Japan Nuclear Coverage

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm talking about the building the emergency generators are in. If that collapses on the generators their functionality may be a tab bit reduced.

That didn't happen in Japan; why would you think it would be any different in the U.S. plants of the same design?

No two earthquakes are exactly the same. If it doesn't happen, I'm a happy camper.

[egbert]

I'm talking about the building the emergency generators are in. If that collapses on the generators their functionality may be a tab bit reduced.

That didn't happen to the diesel generators at Fukushima; why would you think it would be any different in the U.S. plants of the same design?

The sketchy information available indicates that the tsunami took out the fuel supply for the diesel generators. As well, electrical generators don't seem to like being inundated with salt water. Also, it is reported that the switchgear for the emergency generators was located in a basement room which was flooded. Even if pumped out, salt water and switchgear isn't a good prospect for a quick fix.
While it obviously isn't practical to design for every conceivable contingency, one can't help but wonder why the reactor and the spent fuel storage isn't located below grade, so that if disaster occurs, it's only necessary to open the floodgates and let gravity bring in the seawater, instead of relying on pumps and generators.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm talking about the building the emergency generators are in. If that collapses on the generators their functionality may be a tab bit reduced.

That didn't happen to the diesel generators at Fukushima; why would you think it would be any different in the U.S. plants of the same design?

The sketchy information available indicates that the tsunami took out the fuel supply for the diesel generators. As well, electrical generators don't seem to like being inundated with salt water. Also, it is reported that the switchgear for the emergency generators was located in a basement room which was flooded. Even if pumped out, salt water and switchgear isn't a good prospect for a quick fix.
While it obviously isn't practical to design for every conceivable contingency, one can't help but wonder why the reactor and the spent fuel storage isn't located below grade, so that if disaster occurs, it's only necessary to open the floodgates and let gravity bring in the seawater, instead of relying on pumps and generators.

Maybe because they didn't want radioactive seawater sluicing out into their littoral areas?

[egbert]

I'm talking about the building the emergency generators are in. If that collapses on the generators their functionality may be a tab bit reduced.

That didn't happen to the diesel generators at Fukushima; why would you think it would be any different in the U.S. plants of the same design?

The sketchy information available indicates that the tsunami took out the fuel supply for the diesel generators. As well, electrical generators don't seem to like being inundated with salt water. Also, it is reported that the switchgear for the emergency generators was located in a basement room which was flooded. Even if pumped out, salt water and switchgear isn't a good prospect for a quick fix.
While it obviously isn't practical to design for every conceivable contingency, one can't help but wonder why the reactor and the spent fuel storage isn't located below grade, so that if disaster occurs, it's only necessary to open the floodgates and let gravity bring in the seawater, instead of relying on pumps and generators.

Maybe because they didn't want radioactive seawater sluicing out into their littoral areas?

Gee, I wonder where the seawater that they're spraying on via firetrucks, dropping on via helicopters, and pumping in, is "sluicing out into"????? DUH!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm talking about the building the emergency generators are in. If that collapses on the generators their functionality may be a tab bit reduced.

That didn't happen to the diesel generators at Fukushima; why would you think it would be any different in the U.S. plants of the same design?

The sketchy information available indicates that the tsunami took out the fuel supply for the diesel generators. As well, electrical generators don't seem to like being inundated with salt water. Also, it is reported that the switchgear for the emergency generators was located in a basement room which was flooded. Even if pumped out, salt water and switchgear isn't a good prospect for a quick fix.
While it obviously isn't practical to design for every conceivable contingency, one can't help but wonder why the reactor and the spent fuel storage isn't located below grade, so that if disaster occurs, it's only necessary to open the floodgates and let gravity bring in the seawater, instead of relying on pumps and generators.

Maybe because they didn't want radioactive seawater sluicing out into their littoral areas?

Gee, I wonder where the seawater that they're spraying on via firetrucks, dropping on via helicopters, and pumping in, is "sluicing out into"????? DUH!

See? They had to do it anyway. But the Greens in Japan would never have allowed that system to be put in place when it was built.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Traces of radiation from Japanese nuclear plant surface in California

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Good morning, Bella, BBC says fallout from Fukushima has been spotted in Sacramento.

Have a nice day.

[Warren Dew]

The sketchy information available indicates that the tsunami took out the fuel supply for the diesel generators. As well, electrical generators don't seem to like being inundated with salt water. Also, it is reported that the switchgear for the emergency generators was located in a basement room which was flooded. Even if pumped out, salt water and switchgear isn't a good prospect for a quick fix.
While it obviously isn't practical to design for every conceivable contingency, one can't help but wonder why the reactor and the spent fuel storage isn't located below grade, so that if disaster occurs, it's only necessary to open the floodgates and let gravity bring in the seawater, instead of relying on pumps and generators.

