Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

[c1ue]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

Concern about a spent fuel fire reported in the MSM centered on the ponds at #3 and #4, not #5 & #6. The MSM reported that temperatures had risen in #5 & #6, but I don't recall this being represented as an immediate crisis at the time of the reports. Most of the reporting, and concern, centered on the pools at #3 and #4. Do you recall TEPCO reporting earlier that they couldn't get close enough to observe those ponds directly, but that water levels were 'low' -- hence the efforts with the helicopters and water cannon? Also, it was the chairman of the NRC who said in Congressional testimony that the NRC thought the pond at #4 was dry, and that spent fuel was breaking down -- if the MSM reports that, it isn't the MSM that is guilty of scare-mongering. You could argue that our NRC was overly pessimistic or jumped to conclusions, but that isn't the fault of the MSM. Personally, it seems like a pretty good bet that spent rods at one or both of those ponds were at least partially exposed and smoldering at one point, although the workers were able to avert the worst case scenario conflagration. I'm thinking that most of the radioactive iodine that was released must have come from that source, since it is volatile, and can cook out of rods at a lower temperature than required to spread the heavier decay products. Want to take a bet at this point about what the final report on the disaster will find?

The problem with the commentary above is:

1) If the Japanese can't get close enough to observe the fuel ponds, how can anyone be saying there's a fire? Or that they're empty/full/partially full?

2) The NRC politician (despite his PhD, never has actually done anything involving engineering in the nuclear field or anywhere else) made his statement on March 16.

The IAEA itself had put up this statement based on TEPco's information:

Spent fuel that has been removed from a nuclear reactor generates intense heat and is typically stored in a water-filled spent fuel pool to cool it and provide protection from its radioactivity. Water in a spent fuel pool is continuously cooled to remove heat produced by spent fuel assemblies. According to IAEA experts, a typical spent fuel pool temperature is kept below 25 °C under normal operating conditions. The temperature of a spent fuel pool is maintained by constant cooling, which requires a constant power source.
Given the intense heat and radiation that spent fuel assemblies can generate, spent fuel pools must be constantly checked for water level and temperature. If fuel is no longer covered by water or temperatures reach a boiling point, fuel can become exposed and create a risk of radioactive release. The concern about the spent fuel pools at Fukushima Daiichi is that sources of power to cool the pools may have been compromised.
The IAEA can confirm the following information regarding the temperatures of the spent nuclear fuel pools at Units 4, 5 and 6 at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant:

Unit 4
14 March, 10:08 UTC:	84 °C
15 March, 10:00 UTC:	84 °C
16 March, 05:00 UTC:	no data
Unit 5
14 March, 10:08 UTC:	59.7 °C
15 March, 10:00 UTC:	60.4 °C
16 March, 05:00 UTC:	62.7 °C
Unit 6
14 March, 10:08 UTC:	58.0 °C
15 March, 10:00 UTC:	58.5 °C
16 March, 05:00 UTC:	60.0 °C

The IAEA is continuing to seek further information about the water levels, temperature and condition of all spent fuel pool facilities at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

The usual suspects were already screaming on 3/15 that there were glowing bits, etc:

http://www.infowars.com/alert-fukush...lown-sky-high/

http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy...to-catch-fire/

But not just Alex Jones and firedoglake, also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/wo...ia/15fuel.html

Experts now fear that the pool containing those rods from the fourth reactor has run dry, allowing the rods to overheat and catch fire. That could spread radioactive materials far and wide in dangerous clouds.

Ah yes, the New York Times.

I noted previously that I was concerned about the SNF for Fukushima #1, Reactor 4 - because that reactor was shut down right before the earthquake for maintenance purposes. It is likely therefore that the SNF for Reactor 4 contained many more and much hotter spent fuel rods than the others. The actual situation depended on how Reactor 4 was shut down - via allowing the fuel to run out or some other means.

As for the bet, you put up your side.

From my side:

1) I would not be surprised that there were one or more leaks in the SNFs due to earthquake damage.

2) I would not be surprised that water was boiling at SNF for Reactor #4, because it was close already at one point (84 degrees C on Tuesday plus a leak or minus cooling) - only a 19 degree difference plus phase change energy.

3) Fuel rod exposure - again possible, but the provenance is important. Exposure due to a SNF leak from structural damage is very different from fuel rod exposure due to too much heat.

4) The fuel rods in the SNFs never approached 1200 degrees C. I stand on this.

5) The fuel rods never caught fire due to their own energy. I also stand on this.

6) Full containment breach never occurred at any Fukushima reactor. Ditto.

What's your side of the tale and what are the stakes?

[don]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

Humor is as needed as technical clarity. Coulter's conservative neoliberal shtick is the necessary counterpart (the dog) to the Bill Maher liberal neoconservative pony.

