agree with the politician that said, "if we keep going this way, Japan is finished...". Yes, it is THAT serious. Note that only 19 of Japan's 50+ reactor sites are up and running and that number may decline. I am worried about the spread of radiation if a bad wind/rain storm hits the site. I think the estimates of only 1 or 2% drops in GDP and a very mild recession in Japan are way way off the mark. If the number 3 economy in the world goes into a depression, global growth will suffer. Four radioactive cores have melted down and we don't know where they are... and if they are stable.

[divvy]

2. Fukushima firsts

Fukushima firsts - 1) first meltdown of a commercial BWR reactor, 2) first meltdown of multiple commercial reactors at one site, 3) first nuclear plant destroyed by a tsunami, 4) first commercial reactors to have total containment failures, and 5) first total destruction of a spent fuel pool. If I was the plant manager (God forbid), I would find the destruction unimaginable, too. Why is the news in the US ignoring it? ... at least it sure seems that way. It doesn't even rate a nightly update on the national news... or the global news summaries by CNN. IAEA report? I was hoping to hear more about what the ongoing efforts are to bring this disaster under control... and whether or not they are adequate. All we know is that the disaster has not been brought under control. We vaguely know that the goal is cold shutdown, but what does that mean if the reactor vessels and containments won't hold water? Even if you could restore the original shutdown cooling system, it wouldn't work under those circumsances. So, what is Tepco trying to do? We don't know

[divvy]

3. Fukushima was in SERIOUS trouble before the Tsnuami

There have been numerous reports that the Fukushima plants were in severe trouble, before the tsunami hit. One report said the containment on one Unit failed... another said that a core was melting down. I have not given a lot of credence to these reports, because all the other nuclear plants in Japan survived the earthquake without melting down, losing their AC power, or failing their spent fuel pools. If every other plant, that wasn't overwhelmed by the tsunami, survived, then it seems to me that the tsunami was the difference... the tsunami that knocked out all AC power. The fatal problem at Fukushima was that they lost all AC power... not so much their design, because they weren't designed for either loss of all AC power or to operate in any mode without human operators. The plant faced circumstances, a level 9 earthquake and tsunami, that exceeded the design inputs to their tsunami protection... should they have known better? Probably! (Locals knew of historical evidence that tsunamis had exceeded the walls height in the past.). Are there safer designs for plants? Sure. Every plant has a design basis, though. Exceed that and you are in trouble.

[divvy]

4. Intersting that the cooling system will be added to #4 last

It is interesting that the cooling system will be added to #4 fuel pool last -- even though the need for cooling is greatest in #4 because it had a hot core removed shortly before the accident -- because it looked impossible based the pictures taken from the cement pump boom... I doubt that #4 spent fuel pool will hold much water. It is good to hear some good news no matter how modest. I wish they were more forthcoming with info on what they are working on. Cooling the pools will reduce evaporation from the pools and consequently reduce humidity in the RX building (if there is enough left of it to constitute a building) and reduce radiation levels above the pool (radioactive gases also evaporate). In a normal pool at near room temperatures, radiation alarms were often the first indication of a pool cooling problem. Normal spent fuel pools have and need -- pool cooling and pool water treatment to keep the water clean. The water is normally cleaned with filter-demineralzers. They are only dealing with half the problem... and by far the easier half... but it is a start. Any progress is good news. Xxxxxx Chang, I hope you give us your impression of how Tokyo's residence are coping with the disaster so close by. Xxxxxxx I don't have an opinion on Kan... He certainly has had to face a huge crisis not of his making... But that doesn't mean he's good or bad, just unlucky.

[divvy]

5. 3D Fukushima pictures

Some Fukushima pictures in 3D if you can cross your eyes to merge the view pairs http://www.asianweek.com/2011/06/02/fukushima-nuclear-wreckage-horror-in-3d/

Those are some pretty incredible pictures... I forget what a 100 ton crane weighs (a lot), but that concrete "cap" over the reactor and drywell heads weighs 20-30 tons. By the way, a hydrogen explosion probably couldn't have tossed the concrete plug into the turbine building. There were probably prompt critical fuel explosions involved. If the power was enough to toss a hundred ton crane and a 30 ton cement plug, you can imagine how far it threw fuel pellets about the size of your thumb nail. If it blew the plug over the drywell and reactor head through the turbine building roof, then the source of the explosions was not just the fuel pools. I suspect that the drywell containment was literally blown apart to blow out the plug over the top of the drywell head. xxxxx They should be taking ground water samples around the site to determine how big a problem the water in the basement is. I am not as convinced as they are that those reactor cores are benign piles of pellets laying in the bottom of the reactor vessels. They really need to know the configuration... Maybe all that water they are injecting is unnecessary or ineffective. Xxxxx Has any of the tsunami and earthquake damage been cleared away? Has any temporary housing been built?

