NHK: Surface Temperatures at all 6 Reactors under 100 Degees (C)

[Warren DeMontague]

I think this is a positive sign.


http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/21_02.html

Kitazawa said Self-Defense Forces officials measured the temperatures from a helicopter using an infrared device on Sunday for a second consecutive day.
He said the surface temperature of the Number One reactor was 58 degrees Celsius, that of Number 2 stood at 35 degrees, Number 3 at 62 degrees, Number 4 at 42 degrees, Number 5 at 24 degrees, and Number 6 at 25 degrees.

He said the temperatures of Number 1, Number 3 and Number 4 reactors are believed to be the surface temperatures of the spent fuel rod storage pools. The buildings housing the containers of these three reactors were damaged.

[Old and In the Way]

1. fantastic news.

Now, the important question is; given the delicate state of these reactors and the possibility/probability of further quakes, how fast will a decommissioning plan start? Seems like the #1 priority ought to be finding a new home for the spent fuel rods.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. At least, it sounds positive regarding the spent fuel pools. Hopefully the fire hoses helped.

I have no idea how long it will be before they can get in there for any kind of cleanup. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the plan is to wait until the complex is cooler and then start burying it. :shrug:

[marions ghost]

2. Can anyone explain what this means

as we have no "before" stats to go with this "after" picture?

Reactors Nos. 5 and 6 are "normal" readings or still high?

Thanks MG

[jpak]

3. Those are external temperatures - not core temperatures and it's unclear if those are pool temps

That fact that they are still that high is not good - but the drop in temp is encouraging.

And working in buildings that thermally hot (let alone the radiation levels) would be difficult

[marions ghost]

4. OK thank you

So the reading is taken from above (at the same distance?) using infrared. So are we to assume that the temperature has dropped overall, in all buildings? Without knowing by how much, it's hard to gauge whether it's a substantial drop or what. But I see how any drop in temp is good for getting access.

I hope we get more on this--it's very sketchy...

[Warren DeMontague]

6. What I take away from this- and I'm not an expert- is that at least re: the spent fuel pools

the situation isn't as dire as it might have been a couple days ago, particularly regarding #3 and #4, where they've been spraying water in. I mean, I look at the buildings, and I wonder what sort of "shape" those pools are in, to begin with. Well, if the temperatures have come down, then hopefully that means that the pools can still hold water, and the water they've sprayed has gotten to where it needs to go.

Hopefully.

[IDemo]

7. Number 5 and Number 6 are essentially room temperature

Either things are at a good safe norm at these reactors or the readings were of something in the environment other than the pool surfaces.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. I am not reassured when the "good news" they tout comes from #5 and #6 only, though.

I mean, 5 and 6 are the ones without the major problems. Yes, it would be worse if they developed problems TOO, but 1-4, particularly 3, are the ones that I think pose the most risk.

[Hannah Bell]

9. ? from the article in your op:

He said the surface temperature of the Number One reactor was 58 degrees Celsius,

that of Number 2 stood at 35 degrees,

Number 3 at 62 degrees,

Number 4 at 42 degrees,

Number 5 at 24 degrees, and

Number 6 at 25 degrees.

He said the temperatures of Number 1, Number 3 and Number 4 reactors are believed to be the surface temperatures of the spent fuel rod storage pools.

[marions ghost]

11. So what does this mean to you?

ie. conclusions to take away from it?

[Hannah Bell]

12. the "good news" is not just about reactors 5/6.

i take away no conclusions but that.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. And I didn't say it was.

In fact, my entire purpose in posting this actual sign of what we hope is real progress was to say that it sounds like, again hopefully, the spraying operations at 3 and 4 have had some successful effect.

However, there are other reports in the media about 'progress in dealing with the crisis' that center exclusively on 5 and 6. While keeping the trouble from spreading to those reactors is crucial, it does not constitute progress in dealing with the problems in 1-4.

[marions ghost]

14. For example, this?

Sunday, March 20, 2011
Tepco: Spent Fuel Pools At Reactors Nos. 5,6 Close To Regular Temperatures

TOKYO (Dow Jones)--Tokyo Electric Power Co. Sunday said temperatures at the spent fuel tanks of two reactors at its troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant have been brought back close to regular levels.

Temperatures in the spent fuel pools were falling after cooling functions were restored at Reactor No. 5 and No. 6, the company said.

