Is this Chernobyl 2 ?
13 March 2011, 11:44 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the people who build these things might have taken that sort of thing into consideration mate. Although if you want to fly out there to tell them your stunning revelation then be my guest....
Astraboy.
13 March 2011, 12:14 PM
#34
Potentially not as daft as it sounds, if one is in full meltdown and spewing "Nukes" then it makes operating the other ones more difficult as it makes access by personnel more difficult, but I reckon they will have considered all eventualities, Japanese engineering is pretty much world leading.
13 March 2011, 12:47 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 March 2011, 01:15 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is a bit of a worry this that the Japs say they don't know exactly what is going on in the reactor and they just seem to be pumping/flowing in sea water to try and cool it.
I really would like pslewis to give us his opinion as he apparently works in the industry?
I really would like pslewis to give us his opinion as he apparently works in the industry?
13 March 2011, 01:20 PM
#37
Potentially not as daft as it sounds, if one is in full meltdown and spewing "Nukes" then it makes operating the other ones more difficult as it makes access by personnel more difficult, but I reckon they will have considered all eventualities, Japanese engineering is pretty much world leading.
Chernobyl had four seperate reactors; only one blew up and lost containment. The others remained operable and carried on working through to the end of the last century until the final one was finally decomissioned.
Last edited by ALi-B; 13 March 2011 at 01:22 PM.
13 March 2011, 01:31 PM
#38
Well three of the six reactors were already shut down for maintanence, these can be considered "safe" from danger. Its the three that were working at the time that we need to worry about; One has melted, the other is probably partially melted and who knows the state of the third one. No total loss of containment has occured (barring some controlled venting)
Chernobyl had four seperate reactors; only one blew up and lost containment. The others remained operable and carried on working through to the end of the last century until the final one was finally decomissioned.
Chernobyl had four seperate reactors; only one blew up and lost containment. The others remained operable and carried on working through to the end of the last century until the final one was finally decomissioned.
13 March 2011, 03:39 PM
#40
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er, why do you suggest this?
How on earth can "venting" affect "critical mass"?
What?
"Core stability"?
I hope that you are not a New-Kew-Ler scientist
mb
I hope that you are not a New-Kew-Ler scientist
mb
13 March 2011, 03:40 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are now three sites where they have lost cooling on at least one of their reactors.
The country now has massive issues. On top of everything else they now do not have enough power to literally keep the lights on, at a time when many, many parts of the infrastructure in the east of Japan has gone to hell in a handbasket.
The country now has massive issues. On top of everything else they now do not have enough power to literally keep the lights on, at a time when many, many parts of the infrastructure in the east of Japan has gone to hell in a handbasket.
13 March 2011, 03:51 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sea water cooling method is obviously not working.
They will keep venting pressure to the atmosphere in an attempt to prevent critical mass.
The problem is even if you shut down the reactor it still needs to be kept at a certain temperature to ensure stability.
If Core stability in the reactor is breached any meltdown should be contained within the actual concreate sub-structure.
They will keep venting pressure to the atmosphere in an attempt to prevent critical mass.
The problem is even if you shut down the reactor it still needs to be kept at a certain temperature to ensure stability.
If Core stability in the reactor is breached any meltdown should be contained within the actual concreate sub-structure.
What it can do is melt if it gets hot enough, and then can get outside of the container = nasty release of radiation and isotopes etc.
13 March 2011, 03:55 PM
#44
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
World Nuclear News has some useful background information, although i think that an awful lot has been "swept under the carpet" and may never be made public!
mb
mb
13 March 2011, 03:56 PM
#45
Lots of hoopla with no knowledge of how a fission plant works.
Granted it's been a few years since my proficiency, but I remember it quite well.
Apparently core 1 has melted partially, which is most likely because the auxiliary coolying system doesn't work, and the army with their pump trucks were unable to adequately cool the core with seawater. That said, I'd be willing to bet the core is still completely submerged and the booric acid should ensure it will never meltdown, small scale radiation will continue to be vented out to control the reactor pressure, i.e to prevent it from cracking.
But a new chernobyl? Stop fearmongering
Granted it's been a few years since my proficiency, but I remember it quite well.
