So what should they do? Entomb the entire site in concrete and earth material? Why are they trying to restore power and get the 3 damaged reactors in a cold shutdown state if the entire property won't be inhabitable in the future???
Possible reactor meltdown in Japan
- Thread starter expat
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
So what should they do? Entomb the entire site in concrete and earth material?
I don't know if its possible to do that. Too big. Also I don't think anyone knows what will happen if cooling is stopped.
Quote:
Why are they trying to restore power and get the 3 damaged reactors in a cold shutdown state if the entire property won't be inhabitable in the future???
They are trying to buy time to figure out what to do next IMHO. I would to know that the "Long Range Plan" is. I doubt anyone knows.
It took TMI 10 years under the "Best" of conditions. to clean out an undamaged reactor vessel. There was no spent fuel in the pool.
Somehow the thing will need to be buried. But I don't really know what masses of fuel rods will do even buried. Everyone is uncharted territory.
So what should they do? Entomb the entire site in concrete and earth material?
I don't know if its possible to do that. Too big. Also I don't think anyone knows what will happen if cooling is stopped.
Quote:
Why are they trying to restore power and get the 3 damaged reactors in a cold shutdown state if the entire property won't be inhabitable in the future???
They are trying to buy time to figure out what to do next IMHO. I would to know that the "Long Range Plan" is. I doubt anyone knows.
It took TMI 10 years under the "Best" of conditions. to clean out an undamaged reactor vessel. There was no spent fuel in the pool.
Somehow the thing will need to be buried. But I don't really know what masses of fuel rods will do even buried. Everyone is uncharted territory.
Last edited:
They had to evacuate this facility again when dark smoke started to pour out of Reactor 3. On TV they said that the temperature in some parts of these buildings is over 600 degrees F.
I think they will have to entomb this facility, but first they have to get the cores and spent fuel cooled down. Since there have been partial meltdowns of some of these cores, it will be really difficult dealing with the damaged cores.
They pointed out on TV that Reactor 3 uses some combination of Uranium and Plutonium, but actually Plutonium is a daughter product of Uranium neutron bombardment so there is probably Plutonium in all of these reactors. The half life of Plutonium 239 is something like 24,000 years. A microgram can cause cancer in a human being. So we definitely don't want for that Plutonium 239 to get into the environment. It takes some 240,000 years for Plutonium to decay completely. They used to machine Plutonium 239 nuclear triggers for fusion weapons at Rocky Flats near Denver, Colorado.
I think they will have to entomb this facility, but first they have to get the cores and spent fuel cooled down. Since there have been partial meltdowns of some of these cores, it will be really difficult dealing with the damaged cores.
They pointed out on TV that Reactor 3 uses some combination of Uranium and Plutonium, but actually Plutonium is a daughter product of Uranium neutron bombardment so there is probably Plutonium in all of these reactors. The half life of Plutonium 239 is something like 24,000 years. A microgram can cause cancer in a human being. So we definitely don't want for that Plutonium 239 to get into the environment. It takes some 240,000 years for Plutonium to decay completely. They used to machine Plutonium 239 nuclear triggers for fusion weapons at Rocky Flats near Denver, Colorado.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
They had to evacuate this facility again when dark smoke started to pour out of Reactor 3. On TV they said that the temperature in some parts of these buildings is over 600 degrees F.
I think they will have to entomb this facility, but first they have to get the cores and spent fuel cooled down. Since there have been partial meltdowns of some of these cores, it will be really difficult dealing with the damaged cores.
They pointed out on TV that Reactor 3 uses some combination of Uranium and Plutonium, but actually Plutonium is a daughter product of Uranium neutron bombardment so there is probably Plutonium in all of these reactors. The half life of Plutonium 239 is something like 24,000 years. A microgram can cause cancer in a human being. So we definitely don't want for that Plutonium 239 to get into the environment. It takes some 240,000 years for Plutonium to decay completely. They used to machine Plutonium 239 nuclear triggers for fusion weapons at Rocky Flats near Denver, Colorado.