[divvy]

6. SBGTS valves

The issue of the SBGTS valve that could have leaked hydrogen back into the reactor building? Yes, that could have happened, but it is part of a larger issue. Primary containment does not exist when there is no AC power. Most pipes going in and out of containment have 2 isolation valves in series... Each one powered by a separate and redundant AC power (ESS) source. Without power to either isolation valve, there is no primary containment isolation... No containment. There were all kinds of potential leak pathes from the drywell and torus to the reactor building. xxxxx There were some prompt criticall explosions... I have no doubt. Yes, those reactions could still be going on. If so, the heat generated would be greatly increased and getting to cold shutdown would be more difficult. Xxxxxxx. The theory that the core in still in the bottom of the containment --- Unlikely! The drywell containment is connected to the suppression pool with large downcommer pipes. To put any significant amount of water in the drywelll, you have to flood the suppression pool and fill the drywell by flooding up through those downcomers.. That is probably impossible with the leaks from containment into the reactor building basement. If the fuel is in the bottom of the drywell, it would be uncovered... And would quickly melt through the Mark I containment... About 3/4" of carbon steel with a few feet of ordinary concrete poured in parts of the "floor." I think that the chances are good that at least one core is doing a complete meltdown through the reactor building basement. The upside is that the melted cores are in the reactor vessels. If they leave the reactor vessel, cooling is problematic and the barriers less robust. Xxxxxxx Why can't they get the number of core meltdowns correct? Where do they think the U4 core is? Pictures have shown the fuel pool nearly empty. There was a hot core in it! There have been 4 core meltdowns... U4's melted down from the fuel pool.

[divvy]

7. academic question

Whether the cores are completely mellted or substantially destroyed is kind of an academic question. I am not sure what difference it makes, but given that the cores were uncovered for probably days, I vote with melted down. Yesterday, the cores were in the bottom of containment... Today, they are in the reactor vessel. They are clueless. The thing is... If they aren't in the vessel, then all that water they are pouring into the vessel probably isn't doing any good and is just creating a contaminated water headache. They really need to find out where that fuel is physically located. Would If it is in the basement? You know... In U1 where they saw huge dose rates on the ground floor and steam coming from the basement. If that is the case, pumping out the basement and injecting water into the vessel is not a plan for success. The thing that bothers me is the relatively cool reactor vessel temperatures they saw in 2 vessels while one was pretty high... While it has been interpretted as a good thing, would if it meant that 2 of the cores had left the vessels? xxxxx. Where is all the tons of fuel in the U4 fuel pool... Are they looking? Can that pool be repaired? Xxxxxxx Buying time? This accident is like a slippery slope... I don't see how denial of the problem is helpful as you slide down the slope. I think that it is more likely a misguided hope that they can get the crisis under control before they have to admit how bad the danger is. We have 4 complete core meltdowns. 4 heavily damaged contents of 4 spent fuel pools... At least one so badly damaged that core coverage is probably impossible. We don't have a plan for containing the nuclear material, because the containments are destroyed at 3 plants... The reactor buildings are destroyed at 4 plants. What is the plan for dealing with it? Word games aren't helpful!

[divvy]

8. Gunderson report

http://www.fairewinds.com/home

Gunderson has a couple links to a radio interview he gave on June 3rd. He thinks the melted cores are in the bottom of the containment. He doesn't think a core meltdown would go through the drywell cement floor. I am not so sure... The cement in the bottom of the Mark I containment is not nearly as robust as a PWR or even the later BWR's, like at LaSalle County or Clinton. GE did realize that their containment was vulnerable to a meltdown and came up with a nuclear core catcher. The Quad Cities plant I worked at had this feature. The Japanese plants did not. If you want to know more about a "nuclear core catcher," Google it and go to the Wikipedia description. I don't think the Mark I containment would contain the core, unless it was first filled with water. As I said early in the accident, I am pretty sure that our emergency procedures said that if you couldn't keep the core covered, let the RX vessel go dry and focus on flooding the containment. In Japan, they never attempted that... and it was too late after the hydrogen explosions... because they very likely blew holes in containment. I only bring this up as evidence for my opinion that the fuel is not sitting benignly in the bottom of containment. ( FYI, I did primary containment leak tests and containment local leakrate tests of cpntainment isolation valves for years. I have crawled and climbed all over the inside of a Mark I containment.) He also feels that the Iodine releases indicate that fuel is still going critical and probably chugging on and off... At least somewhere on the site. He feels that the greatest threats to the public are: 1) collapse of U4 RX building and 2) massive contamination of ground water. There are a lot of other bad scenarios possible, though. This is a nightmare yet to play out. While you would think from the press that things are stable, they are not. The situation gets worse every day the radioactive material is allowed to spread.

