11 Facts About The Ongoing Fukushima Nuclear Holocaust That Are Almost Too Horrifying To Believe

is this nuclear accident worse than chernobyl? and who or what nutter had the brainwave of building a nuclear facility next to the sea when thay know thay are prone to earthquakes? i see the point in using the sea water to cool the reactors. but japan is an island thay could have just built the plant on the other side of the country facing north and south korea instead of the open wide pacific ocean.

reply to post by Dr1Akula

A car can be used as a rolling bomb to destroy buildings. Every day, untold people die in accidents with cars. Should we protest the fact that cars are still being built?

Bottom line is that nuclear energy is our best bet at this time for producing power. Hydro is wonderful, but there are only so many rivers. Solar is far far too expensive and unreliable. Wind works, but how many windmills can we erect before we begin affecting global wind patterns? Coal and oil fired plants are being demonized for putting out plant food. What's left?

Nuclear.

As long as the design is safe (PWR, not BWR), appropriate precautions are taken in the design and construction of the plants, and we can figure out how to safely dispose of the waste, nuclear is safe, clean, cheap, and efficient. Maybe soon we'll be able to add wave power to that list above and decrease the number of nuke plants (at least those which are BWR), but until that day comes, we have two options: keep using nukes or give up most of the electrical conveniences that make our lives easier, longer, and safer.

Al of the issues with Fukushima can be traced to HUMAN errors, most of those to HUMAN greed. I'll keep a few PWR nukes. Hysteria notwithstanding.

TheRedneck

If the 3 cores have supposedly melted through the concrete base then surely when it hits the water table its game over? or do they suspect that the cores have solidified?

In Chernobyl they tunneled under the plant and poured a concrete slab to stop it hitting the water table because apparently it would have exploded and sent deadly radiation waves all over europe.

Is this still the case with fukushima? considering its next to the ocean it cant have far to travel before it hits water.

reply to post by amurphy245

Oh, I don't think there is any real suggestion that the cores remained intact (at least outside official news channels), and any core that is compromised will melt and continue producing temperatures high enough to turn concrete into powder, steel into liquid, and rock into magma. Fissionable material reacts with itself at a speed which is dependent on how much of the material is available; the more material, the faster the reaction. That's how a nuclear cores operates: the fuel is separated from itself by control rods, which are designed to absorb the high-energy neutrons that are responsible for the reaction. Remove the control rods and it runs wide open; insert the control rods and the reaction slows to a crawl.

If the control rods are damaged, there is no way to slow the reaction, and if the cooling system does not function (and the one at Fukushima failed) the extreme heat created by the reactions will cause the fuel pellets themselves to melt. When they melt, there is then no way to put anything between them to slow the reaction, and the reaction continues until all the fuel turns eventually into lead... a process that can take thousands of years.

It works opposite from what we expect from technology. If your car engine throttle sticks wide open for some reason, chances are good that the engine will break and stop running. If your CPU on your computer overheats enough, it will stop functioning and stop producing heat. But a nuclear mass will not stop when it malfunctions. Instead, the more it turns into a single mass, the more it reacts because the more material there is. And the more it reacts, the more radiation and heat is produced in a runaway reaction.

What should happen once the core melts into the bedrock (I emphasize should because this has never been done until now) is that the mass will simply continue producing heat until that heat is balanced by the absorption of heat by the surrounding material. Inside rock, that would mean a magma chamber around the cores of a size dependent on the size of the cores. If it hits water, though, the question becomes one of how much water will it take to absorb that much heat, and is there enough water to not flash into steam?

Some steam flashed when the cores with the water table as expected; we saw that a short time after the initial problems. Check the main thread for details.

The ocean would probably have enough mass to possibly prevent a steam explosion, although it would create a massive hot spot in the ocean. This would to some extent affect local currents as convection sat in. Any radiation would be carried along with these local currents and slowly dissipate as it passes through more water.