Well...sort of...They used to make TRITIUM triggers for nuclear (not just fusion) weapons at Rocky Flats...you need a neutron source (tritium) as a trigger.
PU-239 is toxic - if it's inhaled or ingested.
The issue that everyone is forgetting is the decay heat - the fuel rods and the core will tkae a while to cool down because there are lots of very short half-life fission products in the fuel. You have to keep cooling the storage ponds and core until that decay heat is mostly gone. Then we can talk about disposal, including entombment. But not all of the cores, or fuel, will be beyond salvage or re-use.
And if the half-life is 24,000 years, then at 10 half lives - you will have much less PU-239...but it's not completely gone. Half life is how long it takes to have half of it decay...so, ten half lives means that we will have about 1/10 of one percent remaining. (one over 2 to the tenth power...right?)
But the fear-mongering going on is just silly. Check your granite countertops, check any of all sorts of daily activities and yo'll find radiation...the sun makes it, natural materials make it...and now, beause it is elevated by detectable, but miniscule, amounts, everyone is all up in arms. Same folks that expose themselves to radiation by flying in an airplane, or going to the beach...or smoking...are all worried about this...sigh...
They had to evacuate this facility again when dark smoke started to pour out of Reactor 3. On TV they said that the temperature in some parts of these buildings is over 600 degrees F.
I think they will have to entomb this facility, but first they have to get the cores and spent fuel cooled down. Since there have been partial meltdowns of some of these cores, it will be really difficult dealing with the damaged cores.
They pointed out on TV that Reactor 3 uses some combination of Uranium and Plutonium, but actually Plutonium is a daughter product of Uranium neutron bombardment so there is probably Plutonium in all of these reactors. The half life of Plutonium 239 is something like 24,000 years. A microgram can cause cancer in a human being. So we definitely don't want for that Plutonium 239 to get into the environment. It takes some 240,000 years for Plutonium to decay completely. They used to machine Plutonium 239 nuclear triggers for fusion weapons at Rocky Flats near Denver, Colorado.
Well...sort of...They used to make TRITIUM triggers for nuclear (not just fusion) weapons at Rocky Flats...you need a neutron source (tritium) as a trigger.
PU-239 is toxic - if it's inhaled or ingested.
The issue that everyone is forgetting is the decay heat - the fuel rods and the core will tkae a while to cool down because there are lots of very short half-life fission products in the fuel. You have to keep cooling the storage ponds and core until that decay heat is mostly gone. Then we can talk about disposal, including entombment. But not all of the cores, or fuel, will be beyond salvage or re-use.
And if the half-life is 24,000 years, then at 10 half lives - you will have much less PU-239...but it's not completely gone. Half life is how long it takes to have half of it decay...so, ten half lives means that we will have about 1/10 of one percent remaining. (one over 2 to the tenth power...right?)
But the fear-mongering going on is just silly. Check your granite countertops, check any of all sorts of daily activities and yo'll find radiation...the sun makes it, natural materials make it...and now, beause it is elevated by detectable, but miniscule, amounts, everyone is all up in arms. Same folks that expose themselves to radiation by flying in an airplane, or going to the beach...or smoking...are all worried about this...sigh...
Originally Posted By: Astro14
But the fear-mongering going on is just silly.
I don't think its silly at all..you have billions of curies in fuel that will likely be out of control in the coming days/weeks/years. I wouldn't want to assume that hundreds of times the radioactivity that Chernobyl released is going to stay in one place.
But the fear-mongering going on is just silly.
I don't think its silly at all..you have billions of curies in fuel that will likely be out of control in the coming days/weeks/years. I wouldn't want to assume that hundreds of times the radioactivity that Chernobyl released is going to stay in one place.
I don't think it is silly either, and I don't think I was fear mongering. Plutonium 239 is THE most dangerous element known to exist. There is no element considered to be more toxic. It does have to be inhaled or ingested to cause cancer in a human being (although near critical mass it would be highly radioactive also). A microgram (one millionth of a gram) inhaled or swallowed can cause cancer in a human being.