Apparently core 1 has melted partially, which is most likely because the auxiliary coolying system doesn't work, and the army with their pump trucks were unable to adequately cool the core with seawater. That said, I'd be willing to bet the core is still completely submerged and the booric acid should ensure it will never meltdown, small scale radiation will continue to be vented out to control the reactor pressure, i.e to prevent it from cracking.
But a new chernobyl? Stop fearmongering
Last edited by DisoDisp; 13 March 2011 at 03:58 PM.
13 March 2011, 04:02 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Pottering around ...
Posts: 3,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 March 2011, 04:02 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of hoopla with no knowledge of how a fission plant works.
Granted it's been a few years since my proficiency, but I remember it quite well.
Apparently core 1 has melted partially, which is most likely because the auxiliary coolying system doesn't work, and the army with their pump trucks were unable to adequately cool the core with seawater. That said, I'd be willing to bet the core is still completely submerged and the booric acid should ensure it will never meltdown, small scale radiation will continue to be vented out to control the reactor pressure, i.e to prevent it from cracking.
But a new chernobyl? Stop fearmongering
Granted it's been a few years since my proficiency, but I remember it quite well.
Apparently core 1 has melted partially, which is most likely because the auxiliary coolying system doesn't work, and the army with their pump trucks were unable to adequately cool the core with seawater. That said, I'd be willing to bet the core is still completely submerged and the booric acid should ensure it will never meltdown, small scale radiation will continue to be vented out to control the reactor pressure, i.e to prevent it from cracking.
But a new chernobyl? Stop fearmongering
13 March 2011, 04:14 PM
#48
Huoh, Iphone posting is rough.
Think of a Fission Plant as a massive water boiler. Control core heat, boil water, create steam, run through a turbine, create electricity.
Now even though the automatic shutdown has most likely (if it worked properly) lowered the control rods, to slow down the core reacting, it is still extremely hot.
Normally the automatic cooling system wouöd continually pump coolant through the core chamber to slowly cool it down. This heat would be expended in the massive cooling towers.
Now since the system doesn't work, they are basically trying to flood the core with seawater, which the core will boil. This buildup of steam needs to be vented out.
IIRC spent fuelrods are stored underwater for up to 6 years, during which time they still give off heat and radiation. So cooling the core down will take a considerable amount of time.
Think of a Fission Plant as a massive water boiler. Control core heat, boil water, create steam, run through a turbine, create electricity.
Now even though the automatic shutdown has most likely (if it worked properly) lowered the control rods, to slow down the core reacting, it is still extremely hot.
Normally the automatic cooling system wouöd continually pump coolant through the core chamber to slowly cool it down. This heat would be expended in the massive cooling towers.
Now since the system doesn't work, they are basically trying to flood the core with seawater, which the core will boil. This buildup of steam needs to be vented out.
IIRC spent fuelrods are stored underwater for up to 6 years, during which time they still give off heat and radiation. So cooling the core down will take a considerable amount of time.
13 March 2011, 04:49 PM
#49
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huoh, Iphone posting is rough.
Think of a Fission Plant as a massive water boiler. Control core heat, boil water, create steam, run through a turbine, create electricity.
Now even though the automatic shut-down has most likely (if it worked properly) lowered the control rods, to slow down the core reacting, it is still extremely hot.
Normally the automatic cooling system would continually pump coolant through the core chamber to slowly cool it down. This heat would be expended in the massive cooling towers.
Now since the system doesn't work, they are basically trying to flood the core with seawater, which the core will boil. This build-up of steam needs to be vented out.
IIRC spent fuel rods are stored underwater for up to 6 years, during which time they still give off heat and radiation. So cooling the core down will take a considerable amount of time.
Think of a Fission Plant as a massive water boiler. Control core heat, boil water, create steam, run through a turbine, create electricity.
Now even though the automatic shut-down has most likely (if it worked properly) lowered the control rods, to slow down the core reacting, it is still extremely hot.
Normally the automatic cooling system would continually pump coolant through the core chamber to slowly cool it down. This heat would be expended in the massive cooling towers.