[ASH]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

The problem with the commentary above is:

1) If the Japanese can't get close enough to observe the fuel ponds, how can anyone be saying there's a fire? Or that they're empty/full/partially full?

...

I noted previously that I was concerned about the SNF for Fukushima #1, Reactor 4 - because that reactor was shut down right before the earthquake for maintenance purposes.

I think I read too much into your original statement ("So what does this say about the bulls*** stories about fires, and floating plutonium/cesium/uranium/strontium/whatever?"). I thought you were deriding those who expressed worry about the status of the spent fuel pools, as opposed to those who were expressing certainty about a disaster there. What I was getting at by mentioning the reported inability of the Japanese to observe the pools directly is that this implied hazardous conditions near the spent fuel ponds, and was therefore a rational basis for concern. But I guess you weren't poo-pooing the possibility of a problem -- you were complaining about those who said a spent fuel fire was certain.

2) The NRC politician (despite his PhD, never has actually done anything involving engineering in the nuclear field or anywhere else) made his statement on March 16.

I figure that when senior bureaucrats give testimony to Congress, they are often communicating the technical judgement of their agency or commission, rather than their individual opinion. But anyway, I didn't appreciate that you were talking about the Alex Jones end of things.

As for the bet, you put up your side.

From my side:

1) I would not be surprised that there were one or more leaks in the SNFs due to earthquake damage.

2) I would not be surprised that water was boiling at SNF for Reactor #4, because it was close already at one point (84 degrees C on Tuesday plus a leak or minus cooling) - only a 19 degree difference plus phase change energy.

3) Fuel rod exposure - again possible, but the provenance is important. Exposure due to a SNF leak from structural damage is very different from fuel rod exposure due to too much heat.

4) The fuel rods in the SNFs never approached 1200 degrees C. I stand on this.

5) The fuel rods never caught fire due to their own energy. I also stand on this.

6) Full containment breach never occurred at any Fukushima reactor. Ditto.

What's your side of the tale and what are the stakes?

Unfortunately, there's not much of a bet to be had here. I think that spent fuel rods were at least partially exposed at one point, and were probably the major source of radioactive iodine that has been detected. But iodine is volatile, and can be released at a much lower temperature than chemical ignition for a fuel rod; I haven't seen anything that suggests they ever caught fire. That seems to fit within your terms #1 - #5. The only point on which we may differ is #6, and that depends upon how you define 'full containment breach'? I think that there probably was a breach in #2 by which gases were able to escape. The stakes would only be bragging rights -- not something you'd have to win a bet for, anyway.

[c1ue]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

I figure that when senior bureaucrats give testimony to Congress, they are often communicating the technical judgement of their agency or commission, rather than their individual opinion. But anyway, I didn't appreciate that you were talking about the Alex Jones end of things.

Dr. Jaczko's full statement:

“We believe that the secondary barrier has been shattered and there was no water in the pool of fuel. This makes extremely high radiation levels that may affect the ability to take corrective action"

If the first part is correct, then the 2nd part is reasonable. But I'm still waiting to see where Jaczko got the first part from. If indeed the secondary barrier was shattered - how then was there water in the SNF for 2 full days after the earthquake and before this statement was made?

Secondly you didn't note that I also include the New York Times in the list of alarmist crap.

Yes, the NY Times article had more balance, but all the scary stuff was in the first 6 paragraphs with the little facts buried WAAAYYYYY down low.

The only difference between the NYT article and the Chicken Little sites is probably the likelihood of being sued.

Unfortunately, there's not much of a bet to be had here. I think that spent fuel rods were at least partially exposed at one point, and were probably the major source of radioactive iodine that has been detected. But iodine is volatile, and can be released at a much lower temperature than chemical ignition for a fuel rod; I haven't seen anything that suggests they ever caught fire. That seems to fit within your terms #1 - #5. The only point on which we may differ is #6, and that depends upon how you define 'full containment breach'? I think that there probably was a breach in #2 by which gases were able to escape. The stakes would only be bragging rights -- not something you'd have to win a bet for, anyway.

Full breach of containment = molten nuclear material broke through all 3 levels of reactor containment and was exposed to the outside - whether air or ground.

You also fail to note that seawater flooding of the reactors - with subsequent vapor releases - could easily also release iodine/cesium without actually breaching containment.

Sea water itself contains iodine; between that and the very high temperature/free neutron environment inside the reactor - it isn't overly surprising that something came out.

Given the heat energy levels I noted above - it also wouldn't be surprising if there was some partial melting of one or more fuel rods inside one of the reactors. This also - via the steam releases - could explain the by products.

But any of these above causes are at least 2 orders of magnitude less than a reactor breach much less a fission explosion a la Chernobyl. Scrape the web for mentions of Chernobyl from 3/14 to today.

Again, the failure to actually report the facts makes comprehension difficult.