I took physics and chemistry in college too. One of my college professors (in physics and astronomy) was a nuclear physicist. I think she knew what she was talking about.
After Uranium fuel has been in use for a while in a reactor, there will be Plutonium present.
Some radioactive elements have short half-lifes and do not remain dangerous in the environment for very long, although their decay products may not exactly be the most wonderful stuff either. Other radioactive elements remain dangerous for a long time, and sometimes a very long time. And there are different kinds of radiation-alpha, beta, and gamma. A small amount of Plutonium 239 (not near critical mass) will not be especially radioactive. But it is extremely toxic if inhaled or ingested, and it can also catch on fire easily in a normal atmosphere environment. At Rocky Flats, they used inert gas atmospheres when they worked on Plutonium. Some radioactive elements are intensely redioactive, some have short half-lifes, some have long half-lifes-it is not a simple subject.
Assuming they can get these Japanese reactors under control (and I don't think there is any guarantee of that) it will take a while for the cores to cool down and the spent fuel rods to cool down. Then they will probably have to entomb that place. The cores and the spent fuel rods are probably half melted.
I took physics and chemistry in college too. One of my college professors (in physics and astronomy) was a nuclear physicist. I think she knew what she was talking about.
After Uranium fuel has been in use for a while in a reactor, there will be Plutonium present.
Some radioactive elements have short half-lifes and do not remain dangerous in the environment for very long, although their decay products may not exactly be the most wonderful stuff either. Other radioactive elements remain dangerous for a long time, and sometimes a very long time. And there are different kinds of radiation-alpha, beta, and gamma. A small amount of Plutonium 239 (not near critical mass) will not be especially radioactive. But it is extremely toxic if inhaled or ingested, and it can also catch on fire easily in a normal atmosphere environment. At Rocky Flats, they used inert gas atmospheres when they worked on Plutonium. Some radioactive elements are intensely redioactive, some have short half-lifes, some have long half-lifes-it is not a simple subject.
Assuming they can get these Japanese reactors under control (and I don't think there is any guarantee of that) it will take a while for the cores to cool down and the spent fuel rods to cool down. Then they will probably have to entomb that place. The cores and the spent fuel rods are probably half melted.
I don't know, I'm kinda half-and-half on the alarmism. Now, keep in mind I haven't watched a TV or listened to the radio since well before this thing popped off, so I'm QUITE sure there's been some crazy stuff come across those. It's a cause for concern, but we probably won't know until it's all over just how much was warranted.
JHZR2
Staff member
Another dumb question...
we can make rovers go around Mars. We can put electronics and communications equipment on things that orbit Mercury. Could we build specialty rovers that could go and pull spent fuel remotely and help to get it to other more controlled storage?
Sure, it would be long and slow, but wouldn't it be more favorable to get the stuff segregated and cooling under better conditions, versus letting it all sit there?
Sure, it is a logistics nightmare, but given the potential dangers, wouldnt it be smarter to strive for a solution like this to start getting what they can out and apart, versus just entombing all the tons of stuff together there?
we can make rovers go around Mars. We can put electronics and communications equipment on things that orbit Mercury. Could we build specialty rovers that could go and pull spent fuel remotely and help to get it to other more controlled storage?
Sure, it would be long and slow, but wouldn't it be more favorable to get the stuff segregated and cooling under better conditions, versus letting it all sit there?
Sure, it is a logistics nightmare, but given the potential dangers, wouldnt it be smarter to strive for a solution like this to start getting what they can out and apart, versus just entombing all the tons of stuff together there?
Now I want people to understand that I am not anti-nuclear. I do think I would prefer living next to a natural gas electric generating facility rather than a nuclear plant, but I am definitely not anti-nuclear. In fact, there is a possibility of a nuclear facility being built in the future near where I live.
But these nuclear facilities, if things really do go wrong, can represent a vast danger to human beings and to the environment. There is no excuse to cut corners and underbuild these plants. They have to be overbuilt and they have to have major backup facilities in case the reactors are shut down and electrical power is needed to maintain cooling of the cores. Plus there must be major defense against terrorism.