If anyone has ever watched a documentary on volcanoes and seen what happens when hot lava meets the ocean, you'll see that it is not a steam explosion. There is steam produced, but the majority of the heat is simply carried away by the water. That is similar to what would happen here, except that at depth there would likely be little to no steam reaching the surface and the cores will not cool into inert rock. They may cool below the freezing temperature and become a solid mass, but unlike the lava they will continue to produce heat and radiation.

If the cores are already in contact with water, it is highly unlikely they could be isolated from that water again. Chernobyl was able to be buried under concrete simply because the massive amount of concrete used could absorb the heat produced without disintegrating, similar to the way enough water can absorb that heat without causing a steam explosion. In this case, however, the local currents that such an event would produce in the area would make it extremely difficult if not impossible to contain the concrete long enough for it to cure. It would be like building a house of cards during a hurricane.

It looks like this one's gonna have to burn itself out.

TheRedneck

Whats it going to take, people to start losing there hair in California. Come on seriously, this is so bad, and world Governments with the man power, money, and resources just sit Idle. WTF


The ongoing Nuclear crisis at Fukushima, is beyond being a problem, its a DISASTER of epic proportion. Without a joint effort from the world community, this is going to become the worse Nuclear disaster of all time. With reprecutions from the leakage of the Radioactive material into the ocean. This isnt just a problem for Japan, but the entire World. WE need to begin a full time operation for the removal of fuel rods, and the construction of a containment vessel for the remainder of this Nuclear waste.

I have to wonder, if Governments around the world, believe this is a non-fixable situation. To risky, to costly, etc.. to devote man-power and reources to help contain this disaster. Why else hasnt anyone done anything. Are they waiting for this to fix itself, AHHHHHH this is almost unbelievable that this is occuring. My god

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
I dont know what to think of it anymore. Its a giant mess, a disaster of proportions humans have never seen.
We humans did this to ourselves and we only have ourselves to blame.

I still haven't heard anything about the tokyo aquifer that is supposedly real close to the plant.
If a good portion of japan's drinking water becomes contaminated how could they live there.

More so, having second hand knowledge of nuclear disasters....why would ANYONE want to stay.
Fukushima is a run away train, good luck trying to stop it. Damage control is all that can be done at this point.

If i were these people i would be leaving en mass.

Where do they go? If they can't smell, taste, or see it chances are they trust authorities when they tell them they're safe. It's amazing the crap people live around. They adapt. It's sad.

Thank you for the reply redneck,if its hit the water table shouldn't that water then rise up and flood the plant? and apart from contaminating the water wouldnt it be a good thing for it to continue melting down past the water table and into the earths crust,surely that should eliminate the radiation for us up above? if it starts melting into bedrock then the molten bedrock above it should solidify and seal it into the earths crust.

Finally if the cores have disappeared (apart from the 4th apparently) what are they pumping seawater onto?

reply to post by TheRedneck


Good info given in layman terms. Basically its like a never ending growth cycle; if not controlled by humans it is difficult to stop. So if no one's around to work at these plants they would eventually heat to explosion, or an EMP (unlikely global one) would be devastating if backup generators stopped. In the case of Fukushima even freezing wouldn't help as they would continue to produce heat and radiation - as you touch on. It's getting easier to see why you say this is about the path of least destruction rather than an intervention meant to stop further damage. Damage is inevitable. I've been reading that there is/was for sure structural damage but it appears they have reinforced structure 4 to make removal of spent rods safe. Thats the plan at this time (remove, transport, and resituate).

Im not trying to be dramatic but because recent reports give extreme worst case scenarios coupled with a high likelihood for human error I was hoping for some gaps to be filled in on this. Diversion or evasion from worst case by TEPCO or the IAEA leads me to believe they are substantiating these estimates: "equivalent of 14,000 Hiroshima's; extinction level event; unprecedented; will kill billions; removal of rods way too risky; must have no error on over 1000 attempts, etc. Experts from these organizations are not exactly stepping up to reassure the public.