[divvy]

9. interesting timeline

[divvy]

10. current debate on hardened vent ports

The current debate seems to be whether or not hardened vent could have been used earlier to prevent over-pressurization of the reactor vessels and containments. Let's see what that would have meant - plant was dark and radiation levels uncertain... Some operators were missing and later found dead... The operators were struggling to get sea water going in all 3 Units operating Units... They would have had to manually vent very very early, because once you had significant fuel failure, those vent lines would have been lethally radioactive... They had no real instrumentation to tell them what was going on in the reactor (local instrument racks have some local indication, but radiation would have been rising at that location, and once the first explosion happened, they were inaccessible... They were struggling with 5 reactors at once (5 and 6 were just on a longer time line to the same outcome)... They had few procedures for these events... They had no communication system in the field... Emergency preparedness teams were ineffective and makeshift and w/o communication... Could the heroes have done more to save the plants? I think it wil be a travesty of justice if these heroes are the skapegoats for the design, engineering, and regulatory failures that caused this event. When they lost all AC and were unable to restore it before batteries failed, they faced an impossible condition. Monday morning quarterbacking what they might have done doesn't change that... and it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome much. If they think that the heroes could have succeeded with sea water and hardened vent, only... they are wrong. The cores would still have melted... The containments would still have failed... The fuel pools would still have uncovered. This event was not predominantly caused by human error. Are there things they could have done better? Sure... put a fire hose running into each fuel pool. Would better operator response have prevented this catastrophe? No! Xxxxxxx. I guess there are more "experts" that think the 3 cores are lying on the floor of the drywell containments. The Mark I primary containment drywell is a carbon steel metal light bulb shaped containment. There is a small amount of concrete poured into the bottom of it to allow fastening supports and catwalks without actually doing code welds to the containment pressure boundary. I think that this concrete would offer little resistance to a core that had melted it's way through a reactor vessel and was essentially uncovered from water. I could be wrong. Where oh where is the U4 core? xxxxxx. The differing time lines for fuel and vessel failure are meaningless without some description of how each party determined their number. The only thing that I was curious about was why one Unit failed quicker than another? Was that because of the different timing of the heroes actions? Differences in initial conditions? Why different?

[robdogbucky]

11. Hey divvy, welcome to my thread

Always love to read your comments, as you have hands-on experience and don't appear to automatically spew industry prop. Don't get into any small planes, okay?

I was wondering, haven't had the time to read all your posts on this thread yet, as I have to rush out the door and attend to duties, but what is your take on the second bit on my post, the apparent contradictions about shipping from the affected area. I could believe that this was the first cargo ship out of the devastated area, but what about those two ships that sailed in May, from somewhere in Japan to Rotterdam and Chile with radioactivity detected in some containers?

Where did those ships sail from and where did they obtain their radioactive properties?

Just wondering. I presume it is one propaganda arm not know what the other propaganda arm is doing. These stories don't add up. They appear to lend comfort in that they appear to say, well, "The ports were damaged but now we can send out cargo that is not contaminated from the affected zone."

Where did those earlier ships sail from and where did they pick up that radiation?


Gotta go.


Later,

rdb

[divvy]

23. Hi Rob, I thought you might be interested n/t

[divvy]

12. Germany

I am certain, if asked before the Japan disaster, Tepco, the Japanese Govt, and any number of nuclear engineers and industry types, would have made the same kind of statement, and asserted the low risk inherent in their plants. Then cameth their black swan. A nuclear Godzilla which "ate" a piece of Japan, and very likely has poisoned their fresh water. I suspect the govt is keeping tight wraps on just how bad everything is. -- If they even know, their response, admittadly from a vast distance, doesn't seem to be reassuring or fully competent/aggressive.

Am pretty certain as well, we would have received similar assurances from the operator of 3 Mile Island and the Chernobyl unit operator before the fact. It gets to the point that "assurances" are not only non-credible, they are insulting.

