Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on August 15, 2013
Dangerous Operation at Fukushima’s Reactor No. 4 Could Ignite “Atomic Chain Reaction”
Attempt to remove fuel rods from crippled building could cause “unprecedented” disaster
Threatening to trigger a new—and possibly more devastating—nuclear disaster than the original or ongoing one at the Fukishima plant in Japan, a risky plan to remove fuel rods from a damaged reactor building could unleash an “unprecedented” level of radiation, according to experts, if things go wrong.
According to reporting by Reuters, the radioactive material within the fuel rods slated for removal are equivalent to 14,000 times the amount released in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and the plan to move them “has never been attempted before on this scale.”
The 400 tons of highly irradiated spent fuel and other nuclear materials will be taken from the crippled building and moved to a safer location, but the manner of the operation should be put in serious doubt, say the experts.
“They are going to have difficulty in removing a significant number of the rods,” said Arnie Gundersen, a veteran U.S. nuclear engineer and director of Fairewinds Energy Education. The fuel rods are being stored in a cooling pool, but if a reaction begins, Gundersen expressed serious concern to Reuters about the company’s ability to respond.
“To jump to the conclusion that it is going to work just fine,” said Gundersen, “is quite a leap of logic.”
“There is a risk of an inadvertent criticality if the bundles are distorted and get too close to each other,” Gundersen continued.
“The problem with a fuel pool criticality is that you can’t stop it. There are no control rods to control it,” he said. “The spent fuel pool cooling system is designed only to remove decay heat, not heat from an ongoing nuclear reaction.”
Reuters also quoted from a recent independent report which stated, a “full release from the Unit-4 spent fuel pool, without any containment or control, could cause by far the most serious radiological disaster to date.”
The site’s operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has been mired in crisis ever since an earthquake and tsunami severely damaged the plant 2011. Most recently it was discovered that as much as 300 tons of “highly radioactive water” has been pouring into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis from the plant, with no promising remedy offered by either the plant’s owner TEPCO or the Japanese government.
18 Comments on "Dangerous Operation at Fukushima’s Reactor No. 4 Could Ignite “Atomic Chain Reaction”"
bobinget on Thu, 15th Aug 2013 11:44 pm
Keep in mind, this has never happened before. At this point, the entire future of nuclear energy, future Japanese prosperity, is dependent on Tepco employees and hired guns from the US and elsewhere.
Even if fuel rods transfer comes off as planned,
there still is a little matter of trillions of gallons of radio-active water coming our way. I’ll guess folks in Hawaii will be the first to know.
http://www.imsresearch.com/press-release/japan_set_to_become_world%E2%80%99s_largest_solar_revenue_market_in_2013_as_installations_boom_in_q1.
Japan will be installing enough solar power to replace
one nuke per year. At this rate it will take another 18 years, at the current rate of PV efficiency. I’m certain, almost, that because of a crash program and increased
productivity Japan can be nuke free before 2020.
BillT on Fri, 16th Aug 2013 1:20 am
5.2 HOKKAIDO, JAPAN REGION – August 13th
5.0 NEAR EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN – 12th
5.2 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN – 9th
5.8 NEAR EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN – 4th
5.0 EASTERN HONSHU, JAPAN – 3rd
Etc.
This is just this month, August, so far and only those over a 5 on the scale. Many smaller ones happen everyday. After all, it IS the Ring of Fire. So, how long before Fukushima gets another big one?
http://globaldisasterwatch.blogspot.com/
Randy on Fri, 16th Aug 2013 3:32 am
“The problem with a fuel pool criticality is that you can’t stop it. There are no control rods to control it,”
While a true statement, boron and gadolinium can be added to the water and in effect act the same as control rods to help reduce the possibility of criticality.
Tepco has lost all credibility but with the number of foreign companies ( including American ones) arriving onsite the expertise to at least remove some of the fuel rods safely will be available.
The radioactive water pouring into the ocean is not a good thing but there is a saying in the nuclear world, ” The solution to pollution is dilution.”
Arthur on Fri, 16th Aug 2013 4:27 am
As Bill indicates, nukes in Japan are lunacy. The Japanese are in a difficult position since they are up their ears in debt. Nevertheless it seems that current global solar production overcapacity could quickly didappear.
SilentRunning on Fri, 16th Aug 2013 4:58 am
This article is just hysterical fear mongering.
Removing spent fuel rods from the cooling pool is something sensible that SHOULD be done to minimize further accidents. It is progress towards stabilizing the situation.
The chances of stray criticality are minimal, because the fuel rods are already end of life, and are filled with large amounts of nuclear “poisons” that make sustaining a nuclear reaction with them difficult. Not surprisingly, that is why nuclear reactors have to have spent fuel rods removed. The nuclear industry doesn’t swap out old fuel rods for the fun of it.
SilentRunning on Fri, 16th Aug 2013 5:03 am
BTW: The article is complete bogus when it says there is no way to control any hypothetical nuclear reaction in a spent fuel pool. I suggest they look up the concept of boron moderators – it’s any any introductory textbook on nuclear technology.
BillT on Fri, 16th Aug 2013 5:29 am
But, Silent, what if the reaction is going on under a lake of sea water and sand? Maybe buried? The whole mess is one shake away from such a scenario.
If you know so much, go and help them do the job. After all, their engineers may not know what you know.
bobinget on Fri, 16th Aug 2013 2:49 pm
Bill, please refrain from personal invective.