Remember, this Japanese facility ran into problems even with multiple backup electric capability. And I think we can blame very poor design. After all, this Japanese plant was built near the ocean, and in the event of a major earthquake there can be a tsunami. And it was the tsunami that destroyed the electric wiring running to the plant and knocked out the diesel backup generators. This whole thing could have been prevented if there had been good protection for the diesel generators. Considering that an earthquake can obviously produce a tsunami, I would say the diesel generators needed to be positioned higher up where a tsunami could not reach them.
In addition, the biggest problem with nuclear is the disposal of the nuclear waste. There still has never been a permanent solution to that problem.
But these nuclear facilities, if things really do go wrong, can represent a vast danger to human beings and to the environment. There is no excuse to cut corners and underbuild these plants. They have to be overbuilt and they have to have major backup facilities in case the reactors are shut down and electrical power is needed to maintain cooling of the cores. Plus there must be major defense against terrorism.
Remember, this Japanese facility ran into problems even with multiple backup electric capability. And I think we can blame very poor design. After all, this Japanese plant was built near the ocean, and in the event of a major earthquake there can be a tsunami. And it was the tsunami that destroyed the electric wiring running to the plant and knocked out the diesel backup generators. This whole thing could have been prevented if there had been good protection for the diesel generators. Considering that an earthquake can obviously produce a tsunami, I would say the diesel generators needed to be positioned higher up where a tsunami could not reach them.
In addition, the biggest problem with nuclear is the disposal of the nuclear waste. There still has never been a permanent solution to that problem.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Another dumb question...
we can make rovers go around Mars. We can put electronics and communications equipment on things that orbit Mercury. Could we build specialty rovers that could go and pull spent fuel remotely and help to get it to other more controlled storage?
Sure, it would be long and slow, but wouldn't it be more favorable to get the stuff segregated and cooling under better conditions, versus letting it all sit there?
Sure, it is a logistics nightmare, but given the potential dangers, wouldnt it be smarter to strive for a solution like this to start getting what they can out and apart, versus just entombing all the tons of stuff together there?
Good idea. It certainly would be doable. I suspect it simply would take too long to implement from scratch for this one case, but I'm sure it'll be on the table as a standby for other nuke plants.
Unmanned vehicles are being developed and/or rolled out as quickly as feasible for just about any application you could think of. If something like the Fukushima disaster happens again in 20-30 years, I guarantee you, robots will have it rolled up nice and tight before anyone can say "whoa."
Another dumb question...
we can make rovers go around Mars. We can put electronics and communications equipment on things that orbit Mercury. Could we build specialty rovers that could go and pull spent fuel remotely and help to get it to other more controlled storage?
Sure, it would be long and slow, but wouldn't it be more favorable to get the stuff segregated and cooling under better conditions, versus letting it all sit there?
Sure, it is a logistics nightmare, but given the potential dangers, wouldnt it be smarter to strive for a solution like this to start getting what they can out and apart, versus just entombing all the tons of stuff together there?
Good idea. It certainly would be doable. I suspect it simply would take too long to implement from scratch for this one case, but I'm sure it'll be on the table as a standby for other nuke plants.
Unmanned vehicles are being developed and/or rolled out as quickly as feasible for just about any application you could think of. If something like the Fukushima disaster happens again in 20-30 years, I guarantee you, robots will have it rolled up nice and tight before anyone can say "whoa."
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Now I want people to understand that I am not anti-nuclear. I do think I would prefer living next to a natural gas electric generating facility rather than a nuclear plant, but I am definitely not anti-nuclear. In fact, there is a possibility of a nuclear facility being built in the future near where I live.
But these nuclear facilities, if things really do go wrong, can represent a vast danger to human beings and to the environment. There is no excuse to cut corners and underbuild these plants. They have to be overbuilt and they have to have major backup facilities in case the reactors are shut down and electrical power is needed to maintain cooling of the cores. Plus there must be major defense against terrorism.