I am not disputing that engineering designs continue to improve. But there is a fundamental weakness related to the operation of nuclear plants, which I do not believe that engineering can ever fully address. Us. People I mean. Greedy operating companies & suppliers, corrupted govt officials, regulators who just slack off & look the other way, and Jihadis who would like to run airplanes into nuclear plants. People are the weak link in the engineering chain.

Are Germany and Switzerland making a "huge mistake"? No. They may be making a mistake, but they are pretty smart folks (German engineering and such). I am certain they can engineer adequate alternatives. Meanwhile, the US has its own "mistakes" re nuclear power: we spent billions and built the Yucca waste site, but won't use it. Meanwhile, we house nuke waste at the operating sites for the foreseeable future. -- Again, examples of the "human problem" in relying on nuclear power.

Let Germany & Switzerland make their mistakes. We are making "huge mistakes" of our own. Maybe we should fix our nuclear power mistakes before presuming to tell other nations about theirs?

[divvy]

13. This is not an emotional argument

These points are not emotional, they are technical in the sense that I doubt the ability to "engineer around" human/social/political failings.

If all energy production/consumption "kills", few remain toxic/ deadly for (tens of-) thousands of years. Take Chernobyl -- that thing is probably still (slowly) killing people. And it has thousands of more years to kill if the various containment domes are not maintained. Over the next several thousand of years, who is to say that one or more society with nuclear power will not enter a general period of secular, un-ending decline where containment/security of nuclear waste sites will not be adequately maintained and will be breached by natural catastrophe or human (e.g. terrorist) intervention? For instance, are we certain that all the fissionable material in the former "USSR- stans" is all secure and accounted for? How "secure" do you suppose all the fissionable material in Pakistan is? Political disorder occurs. Social entropy occurs. Economic decline occurs. We have lived all our lives in a pax Americana. But this relative calm is an anamoly in human affairs. This is "the human factor" which I have confidence cannot be engineered away.

Perhaps the greatest, most enduring engineering feat in human history are the pyramids, built to be secure from interlopers with the best engineering that the pharoahs' treasury could buy . -- but time exposed even these to interlopers. (Not to mention all the other Great Wonders of antiquity which were long ago laid waste by the elements, pillage and war).

Anything that can be built by Man can be breached by Man.

Again: Has the US solved our nuclear mistake? -- Have we started moving waste to Yucca mountain? --- We are a continental (super-power), we have a geologically superior place to move waste to, we paid to build the containment space there. Yet for political reasons, we cannot do the rational thing. - Again, engineering cannot fix "the human problem". But hey, if we can fix our mistake first, then we should start worrying about other peoples mistakes..

Nuclear energy may very well make sense for a more evolved (sane-) race. We ain't that race. Not yet.

[divvy]

14. German power source makeup

First, I don't think it's true that Germany is getting 50% of power from renewable sources; it's closer to 12% (35% if you include nuclear) and this is only for electrical power generation. (It doesn't include energy for autos, trucks, diesel locomotives, etc.)

I am not aware of a serious plan to compensate for the loss of atomic energy. However, there's a commitment to huge investment in research to develop higher efficiency alternatives. So, part of me is extremely annoyed by the "pie in the sky" thinking ... and part of me thinks, "Damn, they might just pull this off!"

Politics is driving the decision making at present. The Green Party has always been vehemently anti nuclear. Then comes Fukushima, and the Greens said, "See! We told you." That cost Merkel's party the Baden Württemberg elections: they lost a region which they'd held for about 50 years.

Several of the older reactors have already been shut down and the rest would be phased out by 2022. However, the next major elections are in 2013; anything could happen after 2013. Maybe when the French announce the construction of their next new generation reactor, the Germans will reconsider.

Concerning the German mentality, it's a funny thing. My wife works for a French company that was acquired by SAP, the German software giant. The merger / acquisition is a huge success. Why? The Germans tend to run with the first plan they think of, while the French prefer to spend much time looking at all the options. In this case, they're good at getting the Germans to think outside the box. However, once a decision has been made, the Germans are outstanding at implementation.

So, if the Germans commit to finding truly efficient alternatives to nuclear, they may hear the French urging them to reconsider ... but may also make great strides in alternative energy innovation and become world leaders in the field.

Bottom line: I'm not very worried about the German decision. The worst case is that they wind up giving EDF - and the Russian natural gas producers - a lot of business.

[divvy]

15. Nuclear engineers consistently understimate the risks

I agree with Xxxxx. Nuclear is not the only high-tech industry whose engineers consistently underestimate the risks. Deep-sea drilling à la Macondo comes to mind.