I get that they don't know either but it seems it would put the public at ease to offset these global extinction claims. Or share that estimates for human error are exagerated, and then give their own ideas of what might be expected should the worst come to pass, If for nothing else - to establish a mind set should something go wrong. As it sits now people may assume it means certain, and probably instant death globally. This thinking could easily create mayhem if something went wrong because it may not be a global killer, and it wouldnt kill everything instantly. If anything it would take years minus the critical zone.

If a nuclear weapon goes off it kills in a certain vicinity only. If this can be applied to the equivalent of 14K nuclear weapons all at once - assuming there would even be a chain reaction event, I am thinking someone could get a fairly close estimate of the damage such an event would cause. Maybe its me wanting to be reassured it wouldn't be as bad as I'm reading. Certainly it would be the end of Japan, and would get into the jet stream but how exactly would it kill all life on the planet? Of course no one can know but there must be a better estimate than "end of all life".

Because this would probably not be a global killer people should be told what to do/expect (estimates of course). Take a potassium iodine? Go inside and wait to run out of food and water? Or know that in all likelihood within a months time the air will be clear. What is the critical range? If you live in the Eastern US few worries but if your in the West here is what you can do and can expect/ heres how it would affect China, etc. For those who would be in the critical zone give them enough information to make an informed decision. Evacuate a 100 mile radius and provide estimates of further possibilities. It seems with small room for human error coupled with catastrophic consequences this would be the socially responsible thing to do.

If experts simply say global killer, unprecedented, or meet these questions with diversions or silence than they also leave room for global chaos if something goes wrong. If it flashed across tv screens how Japan is now half gone coupled with information of how to protect self and what to expect it seems it would create more confussion than simply front loading some best estimates in advance. Maybe the most accurate information is in fact a super low margin of error, and end of life on earth if the unthinkable happens. If that's it than it is what it is.

Personally (at this time) this claim of extinction can't be reconciled in my mind. I believe the claim of there being no room for human error. The later part is what makes the claims of extinction level event relevant to me. I would love to hear if people agree with the extinction level event and why. If I could find more information on it on my own I wouldn't be asking. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place but thus far only the worst case scenario for the worst case scenario and a high likelihood of that happening.

I did the calculation the other day.

40 trillion becquerels is equivalent to approx. 1081 curries. So why stick to the trillion number instead of simplifying it. Obviously, because it sounds scarier and attracts more views to generate more revenue from hits.

There are 25 curries of tritium in a self illuminating emergency sign which we pass by regularly. So this release since the beginning is estimated to be around throwing 43 of those signs into the worlds oceans. Boohoo. The oceans already contain quite a bit more radioactive particles as is.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Solar reached price parity for many areas of the world a few years ago. It's not far far anything, except soon to be far far cheaper than coal.

reply to post by amurphy245

Embedding inside the earth's crust would probably indeed be a good thing, but remember this is just supposition. We really don't know if there are any unforeseen consequences that we have simply overlooked.

I do believe it is preferable to allowing the cores to continue releasing radiation on the surface.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Dianec

So if no one's around to work at these plants they would eventually heat to explosion, or an EMP (unlikely global one) would be devastating if backup generators stopped.

No.

It is physically impossible for a nuclear power plant to explode like an atomic bomb. While both use the same basic method of power generation, there are magnitudes of differences in how fast that power is generated. In order for a bomb to be feasible, it must be enriched to over 90% U235. A power plant operates on less than 20% U235. It's akin to the difference between jet fuel and kerosene... both come from oil, both burn, but it is almost impossible to get kerosene to explode... jet fuel will explode very easily.

As a U235 atom decays, it releases, among other things, energetic neutrons. If one of these energetic neutrons hits another U235 atom, that atom will also decay immediately and release more energetic neutrons. These then can hit other atoms of U235 and cause them to decay in a chain reaction. A nuclear bomb contains so much U235 in such close proximity to itself that it is almost certain that when one atom decays, it will cause more atoms to decay, which will cause more atoms to decay, which will lead to an almost immediate release of all of the energy contained in the U235 (the amount of fuel that will cause this reaction is called "critical mass"). The after effects of radiation from a bomb come from the fact that what the U235 splits into is also radioactive.

