Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant

[MK-2]

We should eliminate all steps in the UK because of this.

What have you got against them? They had a few good songs but your views are borderline pscyhotic!!

[somabc]

We could build our pavements and roads out of that bouncy substance they coat children's playgrounds with then when we fall over we will just bounce back up.

[CHR1S]

Cover Up Of Fukushima Chain Reaction Underway

Scary, if true?

Edit - Check out the nutjob comments for a giggle!

[tommej]

Cover Up Of Fukushima Chain Reaction Underway

Scary, if true?

Edit - Check out the nutjob comments for a giggle!

Absolute rubbish, and also impossible by design.

[pcstru]

Source

Germany makes an incredibly rational decision because they are also on the verge of a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami.

To be fair, that Japan is at risk of earthquakes and tsunamis is a fact that wasn't hidden from the governments or power plant designers of the time. The reactors were designed to withstand earthquakes and yet ... multiple layers of redundancy have failed. When the buildings surrounding the reactors start going boom, that's not a "triumph for nuclear power" (or if it is, please don't ever show me a actual disaster!). So perhaps the German government feels that the assurances they have been given by the companies that designed and built the reactors, at least need to be looked at again. Bear in mind the units they are talking about are 40 year old units that they were considering extending use of beyond the expected lifetime. Perhaps if they went bang the Register would consider it a triumph because they were never intended to be operated beyond that time ...

[tommej]

Withstood the 4th biggest earthquake in history(while only being rated to withstand a magnitude of 7.9) , no dead, little to no environmental impact, i'd say that's a pretty big triumph for a 50 year old reactor.

[CHR1S]

When the buildings surrounding the reactors start going boom, that's not a "triumph for nuclear power"

They were calculated counter measures. They vented the radioactive steam into the reactor building to allow the radiation levels to drop before passing it into the air as the radioactive steam has a very short half life. The issue was the steam superheated and separated into hydrogen and oxygen and thus ignited or more likely in this case detonated. If this had happened in the reactor itself............

[localzuk]

To be fair, that Japan is at risk of earthquakes and tsunamis is a fact that wasn't hidden from the governments or power plant designers of the time. The reactors were designed to withstand earthquakes and yet ... multiple layers of redundancy have failed. When the buildings surrounding the reactors start going boom, that's not a "triumph for nuclear power" (or if it is, please don't ever show me a actual disaster!). So perhaps the German government feels that the assurances they have been given by the companies that designed and built the reactors, at least need to be looked at again. Bear in mind the units they are talking about are 40 year old units that they were considering extending use of beyond the expected lifetime. Perhaps if they went bang the Register would consider it a triumph because they were never intended to be operated beyond that time ...

Sorry but the reactors were designed to cope with earthquakes up to a certain size, as larger ones are so rare. The number I heard was that they were built to withstand a force 7 quake. Yet they actually survived a force 9, but then got nobbled by the massive tsunami.

It simply isn't possible to design for every occurance, and the design as it stands has held up pretty damn well! No chance of meltdown, no deaths from them (and it is unlikely any will occur), and all the systems designed and put in place have worked as planned, only they then failed due to the tsunami.

Its kinda like someone designing a building to resist a quake, and to withstand a plane crashing into it. Its unlikely that it could withstand both at the same time!

[tommej]

TOKYO (Dow Jones)--Cosmo Oil Co. (5007.TO) said Tuesday that fire-fighting operations are continuing at its Chiba refinery near Tokyo.

Cosmo Oil Co. has shut its 220,000-barrel-a-day Chiba refinery after a magnitude-9.0 earthquake and an accompanying tsunami hit Japan Friday.

The company had said Monday that the fire at the plant was getting smaller but hadn't been extinguished as of 1000 GMT Monday.

A Cosmo Oil spokesman said Tuesday there has been no change in the refinery's status.

Still burning.

(Reuters) - JX Nippon Oil and Energy Corp said on Tuesday that the refinery of subsidiary Kashima Oil Co has remained shut since a strong earthquake and tsunami hit the northeast coast of Japan on Friday.

There is a possibility of some damage to the refining and shipping facilities at Kashima Oil, in Ibaraki prefecture northeast of Tokyo, but further details were not immediately available, a JX spokeswoman said.

JX said earlier on Tuesday that it had begun work to extinguish a fire at its quake-hit Sendai refinery. (Reporting by Risa Maeda; Editing by Edmund Klamann)

They're just getting started on this fire that's been going since the start.

The 9.0-magnitude earthquake on Friday and ensuing tsunami have hit demand for oil by shutting down five Japanese refineries — two due to fire. The affected refineries have combined daily capacity of 1.4 million barrels of oil, according to Platts, the energy information arm of McGraw-Hill Cos.