It's not that the frequency of disasters is ever going to be statistically significant enough to show up as an actuarial calculation; it's that the extent of damage is incalculable.

But that's just on the power-plant end. We still have no plan for waste disposal. We still have no way to clean up the mess from uranium mining. No one has ever realistically amortized the cost of decommisioning a nuclear power plant when it becomes obsolete (or just wears out). If you could figure out a way to include these of long-term costs in the calculations, even disaster-free nuclear energy is no bargain.

Germans and Swiss are not stupid, and they know enough (with all due respect to the engineers on this forum) not to make long-term social policy decisions just because the engineering issues can be resolved.

[divvy]

16. some crystal ball stuff

First, the use of nuclear "fission" power plants is likely not a "forever" question. Much development is underway to create the means to use nuclear "fusion" for Energy. Fusion does not create any radioactive bi-products, thus would eliminate this concern. Decades away perhaps, but a welcome end-game.

Second, the human fears and concerns with nuclear power are understandable. You could show one who fears flying in airplanes that autos are far more dangerous, statistically, but no matter; that fear of flying is real.

Third, the human element of operating high-tech systems, from terrorists to politics to profitability to unplanned consequences, is problematic, especially from a current risk of accident compared to impact on society. The primary technical dilemma is we bring too much risk into one location. Even unreasonable people may agree that limiting a site to one or two nuclear reactors, instead of six ala Japan, cuts the impact risk. Moving spent fuel rods away from the reactors, cuts the risk more. Putting fuel rods into special casks of their own (like many US Utilities do) cuts risk further.

And I have posted elsewhere, the real improvement can come from a complete redesign of reactors, away from the current types that puts all the uranium fuel AT RISK, ALWAYS, instead going to a continuous feed type of reactor that puts only a small amount of fuel being burned at any time. Then, a worse case accident only results in a very small amount of at-risk exposure. Sort of like the old railroad trains...the engineer shoveled in some coal (continuous feed) taken from the second "coal car" to feed the steam boiler. If the boiler ever blew up it would not wreck the community. Only a small amount of energy at risk at any time.

Here's some crystal ball stuff.

Nuclear Power will now go into a multi-year period of reassessment and debate.

Some or many wealthy countries will likely fore-go nuclear power. We see that in the German and Swiss pronouncements today. Probably highly politically based...yes (like, why not wait a short while to see how the Japan situation plays itself out, before deciding). But expect some countries to forgo it. Maybe even the USA among them.

But here's some intuition. There will just as likely be some poorer countries that then go all out, endorsing nuclear power. For it may become a way for some to compete in the world. Many such poor people accept much higher risk, for gain.

I doubt any of us, if asked why we had children, would respond: "To grow up to be coal miners." However there are hundreds of thousands of high-risk profession coal miners doing just that task.

So eventually, expect that certain countries will go nuclear, big-time. Note the oil-rich Arab countries are going nuclear now. They see the day the oil is gone...then what. Not easy living in a desert! They, and non-oil Arab countries are likely candidates. Arabia has seen what it can do with electricity...there is no turning back.

Another surprise candidate may be the USA. It is most difficult to foresee how we can maintain our high-wage standard of living. A decline is likely inevitable. The middle class sensing they are history. Government workers and teachers becoming the highest paid jobs...a sure sign of decline. Adjusting to this decline may even get violent within the next decade.

I would not be surprised to see a specific State (where I live in NY State is a good candidate) do a form of economic succession, turning to nuclear power as the only way to keep a semblance of a good wage for its people.

I shake my head and do not see any way for NY State to compete. GE has gone from a high of 44,000 employees where I spent my career in upstate NY, to about 4000 today; 272 buildings to about 6. These jobs are simply gone, forever. With nuclear power, NY has the engineering talent (educational aspects), the construction means, the factories that would put people to work; large enough to become an electricity driven society...even electric cars...and so on. All the money kept within. Then, perhaps the ability to make products that can compete with the low-wage China's of the world...and retaining a middle-class society.

[divvy]

17. They are not enginnering decisions

I don't think the decisions made by Germany and Switzerland are engineering decisions. It is a political one based on the terribly unpopular nuclear option. A place for an engineering solution is determining how best to respond to the disaster in Japan... We are all waiting for the engineers to get the problem of their making under control. If they can't do that, what credibility can they have in saying it won't happen again? I can't agree with their decision, because I think it has been made in an emotional state and should have been made after a detailed evaluation of risk in their plants... and a study of alternatives. Theire are a lot of countries that should be doing the same... I don't think their decision is necessarily wrong, but I think it was premature

[divvy]

18. those who point out the risks are not crazy

At present Germany has an energy surplus - it had been exporting electrical power. So, shutting down the seven oldest reactors is feasible.