Now since the system doesn't work, they are basically trying to flood the core with seawater, which the core will boil. This build-up of steam needs to be vented out.
IIRC spent fuel rods are stored underwater for up to 6 years, during which time they still give off heat and radiation. So cooling the core down will take a considerable amount of time.
I don't think that steam alone is a big problem (since we have been handling it since the industrial revolution).
mb
13 March 2011, 05:06 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .........
Posts: 5,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the reactor building went "pop", you notice that "flare" coming out of the top?
That is a gamma burst, same happened but much larger at Chernobyl, so yes they keeping most of the information from the public.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx-JlwYtyE
The latest news also states that out of 8 reactors at both plants, a total of SIX are having problems AND one has had it's core exposed for more than two hours due to the lack of coolant.
So yeah things are looking bright, NUCLEAR bright.
That is a gamma burst, same happened but much larger at Chernobyl, so yes they keeping most of the information from the public.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx-JlwYtyE
The latest news also states that out of 8 reactors at both plants, a total of SIX are having problems AND one has had it's core exposed for more than two hours due to the lack of coolant.
So yeah things are looking bright, NUCLEAR bright.
Last edited by Janspeed; 13 March 2011 at 05:07 PM.
13 March 2011, 06:17 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 3,213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone mentioned the concentration of fuel in the rods... I think they've said that reactor 3 is potentially most concerning as it uses a uranium/plutonium mix in its fuel rather than just uranium.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12724953
Yup, just search plutonium in the above.
J.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12724953
Yup, just search plutonium in the above.
J.
13 March 2011, 06:20 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
13 March 2011, 06:26 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the sea water flow directly around the fuel rods or does it heat exchange with a primary cooling circuit?
13 March 2011, 06:59 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the reactor building went "pop", you notice that "flare" coming out of the top?
That is a gamma burst, same happened but much larger at Chernobyl, so yes they keeping most of the information from the public.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx-JlwYtyE
The latest news also states that out of 8 reactors at both plants, a total of SIX are having problems AND one has had it's core exposed for more than two hours due to the lack of coolant.
So yeah things are looking bright, NUCLEAR bright.
That is a gamma burst, same happened but much larger at Chernobyl, so yes they keeping most of the information from the public.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx-JlwYtyE
The latest news also states that out of 8 reactors at both plants, a total of SIX are having problems AND one has had it's core exposed for more than two hours due to the lack of coolant.
So yeah things are looking bright, NUCLEAR bright.
The gamma POP you are referring to was actually an enormous shining cloud which Hung around for about 15 minutes when chernobyl went up.
Is it too much for everyone to stop scaremongering and be British about this?
Astraboy.
14 March 2011, 12:32 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read that if there was a disaster with a major eruption of nuclear radiation into the atmosphere as at Chernobyl, the prevailing high level winds would take the problem to the USA which would be the worst affected area. We shall have to hope they can get it all under control.
Les
Les
14 March 2011, 01:13 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
If no radiation has Leaked why has the US ship moved as they was detecting radiation 100 miles away?
So two have no had a explosion and looks reactor 2 will soon.
So two have no had a explosion and looks reactor 2 will soon.
14 March 2011, 03:00 PM
#60
I didnt start the thread to start any fear, to be honest people arent daft and they can work out its not good when Nuclear Power plants start exploding and that they only get told half the information.
Chernobyl was more worrying for us as we did get contamination blowing across, for us really it is just sympathy for the Japanese people and worry of the economic impact on things, also makes you wonder what is going on in the Pacific region, I know its an unstable region geologically but it does seem to have stepped up a gear.
If nothing else all this has taken the spotlight off Gadaffi for a bit, few weeks and it will be old news like the NZ quake, well, old news unless you live there that is.
Chernobyl was more worrying for us as we did get contamination blowing across, for us really it is just sympathy for the Japanese people and worry of the economic impact on things, also makes you wonder what is going on in the Pacific region, I know its an unstable region geologically but it does seem to have stepped up a gear.
If nothing else all this has taken the spotlight off Gadaffi for a bit, few weeks and it will be old news like the NZ quake, well, old news unless you live there that is.