The diesel generators are not in the reactor building. You could elevate both the switchgear and the diesel generators, but then the vulnerability to a typhoon increases. Instead, they chose to build an extensive system of jetties break up any incoming tsunami:



Unfortunately this tsunami was bigger than they designed for; presumably they only designed for the biggest one that was ever known to hit Japan. As you say, they can't design for every possible contingency.

To flood the reactor building using gravity fill, the reactor would not only have to be below grade, but below sea level. That would increase the amount of radiactivity widely released to the environment in the case of a more severe meltdown, because the nonvolatile radioactives would escape into the groundwater and the ocean rather than being confined to the site.

On the whole, I think the plant design is doing fairly well at limiting the radioactive release to the general public, given the severity of the accident. Radiation levels are 10s or 100s of times lower than from Chernobyl. This is after an earthquake and tsunami that was more severe than, as best I can tell, any in the world for centuries - the last Richter 9 earthquake I can find was the Lisbon earthquake of 1755.

No one has died yet from the Fukushima reactor accident, and although a few probably will eventually, it will be a tiny fraction of the 7000+ that have already died from the earthquake and tsunami. The only reason international news is particularly concerned with the reactor accident is that the rest of the damage is confined to Japan, while it's possible that the radiation may affect foreign countries. And of course, if it was a coal plant emitting a plume of equally dangerous particulates instead of a nuclear plant emitting radioactives, it probably still wouldn't make the news.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's Chernobyl all over again, only worse. Chernobyl was one reactor - this is FOUR reactors, PLUS FOUR spent fuel storage pools.

Good to see you can count. Maybe next you'll work on qualitative judgments. As pointed out above, there are major differences in containment structures which relegate this post to the status of "hysteria."

Really. So tell us how the spent fuel pools are being "refilled" by dropping water from helicopters, if these pools are enclosed in "containment"?

Advice: more time looking at information, less time posting. The hydrogen explosions removed secondary containment. The issue at Chernobyl was an exposed reactor core being torn apart by graphite explosions.

That's not the case here. The explosions have removed secondary containment and have indeed partially breached one primary container -- which fact you could not have know when you made the above post, by the by. What they haven't done is blown reactor-core material around.

But golly, FOUR COUNT 'EM FOUR reactors sounds a lot scarier.

[egbert]

The Fukushima plant was actually fine after the earthquake. It was the tsunami that wiped out the switchgear and incapacitated the emergency diesel power.

Yeah, we know. Your point is?

[egbert]

It was fine while the power was on. All the tsunami did was cut off the power. That could happen here without a tsunami.

In the U.S., there was actually a "station blackout" initiative in the early 1990s that required all plants to show they could survive a loss of power.

I suspect Fukushima could also have survived if the tsunami hadn't flooded out their switchgear. Disabling of the diesel generators was separate from the loss of power to the site.

Generators were my job in the Navy. Drop a building on them and they don't work so good.

Tell us more - I'm dying to hear details of the buildings dropped on the diesel generators! You must have a very unique inside source of news.

[egbert]

More good news. There are four reactors of the Fukushima design in Illinois.

Better start worrying if a tsunami hits Chicago.

If you want to see the longest fault in the United States, just trace the Mississippi. Then look to see where the reactors actually are.

But not a currently active one, I believe. At least not at a level beyond fairly modest tremours...

Yep, and we're over due for another ginormous quake according to the nerds.

Any particular location, or just the world in general?

[egbert]

Generators were my job in the Navy. Drop a building on them and they don't work so good.

That's why you don't build additional buildings on top of nuclear power plants.

By the way, nuclear power plants were my job in the Navy.

Well, we can certainly trust the US Navy for nuclear info ! Tell us about the USS Thresher....

[egbert]

Generators were my job in the Navy. Drop a building on them and they don't work so good.

That's why you don't build additional buildings on top of nuclear power plants.

By the way, nuclear power plants were my job in the Navy.

I'm talking about the building the emergency generators are in. If that collapses on the generators their functionality may be a tab bit reduced.

Oh. I guess the navy taught you that salt water floods are good for electrical generators - it's just buildings on top you gotta watch out fer!

[egbert]

[quote="Gawdzilla
I'm talking about the building the emergency generators are in. If that collapses on the generators their functionality may be a tab bit reduced.[/quote]

Yeah, that's obviously the main concern. Navy training teaches that salt water flushes are good for running generators!