Our family regularly eats dinner with a nuclear engineer from the Bilbis nuclear plant in the densely populated Rhine valley. He confided to them that they came within inches of a major accident that would have forced evacuation of the area a few years ago.

Those who point to the risks of nuclear power are not crazy. Furthermore, the total costs of nuclear power have been understated. Nuclear power is safe if everybody does everything right and you don't get unexpected "black swans" like a once-in-a-century tsunami that takes out your backup AC power generators.

The decision to extend the life of Germany's oldest reactors had been made just a couple of years ago; the decision has now been reversed. This is not a major change of strategy; it's actually just a recommitment to the original strategy.

I agree that it's unclear how Germany will have enough electrical power 10 years from now. However, their huge commitment to R&D on the alternative energy front may actually yield great benefits: make Germany the global leader of safe alternative energy.

Meanwhile, US and French innovation in nuclear power technology may also offer new, safe alternatives going forward.

[divvy]

19. many nuclear plants have had close calls

There are a lot of nuclear plants that have had close calls. In all cases that I know of, thet were due to personnel error or equipment failure that would cause an accident that would be severe, but within the design basis of the plant. The Japanese event was really different than past events. You can say that there was an opportunity to prevent it with a more robust tsunami wall, but this event was triggered by a natural event and the impact was outside the plant design basis. Losing all AC power is outside the design basis of all first generation nuclear plants. Second and third generation plants considered it, so newer plant designers considered the possibility... but not in the 60-80's when these plants first generation plants were designed and built. The second violation of the design basis was the plant abandonment without first providing alternative cooling to the fuel pools. Again, second and third generation nuclear plants contemplated a safe shutdown without human operators, but not first generation plants. You had a natural event, earthquake and resultant tsunami, that caused events that were outside the nuclear plants design basis. Trying to retrofit first generation plants so that they can survive a total loss of AC or human abandonment... that might be awfully expensive or impossible... don't know. I don't think you can ignore it and hope it never happens again. Continuing to rely on nuclear power won't be free! -

[divvy]

20. The articles about Germany's decision have been negative

All of the articles about their decision have been universally negative, but I believe that is mostly due to the knee jerk reaction to criticize anything outside of the current conventional wisdom. It seems to be a natural tendency to criticize anything new, and say the old way is the only way to do things. Fortunately, that thinking has not tended to win the day or we'd still be living in caves and arguing about the best method of flaking stone tools. No country has tried to aggressively follow the path of renewable energy, so it's very premature to conclude it will be a failure.

Frankly, I don't understand people's thinking on this whole issue. The nuclear industry has decades and billions of dollars in research behind it. Not as much has been spent on renewables. The assumption that there is no chance of advancing the technology and making it more affordable doesn't make sense to me.

For what it's worth, the nuclear industry still can't compete with coal or natural gas on price, so I'd have to say if the nuclear industry was classified as renewable the same detractors would almost certainly describe it as a failure. And that's without getting into the rare event that occurs with devastating consequences.

There's nothing magical about nuclear power. If it can't be made safe even in a catastrophic scenario, then it's not going to end up being acceptable. Even if a plant is perfectly safe except when a natural disaster occurs, that is still unacceptable. Natural disasters happen fairly frequently so saying a plant is safe except when disaster strikes is not very reassuring, especially if you plan to put them everywhere, increasing the odds that a plant will be affected.

The fact is the nuclear power industry has had 50 years to take hold and prove that it is safe, and it hasn't done that. There are a bunch of current and former nuclear industry workers on this forum who like to offer assurances about how safe nuclear power is, but the fact is Chernobyl happened, Three Mile lsland happened, Fukushima happened. On top of that, we still can't come to any agreement what to do with the waste, and it seems like we are completely unable to do so. If you can't solve those two problems then it doesn't matter how amazing you think nuclear power is, it simply doesn't have a future.

A hundred years from now, I think it's much more likely that we have no nuclear power plants in operation, than an abundance of them. I believe more research into renewables will eventually solve many of their problems, and at that point they will simply negate the point of bothering with nuclear energy.