Trying to find more info on these is impossible, since there is so much coverage of the nuclear plant which will have no environmental impact.

[JJonas]

Reactor 4 on fire again

Also found this
Japan's nuclear emergency | The Washington Post

[tommej]

Tepco spokesman Hajimi Motujuku says the fire at reactor four is in the outer housing of the containment vessel. Its cause is not yet known, AP reports.

Same situation as this morning really.

[tommej]

Fire is apparently out now. And radiation levels are falling:

(updates every 10 minutes measured in tokyo)

1 CPM = approx .01uSv/hr

For reference, the highest level of radiation recorded at the reactor site was 400mSv/hr, which would be 40,000,000 CPM on that chart.

[pcstru]

Sorry but the reactors were designed to cope with earthquakes up to a certain size, as larger ones are so rare. The number I heard was that they were built to withstand a force 7 quake. Yet they actually survived a force 9, but then got nobbled by the massive tsunami.

It is the risk analysis and management that has failed. That then leads to flawed design criteria. Quakes in Japan must be a known risk as must an accompanying tsunami for offshore quakes - those events are related. Have a look at a list of significant quakes and note the number of quakes that have exceeded the design spec of 7.9. Give the number of quakes that have exceeded the spec, is the spec, in your view reasonable?

It simply isn't possible to design for every occurance,

No, but an earthquake followed by a tsunami in Japan is not every occurrence - it's not even an outlier over the lifetimes of the reactors. The fact that it was the biggest quake is actually marginal, any quake accompanied by a large tsunami could have had the same effect - even a much smaller quake.

That indicates a serious failure in assessing and analysing risk. And that isn't a problem that is solely the responsibility of Japanese government/industry. It comes under the purview of the IAEA - an international organisation which has a significant influence on how nuclear power is operated worldwide. If they can get the risks wrong in Japan, could they be making similar mistakes elsewhere? That IMO is not an unreasonable question to ask in the circumstances and while Germany's decision to shut down a couple of 40 year old reactors may be in part politically motivated by upcoming elections, a full safety review is not an unnecessary knee jerk reaction of the "it's health and safety gone mad Guv!" ilk.

[localzuk]

Yes, the spec was reasonable. Pretty much every single quake on that list comes in under 7.9. Why would that not be sensible?

The latest research shows that this sort of tsunami is a 1000 year event. No designer ever designs anything for 1000 year events.

There hasn't been a failure of assessing risk. The last tsunami of this strength occurred around year 869. Why would someone plan for that sort of event?

And safety inspections can be done without shutting anything down. Germany is in a geologically stable location, they don't get events like those in Japan. So, looking at their plants because of this event is ridiculous.

[pcstru]

Yes, the spec was reasonable. Pretty much every single quake on that list comes in under 7.9. Why would that not be sensible?

Since 1800 there are 10 quakes that have measured or exceeded a magnitude of 8. If they were evenly spread that would be one every 20 years on which basis you could expect the 40 year lifetime of the reactor, to have two quakes which exceed the design spec. This is a nuclear installation we are talking about. The correct number of events which could be projected to exceed the design spec would be zero, yet the data suggests there is a 1 in 10 chance that the plant will experience an event outside of the design spec. If you think that is an acceptable probability for a nuclear plant, I'm frankly astonished.

The latest research shows that this sort of tsunami is a 1000 year event. No designer ever designs anything for 1000 year events.

Nuclear design engineers should - or would you be happy living near a reactor which has a 1 in 50 chance of experiencing an event which is beyond the design spec. How about if you have 50 of them in the country?

There hasn't been a failure of assessing risk. The last tsunami of this strength occurred around year 869. Why would someone plan for that sort of event?

Because the probability might be small (although frankly it's not THAT small) but the consequences if it happens are potentially catastrophic. Risk management is about probability AND consequences. If you were designing a house to survive those kind of events then I might agree that the event can be ignored - the consequences of a house falling down are a few lives and/or inconvenience to a very limited number of people. On a nuclear power plant with 40 year operating lifetimes, 1 in 1000 year events are actually too high a probability.

And safety inspections can be done without shutting anything down. Germany is in a geologically stable location, they don't get events like those in Japan. So, looking at their plants because of this event is ridiculous.

I am not talking about quakes in Germany. I'm talking about a failure of risk management. We didn't have terrorists flying planes into things 40 years ago and we seem to be experiencing a lot of once in a couple of hundred years weather events. The question "what other risks might have been missed or are being mismanaged" seems to me in the circumstances, to be a reasonable one.