Remember, this Japanese facility ran into problems even with multiple backup electric capability. And I think we can blame very poor design. After all, this Japanese plant was built near the ocean, and in the event of a major earthquake there can be a tsunami. And it was the tsunami that destroyed the electric wiring running to the plant and knocked out the diesel backup generators. This whole thing could have been prevented if there had been good protection for the diesel generators. Considering that an earthquake can obviously produce a tsunami, I would say the diesel generators needed to be positioned higher up where a tsunami could not reach them.
In addition, the biggest problem with nuclear is the disposal of the nuclear waste. There still has never been a permanent solution to that problem.
To be honest being next to the ocean is actually a GOOD thing, easier to cool just in case something goes wrong.
The problem is the management do not want to use aggressive cooling early on like salt water, air lift external power source, etc that render the plant scrap. They though they can pull it off by getting lucky, and they might get by without asking for help to expose safety regulation violation.
Tokyo's ground water is found to have borderline contamination that is unsafe for infant, almost unsafe for adult. If they are a bit more unlucky, they could have gotten Tokyo scraped.
Nuclear fuel isn't as bad as it sound if you recycle your fuel into MOX, rather than use it only once. In a few decade newer plants can burn much more efficiently that the long half life waste will be reduced to minimum, and as long as they can keep the short half life waste safely stored for a while, it should be good.
We're not getting off nuke any time soon. Unless algae oil becomes so cheap that it solves all the energy problem we have.
Now I want people to understand that I am not anti-nuclear. I do think I would prefer living next to a natural gas electric generating facility rather than a nuclear plant, but I am definitely not anti-nuclear. In fact, there is a possibility of a nuclear facility being built in the future near where I live.
But these nuclear facilities, if things really do go wrong, can represent a vast danger to human beings and to the environment. There is no excuse to cut corners and underbuild these plants. They have to be overbuilt and they have to have major backup facilities in case the reactors are shut down and electrical power is needed to maintain cooling of the cores. Plus there must be major defense against terrorism.
Remember, this Japanese facility ran into problems even with multiple backup electric capability. And I think we can blame very poor design. After all, this Japanese plant was built near the ocean, and in the event of a major earthquake there can be a tsunami. And it was the tsunami that destroyed the electric wiring running to the plant and knocked out the diesel backup generators. This whole thing could have been prevented if there had been good protection for the diesel generators. Considering that an earthquake can obviously produce a tsunami, I would say the diesel generators needed to be positioned higher up where a tsunami could not reach them.
In addition, the biggest problem with nuclear is the disposal of the nuclear waste. There still has never been a permanent solution to that problem.
To be honest being next to the ocean is actually a GOOD thing, easier to cool just in case something goes wrong.
The problem is the management do not want to use aggressive cooling early on like salt water, air lift external power source, etc that render the plant scrap. They though they can pull it off by getting lucky, and they might get by without asking for help to expose safety regulation violation.
Tokyo's ground water is found to have borderline contamination that is unsafe for infant, almost unsafe for adult. If they are a bit more unlucky, they could have gotten Tokyo scraped.
Nuclear fuel isn't as bad as it sound if you recycle your fuel into MOX, rather than use it only once. In a few decade newer plants can burn much more efficiently that the long half life waste will be reduced to minimum, and as long as they can keep the short half life waste safely stored for a while, it should be good.
We're not getting off nuke any time soon. Unless algae oil becomes so cheap that it solves all the energy problem we have.
I still wish they had had better protection for the diesel backup generators. This entire crisis at the nuclear facility could have been prevented. And the plant after repairs probably even could have still be put back into operation.
The Japanese are discovering that the tsunumi generated by the earthquake had wave height in places almost 80 feet high.
The Japanese are discovering that the tsunumi generated by the earthquake had wave height in places almost 80 feet high.
Depends what you design for...
Every design that has ever been done has a risk analysis on what's likely to occur. Planes have lower "safety" factors than cars, but have a more predictable operating operating range and environment.
Should a power station be designed for an 8 (when as is quite obvious now a 9 is available), a 10...why not 11, or the ground splitting in half across the power station ?