[divvy]

21. Andrea Rossi E-Cat

Perhaps something like this will pick up the slack:


“This is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geopolitics of solving quite a bit of energy – Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of NASA Langley.

http://nickelenergy.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/chief-scientist-at-nasa-langley-acknowledges-andrea-rossi-e-cat/

[divvy]

22. The old "cold fusion" idea?

This seems like the "cold fusion idea" I read about 22 years ago when 2 experimenters made a splash with their "unexplained" energy from reactions of solid metal (in crystalline lattice work) & hydrogen molecules. However, that was later shown to be not repeatable and people doubted if it was possible at all in the first place. Googling did yield a few interesting articles about more recent work & theories , but I think it is just too early even on the theoretical side.

I think the following concerns, perhaps addressed by some of our own nuclear experts, might need to be fully addressed before getting too excited:

1. The main idea is that crystalline Nickel metal lattice allows hydrogen to be absorbed and there is a small % of hydrogen atoms that can be quantum mechanically within close range of Nickel atoms to consider a cold fusion reaction. Is that true?

2. The fusion is : Ni (Atomic wt 58) plus proton (hydrogen atom without its electron) becomes unstable Copper (At. wt 59), which in a similar reaction continues further on to ultimately become more stable Copper isotopes (at wt 63 & 65). However, these processes must emit some radioactivity - Alpha, Beta or Gamma rays?

3. Even if this was theoretically possible, it may mean that one Nickel atom plus 5 to 7 hydrogen atoms produce the stable copper isotopes. Sounds like an expenisve way to make copper! Where do you get hydrogen from? Either thru water decomposition or via breaking down gas or oil to make hydrogen. To break water, one needs to have a lot of electricity consumption, so what is the "Net" power generation after accounting for hydrogen production either from water or from hydrocarbons? If that is too low, it may remain a scientific curiosity!

Again, thanks for pointing us to an interesting concept worth following if it comes to fruition

[ProGrocker]

29. Low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) is a reality

Actually, Pons and Fleischmann's "cold fusion" experiment *has* been replicated several times. There were three high profile replication attempts in the aftermath of the scientists' announcement, all of which were reportedly failures. However, it has become quite clear that the reaction is far more complicated than media portrayals of it in 1989. In hindsight, it's obvious that one of those attempts actually showed excess heat, according to an in-depth report by the late Eugene Mallove, an aeronautical engineer, available here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEmitspecial.pdf.

For a precise rundown of the advancement of this field over the past two decades, I recommend highly the book "Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Prevailed" by Charles Beaudette, a highly rated book available at Amazon. Beaudette shows definitively that CF is not only a reality, but a promising technology that is on the verge of extinguishing our fossil fuel addiction. For those seeking scientific corroboration of my admittedly bold claims, I suggest you visit the LENR-CANR library (http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html). Peruse the hundreds of papers there and then make up your own mind about how realistic CF claims are. As we all know from following politics, the mainstream media rarely takes the time to do serious investigations of things that are more complicated than, say, the latest salacious political scandal. Do not trust the mainstream media to tell you anything useful about a topic like CF.

Rossi's device represents the latest, and probably most provocative, CF claim. His process has been replicated. NASA Langley chief Dennis Bushnell is now on record suggesting the Rossi device is 1) real and 2) the most promising energy alternative. (Of course, Bushnell has a different theory than Rossi, but the point is that they agree it's producing excess energy, which is supposed to be impossible.) But Rossi isn't the only scientist with an interesting device. Check out Blacklight Power (www.blacklightpower.com). They avoid the terms "cold fusion" and LENR, but that is in fact what's happening in their device. Unfortunately, the un- and under-informed media (and, hence, public) still associates CF with the media circus of 1989. I care about the people who read Democratic Underground, and I implore you to look into this stuff further. Solar and wind and other alternatives are at least marginally better than fossil fuels, but to get ourselves out of this mess, most of us agree we need something revolutionary to come along. The LENR/CF field is only about 20 years old. Many scientific revolutions take generations or centuries. We are on the verge of something incredible. When I find myself getting depressed because of all the political shenanigans around us, I frequently take solace in the idea that ours may be the generation when a virtually free, truly democratic form of energy becomes available to humanity for the first time.

[divvy]

31. Hi ProGrocker ..... Welcome to DU and Thank you !

Thank you for your comments !

[divvy]

32. Do you know how to check your email?

[ProGrocker]

33. Re: Email

Check my DU Inbox, you mean? If so, I don't have any emails in there at the moment. Do you have a question about LENR/CF?

[robdogbucky]

24. Fishermen to Tepco: Don't release water

Fishermen to Tepco: Don't release water

Agency: No. 2 plant discharge unacceptable, low level or not

Kyodo


A plan by Tepco to release water containing traces of radioactive materials from the Fukushima No. 2 nuclear power plant into the Pacific has been halted by stiff opposition from the Fisheries Agency, sources said Wednesday.

