Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant

[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. Edited March 15, 2011 by tommej

[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.

 

http://i.imgur.com/zpQFM.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/cFSbq.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/1yqC8.jpg

Edited March 15, 2011 by tommej

[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)

http://www.becast.at/rad/radiation.jpg

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.

Edited March 15, 2011 by tommej

[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.

Edited March 16, 2011 by pcstru

[localzuk]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here, as the plant survived the quakes perfectly with all control methods working as they should even at force 8.9 (which, as stated is hundreds of times stronger than the 7.9 build spec) and the issues have been caused purely by a 1 in 1000 year event occurring at the same time.

[tommej]

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.

 

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?

 

In the words of the Turkish PM "no investment without risk, noting that if people wanted a no-risk environment, they should "not build crude oil lines in their country and not use gas in their kitchens.""

 

Turkey not to suspend nuclear power plant construction after nuclear crisis in Japan - People's Daily Online

 

Nuclear industry is the only one in the world which has to plan for "the worst case scenario".

[pcstru]

In the words of the Turkish PM "no investment without risk, noting that if people wanted a no-risk environment, they should "not build crude oil lines in their country and not use gas in their kitchens.""

No one is saying that you can operate without risk. My experience suggests that the discipline of Risk Management is very poorly understood and in the case of Fukushima, the fact of that seems indisputable. The engineering might have dealt relatively well with the situation but putt the Registers troll headline beside a picture of the wreckage of Fukushima and you have a piece of black comedy. They do have a point but they are missing a rather big one too.

 

Nuclear industry is the only one in the world which has to plan for "the worst case scenario".

 

Simply not true. Do you think that BP shareholders would now tolerate BP operating deep water drilling without planning for the "worst case" - or you think they are incapable of learning that lesson and happy to splash out another $20billion? Do you think Airbus build passenger aircraft without considering the risks and managing them? Every industry has to deal with risk - even schools. Nuclear simply has to contend with the fact that consequences are potentially catastrophic for large number of people over a large area. Risk is about probability AND consequences and that's the first thing people seem to have difficulty understanding.

[pcstru]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here

 

Good grief - where's the fun in that 'eh? :-)

[Martin]

Just a thought - although the (main) earthquake was (what is now deemed) a level 9, the epicentre (or should that be epicenter localzuk? ) was many (70-odd?) miles away, so surely what actually "hit" the power plant would be much less - maybe even less that a 7.9 "on site"?

 

Otherwise i could legitimately claim that my garden shed withstood a magnitude 9 earthquake - albeit due to the fact that it was halfway around the world from the incident!

 

mb

[tommej]

Simply not true. Do you think that BP shareholders would now tolerate BP operating deep water drilling without planning for the "worst case" - or you think they are incapable of learning that lesson and happy to splash out another $20billion? Do you think Airbus build passenger aircraft without considering the risks and managing them? Every industry has to deal with risk - even schools. Nuclear simply has to contend with the fact that consequences are potentially catastrophic for large number of people over a large area. Risk is about probability AND consequences and that's the first thing people seem to have difficulty understanding.

 

BP have already got a contract to drill again.

 

Yes each industry has to "prepare" for such events. None of them are reported in such a way in the media.

[tommej]

Just a thought - although the (main) earthquake was (what is now deemed) a level 9, the epicentre (or should that be epicenter localzuk? ) was many (70-odd?) miles away, so surely what actually "hit" the power plant would be much less - maybe even less that a 7.9 "on site"?

 

Otherwise i could legitimately claim that my garden shed withstood a magnitude 9 earthquake - albeit due to the fact that it was halfway around the world from the incident!

 

mb

 

You can try to downplay the earthquake if you like, it was still the 4th biggest in history, probably a 1 in a 1000 year occurance.

[JJonas]

Japan map of Japan Radiation Maximum by Prefecture by Do,Ken,To,Fu - TargetMap

 

 

IAEA Update on Japan Earthquake

 

How a Reactor Shuts Down and What Happens in a Meltdown - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

Edited March 16, 2011 by JJonas

[tommej]

Nuclear situation at Fukushima nuclear plant

[penfold_99]

The path the world has taken with nuclear recator technology has primarily been used to produce Plutonium from uranium 235 for weaponisation. It also has the issue of producing large amount nuclear waste. This is a serious issue for continuance production of electricity, wear to store it.

 

A better way to produce electricity from nuclear technology would be to use thorium 228, it only produces a fraction of the waste but the waste only has a half life of 2 year (afaik). The technology is a lot safer as it Can be completely turned off.

 

China has opted to only built thorium from now on.

[tommej]

Chancellor Angela Merkel decreed yesterday that the country's nuclear power reactors that began operation in 1980 or earlier should be immediately shut down. Those units closed yesterday and were joined by another unit already in long-term shutdown, making a total of 8336 MWe in generation offline under her direction.

 

Using the latest German power prices from the International Energy Agency, the market value of that power (including transmission etc) would be between €1.0 billion and €2.6 billion ($1.3 billion to $3.6 billion).

 

The impact on the German government from loss of income via its unique nuclear fuel tax could be around €235 million ($328 million).

 

Cya merkel!

[plexer]

Not quite a 2 year half life according to this:

 

The greener nuclear alternative - Unleashed (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

But does seem a better idea.

 

Ben

[sonofsanta]

the plant survived the quakes perfectly with all control methods working as they should even at force 8.9 (which, as stated is hundreds of times stronger than the 7.9 build spec)

 

Actually... 8.9 is just 10 times stronger than 7.9. Logarithmic scale and all that.

 

(Although I'm on the side of "bloody hell those reactors have done well to stand up to that like they have", and have long been of the opinion that we need more nuclear in this country anyway. My only fear right now is that Japan is doing what Japan does best and being very secretive and covering something up)

 

Anyway, actually came back to post this interesting nugget from the BBC live feed thing:

1355: Simon in Oita, Japan writes: "The sensationalist approach of some of the media is starting to grate - stoking fear to sell their product. The British Embassy have provided a very calm and rational analysis of the nuclear threat, along with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology blog and other sources of knowledge (the BBC site has been a lifeline). The engineers at the plant are obviously facing a chain reaction of problems in the most logical manner and deserve our support."

So maybe the BBC are starting to realise there's a bit of a backlash against the media frenzy. If I want mad exaggeration and panic in my news, Sky News is on my Freeview box; I'd rather the BBC were the calm, intelligent voice of the media and weren't getting caught up in this ratings-based madness.

[penfold_99]

Not quite a 2 year half life according to this:

The greener nuclear alternative - Unleashed (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

But does seem a better idea.

Ben

 

Sorry my nuclear physics knowledge is a bit rusty.

[Butuz]

Yes I have to admit I have been quite shocked at the sensationalism of the BBC coverage. I'd expect it from the daily mail or sky but not from the BBC! just goes to show not alot will get int the way of a good* news story!

 

* By good I mean good form the news ratings point of view, not good from any one elses point of view

 

Butuz