I'm not defending the design, or the assumptions that went into that station in any way, but designs have to be made in operating envelopes...
As to being on the coast...thermal power stations need to dispose of great heat.
Natural Gas turbines just throw it out the exhaust.
Nukes and coal need to get rid of heat into a coolant. In that case, sea water, in others circulating water in cooling towers.
5,000MW Fukushima would need to evaporate 250-300 million litres (66-80 million gallons, closer to the higher number being nuke) of near potable water every single day of operation...clearly impossible.
Every design that has ever been done has a risk analysis on what's likely to occur. Planes have lower "safety" factors than cars, but have a more predictable operating operating range and environment.
Should a power station be designed for an 8 (when as is quite obvious now a 9 is available), a 10...why not 11, or the ground splitting in half across the power station ?
I'm not defending the design, or the assumptions that went into that station in any way, but designs have to be made in operating envelopes...
As to being on the coast...thermal power stations need to dispose of great heat.
Natural Gas turbines just throw it out the exhaust.
Nukes and coal need to get rid of heat into a coolant. In that case, sea water, in others circulating water in cooling towers.
5,000MW Fukushima would need to evaporate 250-300 million litres (66-80 million gallons, closer to the higher number being nuke) of near potable water every single day of operation...clearly impossible.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Another dumb question...
we can make rovers go around Mars. We can put electronics and communications equipment on things that orbit Mercury. Could we build specialty rovers that could go and pull spent fuel remotely and help to get it to other more controlled storage?
There are hundreds of tons of it melted in a molton pile. and radiation levels and heat will fry robots for decades.
Another dumb question...
we can make rovers go around Mars. We can put electronics and communications equipment on things that orbit Mercury. Could we build specialty rovers that could go and pull spent fuel remotely and help to get it to other more controlled storage?
There are hundreds of tons of it melted in a molton pile. and radiation levels and heat will fry robots for decades.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Another dumb question...
we can make rovers go around Mars. We can put electronics and communications equipment on things that orbit Mercury. Could we build specialty rovers that could go and pull spent fuel remotely and help to get it to other more controlled storage?
There are hundreds of tons of it melted in a molton pile. and radiation levels and heat will fry robots for decades.
I was mainly thinking about the spent fuel pools. Yes, a LOT of mass there... but molten, for sure?
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Another dumb question...
we can make rovers go around Mars. We can put electronics and communications equipment on things that orbit Mercury. Could we build specialty rovers that could go and pull spent fuel remotely and help to get it to other more controlled storage?
There are hundreds of tons of it melted in a molton pile. and radiation levels and heat will fry robots for decades.
I was mainly thinking about the spent fuel pools. Yes, a LOT of mass there... but molten, for sure?
Originally Posted By: Mystic
The Japanese are discovering that the tsunumi generated by the earthquake had wave height in places almost 80 feet high.
I think the Japanese folks already knew that. It was those who don't live there who are discovering this data.
I do agree with you about the diesel generators, we wouldn't have these problems.
The Japanese are discovering that the tsunumi generated by the earthquake had wave height in places almost 80 feet high.
I think the Japanese folks already knew that. It was those who don't live there who are discovering this data.
I do agree with you about the diesel generators, we wouldn't have these problems.
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Another dumb question...
we can make rovers go around Mars. We can put electronics and communications equipment on things that orbit Mercury. Could we build specialty rovers that could go and pull spent fuel remotely and help to get it to other more controlled storage?
There are hundreds of tons of it melted in a molton pile. and radiation levels and heat will fry robots for decades.
Hundreds of tons in a molton (sic) pile? What's your source on that? Please, did someone aggregate all the fuel from the reactor sites and heap it together? The scientific illiteracy in the press has made it challenging to keep the facts straight, but this is over the top...this is what I mean by "fear-mongering".
Robots work pretty well in the heat and radiation, the heat and radiation levels, even inside the plants, are not enough to "fry" the robots...and yes, we've got some experience with robots, the DOD has several models that are used for counter-IED and other purposes. They can climb stairs, go through doorways and perform simple tasks...at the very least, they allow you to put eyes on.