Although Tokyo Electric Power Co. told the agency it would release the water after removing radioactive substances to an undetectable level, the agency is not approving the plan, leaving the fate of the 3,000 tons of water accumulated in the nuclear power station, located 15 km south of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 plant, undecided.

If the water remains in tanks for a prolonged time, the storage facility may be corroded by salt in the water.

About 7,000 tons of water accumulated at the Fukushima No. 2 power station when it was hit by tsunami on March 11...

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110609a1.html



Thursday, June 9, 2011

Myth of nuclear safety sets back robotic research and development

Kyodo

The recent decision to assign the Quince robot, which the institute's team helped design, marked the first time a Japanese-made robot was sent to the troubled Fukushima plant. But preparations for the practical use of the robot — which has won several world competitions for running over wreckage — including compiling user manuals and confirming whether it could withstand high radiation levels took time.

"Japan's research and development feature specializing in and mastering one capability," said Yoshihiko Nakamura, professor of robotics at the University of Tokyo. "The Japanese are not good at integrating more than two capabilities and raising them to 'usable standards.' "

A similar story can be heard regarding the disposal of water contaminated by radioactive materials in the crisis. The facilities at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency in Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture, have devices to clean contaminated water through evaporation. The devices are said to be superior to the French Areva SA system employed at the Fukushima plant.

But Hirofumi Nakamura, who leads the agency's restoration assistance headquarters for the Fukushima plant, said, "Several months are required before the Japanese devices can be introduced at the Fukushima plant. Tepco sought 'ready-made' technology to be used immediately..."

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110609f1.html

[robdogbucky]

25. Nuclear accident inspection must give public a fair view of Fukushima crisis

"A report on the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant that the government has compiled ahead of this month's International Atomic Energy Agency ministerial conference has unveiled 28 lessons from the crisis. Many of these lessons had already been pointed out by experts and the media, but the government had not officially acknowledged them.

The report stated that measures to prevent serious nuclear accidents such as those involving the meltdown of reactor cores had been left up to the discretion of nuclear power companies. Furthermore, guidelines on how to handle accidents had not been revised for nearly 20 years and training was insufficient, the report said.

Probabilistic risk assessment was often carried out but measures were not put into effect. Furthermore, monitoring of radiation after the accident and the supply of information was insufficient. It was also pointed out that the government's system for predicting radioactive substance doses, known as SPEEDI, was not effectively used.

Considering the government's admission of such problems and its call for boosted countermeasures, the report could be regarded as a step forward in Japan's inspection of the nuclear crisis. But insufficiencies in the government's analysis remain..."

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/news/20110608p2a00m0na001000c.html

[girl gone mad]

26. k & r

[robdogbucky]

27. BEHIND THE MYTH: 'Nuclear village' rules itself in TEPCO hierarchy

BEHIND THE MYTH: 'Nuclear village' rules itself in TEPCO hierarchy

BY ATSUSHI KOMORI STAFF WRITER
2011/06/08

A fiefdom of nuclear experts at Tokyo Electric Power Co. has survived past crises and appears likely to withstand fallout from the controversy at the embattled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

The "nuclear village," as it is known, has maintained its independence for decades, virtually shielded from other parts of the company by the specialized nature of its operations.

The "village" is headed by Executive Vice President Sakae Muto, 60, general manager of the Nuclear Power and Plant Siting Division.

His predecessor, Ichiro Takekuro, 65, holds the title of "fellow," who assists the president as the top nuclear expert...

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201106070161.html

[suffragette]

28. Two items

1) Good catch on the contradiction in these articles. It could be that this is the first container ship to leave that specific port. In that case, the headline was misleading by being too general and not naming the port or its location.

2) From this article, it sounds like the water pooling in the bottom of the buildings is what is keeping the melted fuel somewhat cool.
Are they hoping to remove it and replace it with freshwater?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/08/fukushima-nuclear-plant-melt-through

The plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), says it believes the molten fuel is being cooled by water that has built up in the bottom of the three reactor buildings.


Given their track record so far (see after colon) it is good the fishing cooperative is questioning and opposing this: reassurances that radiated water would quickly dilute and not impact the area followed by revelation (forced through other entities such as Green Peace actually conducting tests) that in fact the water in the area became highly radiated and that is impacting sealife.

[aquart]

30. Define "decontaminated."

How do they do that?