As of 2300 GMT, the temperature in the pool at Reactor No. 5 was 37.1 degrees Celsius, while the temperature for Reactor No. 6 was 41.0 degrees, Tepco said.

These levels were close to normal operating temperatures, Tepco said.

The nuclear safety agency earlier said that the temperature in the pool at Reactor No. 5 was 48 degrees and 67 degrees at Reactor No. 6 at 0900 GMT Saturday.

-----------end

http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110320D20JF481.htm

--------------

I am hopeful too, but have learned not to jump to conclusions about "good news" until it's confirmed 50 different ways....:shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Don't get me wrong, keeping those guys cool is important, too.

But it's sort of like the difference between keeping a forest fire from spreading and putting it out. I'll tell you one thing, I'm much calmer about the situation than I was a few days ago, when it felt like they were ready to throw up their hands and let the whole complex blow.

[marions ghost]

18. And so now

the goal will be to figure out how to keep these storage pools cool without having to use the fire trucks. Doesn't sound easy.

And then they have to deal with the rising temps within the containment vessels I think I read.

This isn't over. But yeah, I guess compared to the chaos of before...

[Statistical]

20. Actually the hardest thing was filling pool without any water shielding it.

With no/minimal water in the pond there is nothing to block radiation. This makes it difficult to even get close to the pond.

Once you have water acting as a shield your options go up.

Normal cooling in spent fuel pond is
1) spent fuel warms water
2) water is pumped through heat exchanger
3) cool water returns to the spent fuel pond.

Even if the normal equipment is destroyed once ponds are partially refilled and temp is lower rigging a temporary system that does the same thing should be that hard of an engineering challenge.

The next goal would then to remove the spent fuel and move them to a different pond possibly a new one constructed onsite. Some of the spent fuel it too hot to move right now but the rest of it is much older. A reactor refuels every 18 months so say the "youngest" fuel is 1 month, you also have some that is 19 months, 37 months, etc.

[marions ghost]

21. so water is recycled

and you keep that circulating and then you can move the spent fuel? So they would store it around there since it looks like Fukushima is going to be a big nuclear waste dump anyway? Wouldn't it be better not to concentrate it so much? And it would be stored in water for awhile and then in dry containers for 1000's(?)of years? There's no easy way to recycle it, as I understand this.

Thank you for the info. I am trying to explain all this detail to people who are smart but not very knowledgeable about nuclear power. Lots of us are getting a crash course...

[Statistical]

29. Yeah by move I just mean move out of the damaged pools.

Once situation is stabilized they could build a new much larger pool inland from the plants where according to sat maps looks like they have a lot of open space. Build a pump and monitoring house and then begin the process of moving all the spent fuel there. The move is somewhat challenging and made harder by all the rubble but it isn't impossible.

Lastly once all the fuel is out of damaged ponds they can start moving the oldest fuel into dry casks. Build a dry cask depot and decon yard near the spent fuel pond. It will likely takes months or even a year just to move the fuel but it will have to be done anways. All 4 plants are destroyed and will need to be decommissioned, have reactors removed, and then dismantled. That even under normal end of life operations (without plant damage) takes years.

"There's no easy way to recycle it, as I understand this."
Spent fuel is not 100% recyclable, but you can reuse as significant portion of it. About 95% of spent fuel is the same uranium they put in new fuel. Only about 5% is "used" (converted into other isotopes in the reactor). The 95% can be recycled which significant reduces the amount of waste. They do this in Europe, China, and Japan but not in the US. Recycling (called reprocessing) is currently more expensive than just mining new uranium but as uranium prices rise that will change.

[marions ghost]

30. Years

:wow:

And so indefinitely they must be cooled where they are. Hmmmmm....this will be dicey for a very long time it seems. Not over anytime soon.

Interesting that fuel is recycled in Europe, China & Japan but not the US. Any good reason why not, or just to save money (ie. not such a good reason)? Why are we behind in this?

From this map at link, can we assume that Tokyo is receiving radiation levels somewhere around the level of the adjacent ochre and red zones?

http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=4870

[Statistical]

31. Couple of reasons.

We never reprocessed fuel:
1) To save money. mining uranium is marginally cheaper than reprocessing new fuel. Also in the past uranium was much cheaper making the difference larger.

2) The US has larger uranium reserves than many other countries making the need to be efficient less important. With reprocessing you can stretch out reserves longer for the US especially in the 1960s that wasn't a major concern.

3) Carter put a ban on reprocessing. That ban remains in place today.