In a nuclear plant, there are so many U238 atoms compared to U235 atoms that the release cannot occur as quickly... instead it simply radiates heat and radioactivity. There is no critical mass like there is in a bomb, because there cannot possibly be enough U235 atoms in the material; there is far from enough enriched uranium in the mix to achieve the critical mass, since there is at least 80% of the mass that is relatively stable U238. But it can still produce a massive amount of heat and radioactivity... it is the heat that is used to drive the turbines by using it to produce steam.

I hope that clears up the question of why a nuclear plant cannot possibly explode like a nuclear bomb.

TheRedneck

reply to post by NTextinction

Please give me the information that shows that the cost of generation of solar energy (you must include the cost of building the facility) combined with the cost of storing and converting it to household AC power, is anywhere near on par with coal- or oil- fired generators.

Or are you telling me that there is a conspiracy to keep my personal costs for solar panels, battery banks, and inverters high while keeping them low for everyone else? My suppliers, even surplus suppliers, charge prices for all of the above that puts them far outside present costs for electricity.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


No conspiracy. Why are you only thinking locally? I said areas of the world. A quick google search will confirm this. Off the top of my head, Italy, Germany, Spain, India, and even a couple of cities in Cali have reached grid parity.

Of course you're considering the lifetime of the equipment purchased, correct? My area is expected to reach grid parity in 2015 in Texas. The price of the panels are dropping at an incredible rate in recent years. I think it's in the double digits per year. As the market expands, competition will drive the equipment to even lower standards regardless of tech increases.

I'm out on smartphone else would pull up a couple of links.

reply to post by NTextinction

The price is indeed dropping; I have seen that from my suppliers. But the cost is still extremely high. The cells and panels are experiencing the largest drop in my experience, but there's more to a solar plant than that. The power must be stored in batteries in order to provide a reliable supply, and the cost of high-density batteries is not dropping very fast. As of this post, the best I can find is a 12V 50 A-hr lead acid battery for about $75, which works out to a cost of $0.125 per watt-hour or $125 per kilowatt-hour just for storage.

I pay a price calculated in cents per kilowatt-hour right now.

Now consider the inverters that must be used... an inverter large enough to power a single house can cost thousands of dollars just to convert the power to usable form. One house... the ones that can handle megawatts for power production can cost millions of dollars and are maybe 50 efficient. That means they lose about half of the power you get from the sun, so double the panel cost.

There's so much more to solar power production than just setting panels in the sunlight, and a great deal of the high cost is associated with that other equipment.

I promise you, Texas will not reach parity any time soon... some people just want you to think they will.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Dianec

So if no one's around to work at these plants they would eventually heat to explosion, or an EMP (unlikely global one) would be devastating if backup generators stopped.

No.

It is physically impossible for a nuclear power plant to explode like an atomic bomb. While both use the same basic method of power generation, there are magnitudes of differences in how fast that power is generated. In order for a bomb to be feasible, it must be enriched to over 90% U235. A power plant operates on less than 20% U235. It's akin to the difference between jet fuel and kerosene... both come from oil, both burn, but it is almost impossible to get kerosene to explode... jet fuel will explode very easily.

As a U235 atom decays, it releases, among other things, energetic neutrons. If one of these energetic neutrons hits another U235 atom, that atom will also decay immediately and release more energetic neutrons. These then can hit other atoms of U235 and cause them to decay in a chain reaction. A nuclear bomb contains so much U235 in such close proximity to itself that it is almost certain that when one atom decays, it will cause more atoms to decay, which will cause more atoms to decay, which will lead to an almost immediate release of all of the energy contained in the U235 (the amount of fuel that will cause this reaction is called "critical mass"). The after effects of radiation from a bomb come from the fact that what the U235 splits into is also radioactive.