While the situation in Fukushima may Not be as serious as portrayed, it’s public perception that matters. We need people like Silent to lend their
obviously more educated opinions, if for nothing else then to calm down panic shouting.
Tepco has already received outside consulting, lets hope it’s the best advice money can buy.
rollin on Fri, 16th Aug 2013 4:25 pm
The real questions should have been asked before any nuclear plants were allowed to be built. Yet, time and again industrial and biochemical processes are allowed into the environment and are rarely stopped, even if the systems prove extremely hazardous.
Why is no one asking the hard questions up front? Why is regulation minimal and always after the fact?
Bob Owens on Fri, 16th Aug 2013 5:53 pm
We have to deal with the reality we face. Like it or not, the fuel rods must be removed and put into dry casks for storage. This must be done, if not now then eventually. Given the unstable situation moving them now may be the best of a bunch of bad choices. We really can’t wait for the next earthquake to mix up all those radioactive fuel rods into a creamy cake batter that will bubble poison into the air and water for decades. No, we have to move forward as best we can. Japan will also need to turn some of the nuke plants back on in order to maintain enough power for their society. Again, it will be the best of a bunch of bad choices Japan will have to make in the future.
Lobo on Fri, 16th Aug 2013 6:29 pm
Silent, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that you probably know some stuff about nuclear physics/technology; possibly even studying it in school, based on your condescending post in regards to the situation. However, calling this article “Hysterical Fear Mongering” is a tad over the top, don’t you think? I mean, when something that has the potential to affect the entire planet is on the table, isn’t it justified to expect the worst and be prepared for it? It is in my strong opinion that this article is doing an excellent thing and demonstrating worst case scenario so that people will have the best understanding of just how dangerous this type of situation is.
Stefan Bennett on Fri, 16th Aug 2013 8:28 pm
So what of the reports about 300 + tons of radioactive seawater being flushed every day and their future effect on the world… are those overblown as well? Would like to hear some expertise here, there’s so much “blog” info out there spreading reports of negative impacts on the US and rest of the world.
Patsy on Fri, 16th Aug 2013 8:38 pm
Dear Father Thee I am.. HELP all these MEn an Scientists come up witht he best Possible IDea, To stop the disaster from happening. LEt all stabilize, an whatever else is needed. You gave men ability to be smart an think things up.. Give them the ability for the answers to fix it. An Give them better Ideas how to make far better thigns for our future, that will not harm humanity an creatures, an especially no the air we need to live, an water also to live. IN JEsus Christ HolY An Blessed name AMEN I plead the Blood of The Lamb Jesus oN This Prayer… amen
Charlie Bucket on Fri, 16th Aug 2013 9:04 pm
Nice job Lobo!
Randy on Sat, 17th Aug 2013 4:00 am
It would be just as accurate to title the article, Dangerous operation at Fukushima’s Reactor number 4 could prevent “Atomic Chain Reaction” in the future. Failure to attempt to remove fuel rods could cause “unprecedented” disaster.
It is also accurate to say that any time nuclear fuel is handled in a spent fuel bay there is a risk of inadvertent criticality if the fuel is mishandled.
The bottom line is the fuel has to be moved at some point, boron and/or gadolinium can be used as a poison to reduce the possibility of criticality, external contractors can and will provide the equipment and the expertise to remove the fuel as safely as possible.
The contractors involved in moving the fuel will have more experience in dealing with spent fuel and a first hand awareness of the situation that is far more complete than the experts who contributed to the article. Unlike the experts who have more to gain financially from sensationalizing the situation, the contractors have more to gain financially from solving problems since success will put them in line for more contracts at Fukushima in the future.
SilentRunning on Sat, 17th Aug 2013 6:41 am
Bill wrote:
>But, Silent, what if the reaction is going on under a lake of sea water and sand? Maybe buried? The whole mess is one shake away from such a scenario.
Then the best thing to do is to remove as many of the fuel rods from the cooling pool, and getting them to safer dry cask storage.
>If you know so much, go and help them do the job. After all, their engineers may not know what you know.
Any nuclear engineer over there had better know as much, or more than I do on the subject. I have a relative who is a nuclear engineer, and we have discussed the Fukushima fiasco frequently.
Believe me, I am sickened by all the senseless contamination and misery this meltdown has caused and will continue to cause. A formerly beautiful area of Japan has been rendered uninhabitable for decades to centuries to come.
Niav on Sat, 17th Aug 2013 2:12 pm
“The bottom line is the fuel has to be moved at some point, boron and/or gadolinium can be used as a poison to reduce the possibility of criticality, external contractors can and will provide the equipment and the expertise to remove the fuel as safely as possible.”
The timing to remove the rods is the problem. Sure they can handle the rods quite safely in a fully functional facility but that’s not what they have in Japan.
The whole site is still a big mess and they are far from ready to “remove the fuel as safely as possible” but they will do it anyway because the cooling pool present a considerable risk of collapsing before they are ready to handle the rods as safely as it should be done.
They must consider that the risk of a mishandling right now is smaller than the risk of an earthquake in the next few years but that risk is still there and the consequences could be as dramatic as the collapse of the building.
luap on Wed, 21st Aug 2013 9:47 am
just seen on news channels about fukushima..6 days later than this report..also nothing mentioned about the 300 tons of radioactive water per day going into ocean….can anybody expain why the news channels are so slow(bbc france24 al jazeera eng rt )and also miss the most important facts