As to why we continue to remain behind on it. Utilities would prefer NOT to reprocess. We still have plenty of uranium and it is cheaper (although fuel cost is a small cost of nuclear power) to simply mine new fuel. Even if we ran out of uranium we could use thorium as an alternative fuel. This would mean for reprocessing to happen some other entity would need to push for it. For example it wasn't aluminium manufacturers who push for recycling nor was it auto manufacturers who pushed for higher gas standards.


Environmentalists cling to the hope of killing nuclear forever so they won't advocate for reprocessing. It would be kinda like if environmentalists (right or wrong) believed they could ban all cars. They wouldn't push for higher gas standards because that would make car less environmentally undermine the case for banning cars.

[marions ghost]

32. false economy, tho

if you end up with all this nuclear waste that has to be stored. Reprocessing seems to be smarter. Isn't it?

As far as Carter "ban on reprocessing" -- seems to me that would not still be in place if the industry did not want it. And anyway the advocates are pushing nuclear projects ahead without worrying about reprocessing so it must suit them. As you say, "utilities would prefer not to reprocess because it is cheaper." If it's not cheaper later, they'll just change the "ban."

So why should the push for reprocessing have to come from environmentalists (who have little clout)? Why can't it come from responsible business people and their political allies? Is it really that they have no concern for the "right" way to do this? No vision, no integrity, no conscience? And not even very smart?

Why would those opposed to nuclear power NOT want to "reduce the amount of mining necessary and the amount of high level waste to be stored." This makes NO sense to me.

Your last sentence??? I don't know many hardcore environmentalists but I certainly don't know of anyone stupid enough to think they can ban cars. Seems to me that environmentalists do push for higher gas standards. :eyes:

But thanks for your comments.

[Statistical]

34. The last sentence was the whole point.

Environmentalists realize / accept they will never be able to ban cars hence the push is to make cars less damaging. Higher emission standards, better gas mileage, safe disposal, regulations on car waste (oil, and other fluids, etc).

Many still believe they can and will ban nuclear power so there is no attempt to do anything but push for ban. Anything else is seen as weakening the case for a ban. We could more safely store spent fuel in longer term facilities awaiting reprocessing. We could be reprocessing fuel. We could push for newer and safer reactor designs. However all of that would undermine the case for a complete ban on nuclear power.

Until there is acceptance that nuclear power isn't going away (like cars) that change won't happen.

"So why should the push for reprocessing have to come from environmentalists (who have little clout)? Why can't it come from responsible business people and their political allies? Is it really that they have no concern for the "right" way to do this? No vision, no integrity, no conscience? And not even very smart? "

Maybe it should but sadly it has NEVER happened in any other business. Airlines don't push for higher safety standards, neither to car manufacturers. No industry has ever pushes for higher efficiency standards on itself. No industry has ever mandates recycling. The government does that and industry reacts (often with a lot of bitching and whining).

I mean what you seem to be advocating is free market will handle everything. Without regulation we would have poorly insulated homes today, horribly inefficient appliances, wasteful heating and cooling systems, twice the mining because there is no recycling and cars with subpar gase mileage.

In ever case it would entities OUTSIDE the industry to push for higher standards. Without outside push eventually the industry will heavily lobby for reprocessing. Eventually the cost to mine uranium will be higher than the cost to recycle it but based on uranium prices I would say that day is at least a decade away. If new reserves are found it could be pushed back 2-3 decades.

"false economy though"
I agree 100%. However even the government contributes to this false economy. Nuclear power operators pay a fee for waste storage. The fee they pay is per kWh not per unit of waste. Hence there is no economic reason to reduce waste. A highly efficient nuclear plant using about half the fuel per kWh still pays the same fee as an older less efficient nuclear plant. Likewise if a plant did reprocess it wouldn't reduce their spent fuel fee at all (under current regs).

[marions ghost]

36. In America

there is not much power "outside the industry" to push for changes. Haven't you noticed that?

First of all I don't think you can compare cars and nuclear power without a big stretch. So I understand why environmentalists could go one way on cars and another on nuke power. We do have alternatives to nuke power and we also have alternatives to transportation problems. It is the vice grip of the dominant corporations that are holding these up (similar to the gridlock re health care).