As I type this, I am less than a mile from dozens of nuclear reactors.
No worries here.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Another dumb question...
we can make rovers go around Mars. We can put electronics and communications equipment on things that orbit Mercury. Could we build specialty rovers that could go and pull spent fuel remotely and help to get it to other more controlled storage?
There are hundreds of tons of it melted in a molton pile. and radiation levels and heat will fry robots for decades.
Hundreds of tons in a molton (sic) pile? What's your source on that? Please, did someone aggregate all the fuel from the reactor sites and heap it together? The scientific illiteracy in the press has made it challenging to keep the facts straight, but this is over the top...this is what I mean by "fear-mongering".
Robots work pretty well in the heat and radiation, the heat and radiation levels, even inside the plants, are not enough to "fry" the robots...and yes, we've got some experience with robots, the DOD has several models that are used for counter-IED and other purposes. They can climb stairs, go through doorways and perform simple tasks...at the very least, they allow you to put eyes on.
As I type this, I am less than a mile from dozens of nuclear reactors.
No worries here.
Last edited:
• Reactor No. 1 fuel pool: 50 tons of nuclear fuel
• Reactor No. 2 fuel pool: 81 tons
• Reactor No. 3 fuel pool: 88 tons
• Reactor No. 4 fuel pool: 135 tons
• Reactor No. 5 fuel pool: 142 tons
• Reactor No. 6 fuel pool: 151 tons
A separate facility fuel pool on ground level contains 1,097 tons of nuclear fuel. Some 70 tons of nuclear materials are kept on the grounds in dry storage.
I can't cite the source for this information because the link isn't rated G.
• Reactor No. 2 fuel pool: 81 tons
• Reactor No. 3 fuel pool: 88 tons
• Reactor No. 4 fuel pool: 135 tons
• Reactor No. 5 fuel pool: 142 tons
• Reactor No. 6 fuel pool: 151 tons
A separate facility fuel pool on ground level contains 1,097 tons of nuclear fuel. Some 70 tons of nuclear materials are kept on the grounds in dry storage.
I can't cite the source for this information because the link isn't rated G.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
As I type this, I am less than a mile from dozens of nuclear reactors.
No worries here.
I think statistically you shouldn't worry, the odds of any specific reactor having a radiation releasing problem is very low.
But when it does happen...
I wonder if on a global scale, that the costs of the few nuclear accidents we've had so far, has cost more than all the savings in energy costs that all the plants on the planet have produced? Especially if things go very bad in Japan, what's 1/4 of their country worth?
Its probably more amazing that more major accidents haven't happened, I know a guy that works in robotics in our local nuclear power plants and there are minor problems all the time and some major ones... Stuck fuel rods are always good for lots of overtime!
Anyways, I think its worthwhile doing a cost benefit analysis for nuclear power, the (small?) savings in energy costs vs. the possible risks.
As I type this, I am less than a mile from dozens of nuclear reactors.
No worries here.
I think statistically you shouldn't worry, the odds of any specific reactor having a radiation releasing problem is very low.
But when it does happen...
I wonder if on a global scale, that the costs of the few nuclear accidents we've had so far, has cost more than all the savings in energy costs that all the plants on the planet have produced? Especially if things go very bad in Japan, what's 1/4 of their country worth?
Its probably more amazing that more major accidents haven't happened, I know a guy that works in robotics in our local nuclear power plants and there are minor problems all the time and some major ones... Stuck fuel rods are always good for lots of overtime!
Anyways, I think its worthwhile doing a cost benefit analysis for nuclear power, the (small?) savings in energy costs vs. the possible risks.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Astro14
As I type this, I am less than a mile from dozens of nuclear reactors.
No worries here.
I think statistically you shouldn't worry, the odds of any specific reactor having a radiation releasing problem is very low.
But when it does happen...
I wonder if on a global scale, that the costs of the few nuclear accidents we've had so far, has cost more than all the savings in energy costs that all the plants on the planet have produced? Especially if things go very bad in Japan, what's 1/4 of their country worth?