In a nuclear plant, there are so many U238 atoms compared to U235 atoms that the release cannot occur as quickly... instead it simply radiates heat and radioactivity. There is no critical mass like there is in a bomb, because there cannot possibly be enough U235 atoms in the material; there is far from enough enriched uranium in the mix to achieve the critical mass, since there is at least 80% of the mass that is relatively stable U238. But it can still produce a massive amount of heat and radioactivity... it is the heat that is used to drive the turbines by using it to produce steam.

I hope that clears up the question of why a nuclear plant cannot possibly explode like a nuclear bomb.

TheRedneck

Yes it actually answered all of my questions. Not nearly as dangerous as anti nuclear's make it out to be. Just needs to be built right the first time and well maintained. I can also see how it is an efficient power source. I wanted to do solar panels this last summer but found out what went into this project (as you state in here). They have a contest to make your home green each year so will probably enter this each year since its so expensive otherwise. Idea was to save on power bill. An alternate heat source would be ideal but not sure solar panels can do that too so not a solution for everything but they would sure be nice. Thanks for educating on Fukushima. Appreciated.

reply to post by alfa1

And what happens when super heated radioactive cores that can actually melt through stainless steel and the ground below gets into contact with cool to cold seawater? It's still called an explosion. Not only may the material be spread into the ocean in a manner that makes it impossible to recover, but perhaps also onto the land nearby.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Your figures make absolutely no sense whatsoever. The batteries are used as a means to store energy for use throughout the day when it's needed as solar output fluctuates throughout the day. It's continuously restored to a near full state for many cycles, just as a car battery would from an alternator.

if anyone cares about this issue in the slightest, they will do their homework and see grid parity figures in cost of equipment, install, maintenance, and energy degradation over it's lifetime. Your promise is based in ignorance, and I choose to dismiss it.

reply to post by NTextinction

It's continuously restored to a near full state for many cycles, just as a car battery would from an alternator.

True.

But what's the cycle time? For solar it is at least 24 hours (day/night cycle) and depending on weather can be longer than that. So for every kilowatt of power produced, you need a bank of batteries capable of supplying 24 kilowatt-hours of power or 24,000 watt-hours of power. A typical 12V lead-acid battery is rated somewhere around 50 amp-hours or 600 watt-hours. That means to provide one kilowatt of continuous power, assuming 100% efficiency, a storage facility equal to 40 12V lead-acid batteries is needed, just for the 24-hour cycle (applicable in a desert but not many other areas).

A house with a 200-amp entrance can pull 44 kilowatts of power. Typical usage is between 1 and 5 kilowatts average power depending on efficiency and size. So in order to supply one single home, just one, will require the equivalent of between 40 and 200 12V lead-acid batteries. The cost for this, assuming $75 per battery, is between $3000 and $15,000.

The 12V lead-acid battery is being used here because at present it is the cheapest and most dependable battery available. Other batteries have advantages, but these advantages are not in terms of price, energy density, and discharge rate. Typically the advantages other batteries have is in terms of weight and low maintenance.

All of that is still assuming 100% efficiency, which is far from realistic. 50% is more realistic considering the storage, charge control circuitry, inversion, etc., although still a stretch. That means to get that 1 kilowatt of power will require 2 kilowatts from the panels (about $10,000? estimating), the equivalent of 80 12V lead-acid batteries ($6000), and the inverters (only about $500 for that low level) to raise the low-voltage DC to household-level AC. Total: $16,500 equipment cost per kilowatt, or $16.50 per watt.

In most locations, actual sunshine can be assumed to be 75% of daytime hours, meaning 37.5% of actual time. In a ten-year period, there are 88,760 hours, which equate to almost 33,000 hours of useable sunlight. That comes out to $0.50 per kilowatt-hour, compared to the average cost of electricity in the US of about $0.12 per kilowatt-hour from the present grid. 1/4 the cost of solar, not counting buildings, land, maintenance, etc.

Nuclear is still leaps and bounds ahead of solar... as is almost every other generation method known to mankind.

TheRedneck