I'm all for regulation but at this point I have no faith in the government to do it effectively. Our systems are corrupt. Theoretically it is govt's role but I don't see it happening. Consumer protection in America is a sham. I don't think it is possible for environmentalists to fight the corporate/government in America, and it is incorrect to pit environmentalists vs corporates as where the battle is. All environmentalists can do is try to "bear witness" to environmental destruction. Don't get me wrong--it's an important role to put out info and stats as the environmental groups do--but they have no significant political power. Their's is a watchdog role. They can put some political pressure here and there, but they can't make a big dent. They are critical to the dialogue but they can only teach by example, not wrestle the football away from the PTB.

So I think it does come down to the business sector to think differently. Economics, business schools, the system --has to turn to doing things smarter, finding real solutions. I know some in the business world who ARE thinking this way. The current business models are where the wrong thinking comes from and this is where it will have to change. You know like those corporate "we are so green" ads we all ridicule--they will have to actually live up to them one of these days. Or destroy the world for future generations. Some business people DO care about this. But the change has to come from within the corporate sector. Consumers have very little say in this Machiavellian lopsided country. The change in attitudes of the business sector--this is the only hope for America, I believe. They need some new books, some new models, some young entrepreneurs with a conscience.

[BeFree]

35. heh

Yeah, those damned environmentalists... they are why we still drive gas guzzlers, nuke waste piles up, why BP had to drill in the GoM, and all our other ills are their fault! <(!)>

If the nuke industry wanted to recycle fuel how come we never hear them pushing for a change in the law? They did push for Yucca. And they keep the waste piled up high in the Fukushima style plants. And now they've screwed the pooch and only the looniest will now support more of the same nukes. It's just too bad we have so gawd damn many loonies who blame enviros, eh?

[marions ghost]

39. not only that

but environmentalists are supposed to go head to head with corporatocrats and may the best gladiator win. :eyes:

[joshcryer]

10. Wow, that is so great!

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Yes, water is under boiling temp

[drm604]

17. All below the boiling point of water.

This is good news. Let's hope it continues.

[girl gone mad]

19. Everyone is hoping they can make the best of a really bad situation.

The idea that they were just ready to walk away from it at one time is upsetting. I'm glad the Japanese government stepped in and put a stop to that notion.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. That was the "oh, fuck" point for me.

When it sounded like they were saying "well, we're pulling the last people out, oh well".. I think Wednesday or Thursday night.

[nc4bo]

22. Just noticed something odd...

if everything's coming under control, why in the hell are these radiation levels increasing and we're not talking little increases (Ibaraki)?

http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=4870




Not trying to cause controversy, I just would like some sort of explanation such as the increase is caused by cold water contacting hot materials and causing radioactive steam.

[marions ghost]

23. interesting

and if you go to that link and zoom on the map, several of the areas surrounding Tokyo like Chiba are not reported.

Yes Ibaraki seems to be increasing...from when they put all the firehoses on, so yes, maybe it's temporary reaction (better heads than I will have to confirm that, but it makes sense).

This is a situation to watch.

[Motown_Johnny]

24. self delete

I should have read the whole thing more carefully

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Could be because the winds have started blowing back towards the South West.

I don't know. And I'm not arguing that anything is or isn't under control- I certainly don't know. Even if it's totally under control, they already have some radiation problems and will probably experience more.

[marions ghost]

28. Radiation levels in food & water

http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110320D20JF510.htm

This article details some of the food safety problems.

[theglammistress]

25. Ocean leakage?

This isn't good...

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/nhk-says-water-used-douse-reactors-may-have-leaked-ocean

<snip>
Last week we asked what could possibly be worse than a "grave" situation (as Fukushima was described by the IAEA). We now have our answer:

*WATER DOUSED ON REACTORS MAY HAVE LEAKED TO OCEAN, NHK SAYS
*NHK CITES JAPAN NUCLEAR AND INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AGENCY

[Shagbark Hickory]

33. Ah... Crisis averted. Disaster over. Nothing to see here. Everyone get back to work.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. That wasn't my motivation in posting the story- are you implying it was?

Even if they get it under control now, it will be a very large clusterfuck. My HOPE is that they will be able to avert a much more massive one.

[Baclava]

37. So much for that...now back to our regularly scheduled disaster

Grey smoke at reactor #3

"This can't be good"

[marions ghost]

38. yeah

"the crisis is easing"...esp the financial media is reporting based on yesterday's news of lower temps.

Can't say as I buy it. I tend to believe the French guy (Autorite de Surete Nucleaire) who says it ain't over til the stuff is where it can be permanently cooled.