Its probably more amazing that more major accidents haven't happened, I know a guy that works in robotics in our local nuclear power plants and there are minor problems all the time and some major ones... Stuck fuel rods are always good for lots of overtime!
Anyways, I think its worthwhile doing a cost benefit analysis for nuclear power, the (small?) savings in energy costs vs. the possible risks.
I don't worry because the guys operating those reactors are the best.
So, let's talk cost/benefit...everyone is up in arms about climate change and carbon footprint, but nuclear power has no carbon footprint. No one is mentioning the huge, known environmental costs of fossil fuel - greenhouse gas emissions, choked rivers devoid of aquatic life due to hydro dams, black lung in coal miners, stripped mountain tops polluting streams, hydrocracking for gas causing ground water contamination, millions and millions of tons of ash (with toxic heavy metal contents) created every year by burning coal, oil spills, and while I have left out a few others, the point is that nothing on this earth is risk-free....
There are lots of consequences to the current 4 pillars of energy: coal, gas, oil, nuke. Hydro is small and has consequences. Solar is impractical, as is wind, and the transmission losses to send electricity across the country from solar or wind farms are huge, over 90%. Radioactive waste can be managed, if you get the lawyers out of the way. Geologic formations that have been stable for hundreds of millions of years and that don't have groundwater provide a place to store it...
I've spent considerable time in Bejing...where you can't breathe because of the smog from coal smoke, you can't even see across the street some days, because the smog is so thick...how many people are they killing every single day with that stuff? We seem to think that killing 60,000 people a year in car crashes in the US is OK, not to mention deaths caused by smoking or drinking,...but we're all afraid of nuclear power even though it has not killed one person in the US!
We need to do precisely what you suggest, a cost/benefit analysis, for ALL forms of energy...I think most people would be astonished at the results...
Originally Posted By: Astro14
As I type this, I am less than a mile from dozens of nuclear reactors.
No worries here.
I think statistically you shouldn't worry, the odds of any specific reactor having a radiation releasing problem is very low.
But when it does happen...
I wonder if on a global scale, that the costs of the few nuclear accidents we've had so far, has cost more than all the savings in energy costs that all the plants on the planet have produced? Especially if things go very bad in Japan, what's 1/4 of their country worth?
Its probably more amazing that more major accidents haven't happened, I know a guy that works in robotics in our local nuclear power plants and there are minor problems all the time and some major ones... Stuck fuel rods are always good for lots of overtime!
Anyways, I think its worthwhile doing a cost benefit analysis for nuclear power, the (small?) savings in energy costs vs. the possible risks.
I don't worry because the guys operating those reactors are the best.
So, let's talk cost/benefit...everyone is up in arms about climate change and carbon footprint, but nuclear power has no carbon footprint. No one is mentioning the huge, known environmental costs of fossil fuel - greenhouse gas emissions, choked rivers devoid of aquatic life due to hydro dams, black lung in coal miners, stripped mountain tops polluting streams, hydrocracking for gas causing ground water contamination, millions and millions of tons of ash (with toxic heavy metal contents) created every year by burning coal, oil spills, and while I have left out a few others, the point is that nothing on this earth is risk-free....
There are lots of consequences to the current 4 pillars of energy: coal, gas, oil, nuke. Hydro is small and has consequences. Solar is impractical, as is wind, and the transmission losses to send electricity across the country from solar or wind farms are huge, over 90%. Radioactive waste can be managed, if you get the lawyers out of the way. Geologic formations that have been stable for hundreds of millions of years and that don't have groundwater provide a place to store it...
I've spent considerable time in Bejing...where you can't breathe because of the smog from coal smoke, you can't even see across the street some days, because the smog is so thick...how many people are they killing every single day with that stuff? We seem to think that killing 60,000 people a year in car crashes in the US is OK, not to mention deaths caused by smoking or drinking,...but we're all afraid of nuclear power even though it has not killed one person in the US!
We need to do precisely what you suggest, a cost/benefit analysis, for ALL forms of energy...I think most people would be astonished at the results...
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
