Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday July 23 2017, @10:53AM   Printer-friendly

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-22/japan-pictures-likely-show-melted-fukushima-fuel-for-first-time

New images show what is likely to be melted nuclear fuel hanging from inside one of Japan's wrecked Fukushima reactors, a potential milestone in the cleanup of one of the worst atomic disasters in history.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc., Japan's biggest utility, released images on Friday showing a hardened black, grey and orange substance that dripped from the bottom of the No. 3 reactor pressure vessel at Fukushima, which is likely to contain melted fuel, according to Takahiro Kimoto, an official at the company. The company sent a Toshiba-designed robot, which can swim and resembles a submarine, to explore the inside of the reactor for the first time on July 19.

"Never before have we taken such clear pictures of what could be melted fuel," Kimoto said at a press briefing that began at 9 p.m. Friday in Tokyo, noting that it would take time to analyze and confirm whether it is actually fuel. "We believe that the fuel melted and mixed with the metal directly underneath it. And it is highly likely that we have filmed that on Friday."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:26PM (18 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:26PM (#543374) Journal

    Modded touche? FFS, people, Japan as MOUNTAINS on their islands. The original AC's question is pertinent: WTF build a reactor within areas which have been flooded by tsunamis within recorded history? Some arrogant asses thought they had all the bases covered, right? Prudent policy makers would have required that these things be located at least 100 feet higher in elevation than ANY recorded tsunami. The *most* convincing argument that I have heard for building so close to the sea, is that cooling water is readily available. But, again, WTF? The plant generates electricity, which can be used to pump sea water a few extra miles, and another 100 ft elevation, right?

    For the record, reality has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was stupid, stupid, criminally stupid, to build so close to the sea.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by kaszz on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:38PM (12 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:38PM (#543409) Journal

    Even better build the reactor facilities to handle complete submerging. After all if nuclear submarines can handle this. Then on land power stations surely can be built to do the same.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:29PM (9 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:29PM (#543424) Journal

      Interesting idea. I wonder if it's possible, and if it's feasible. Of course, it's not enough just to make it submergible - it has to withstand the impact of tens of thousands of tons of moving water. Submarines generally don't suffer such an impact. Offhand, I'll say it's probably possible. But, I think it's probably more feasible to build further from the water, than to build a structure strong enough to remain water tight after impact.

      Someone might have fun doing a computer simulation to see how your idea could be made to work!

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:18PM (7 children)

        by kaszz (4211) on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:18PM (#543433) Journal

        Submarines have batteries and snorkels. Concrete can be made watertight. Water ramming can be handled using concrete blocks or rocks.

        The risk with far away facilities is pipe maintenance and rupture.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 24 2017, @01:45AM (6 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 24 2017, @01:45AM (#543544) Journal

          In Winter Harbor, Main, there is a road built out to the point. It goes through the park, past the gates to the Navy installation, and out onto the point. The point has no "beach", as most people think of it. Instead, the shore is littered with huge rocks, ranging from some small enough to fit into a dump truck, up to thousands of tons. It's an awesome place to be, during a storm. You can hear the rocks moving from far off, you can feel the vibrations as they hammer against each other. Of course, you can't sit there and watch during the worst storms, because your car is likely to be thrown into the hillside behind the turnaround, or even sucked into the sea by receding water.

          It isn't unheard of for a few of those huge rocks to be thrown up onto the parking area, after a bad storm. Unusual, yes, but not unheard of.

          I wonder, Kaszz, if you have ever witnessed just how powerful the water is. Personally, I can't trust concrete or rocks to turn a hammerblow from the ocean.

          • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday July 24 2017, @06:33AM (5 children)

            by kaszz (4211) on Monday July 24 2017, @06:33AM (#543586) Journal

            If this is a problem. Then anchor any protection as far deep down into the ground as needed. Or simply bury the facility such that a flat plane is presented horizontally towards the sea. Besides this application is mainly about tsunami and not so much wave hammering.

            Btw, regarding Winter Harbor, Main. How high are the wave maximum? how fast is the wind speed?

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 24 2017, @08:16AM (4 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 24 2017, @08:16AM (#543610) Journal

              The highest waves I ever saw coming in to the point were about 15 feet high. There was evidence of higher waves than that. Wind? I can't even guess, but local wind conditions have little effect on the sea conditions. I sat here for a minute, trying to figure how to convey how it feels to stand on that shoreline during a storm. Let's try this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Perfect_Storm [wikipedia.org] More specifically, down the page, you'll find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Perfect_Storm#New_England_and_Atlantic_Canada [wikipedia.org]

              Elsewhere in New England, waves up to 30 ft (9.1 m) reached as far north as Maine,[1] along with tides that were 3 ft (0.91 m) above normal.[20] Significant flooding was reported in that state, along with high winds that left areas without power. A total of 49 houses were severely damaged, 2 were destroyed,[1] and overall more than 100 were affected.[25] In Kennebunkport, the storm blew out windows and flooded the vacation home of then-President George H. W. Bush.[2] The home sustained significant damage to its first floor.[26] In Portland, tides were 3 ft (0.91 m) above normal, among the ten highest tides since record-keeping began in 1914. Along the coast, damage was worse than that caused by Hurricane Bob two months prior.[25] Across Maine, the storm left $7.9 million (1991 USD) in damage,[1] mostly in York County.[25] More than half of the damage total was from property damage, with the remainder to transportation, seawalls, and public facilities.[25] Although there were no deaths, there were two injuries in the state.

              I wasn't there in '91, it's hard to say how the storms I witnessed compared to the Perfect Storm. Thirty foot seas on top of an especially high tide, and 75 mph winds hitting the shoreline have got to be pretty damned awe inspiring. People probably heard the noise, and felt the vibrations pretty far inland. Five to ten miles? Much less severe storms could be felt through the ground about two to three miles inland. At some point, of course, the sounds and vibrations of a distant shoreline phenomena is going to be drowned out by more immediate weather conditions.

              • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday July 24 2017, @10:27AM (3 children)

                by kaszz (4211) on Monday July 24 2017, @10:27AM (#543625) Journal

                15 feet high = 4.6 m

                Assuming a sine wave 0..pi and a attack surface at half height that would mean something like 39 kPa on the half ballpark with a fighter jet engine running full throttle. Surely a structure can be built to handle that?
                A 1 meter width wave would have the mass of circa 9200 kg, that is a lot but impossible to handle?

                The load case would be pushing a specific pressure upon a structure and then relying on that the foundation would not fracture due to opposite forces horizontally. Don't recall the math for this. Maybe someone else have the ballpark for concrete.

                75 mph = 33 m/s

                That is something like 694 Pa (71 kg on one square meter). Possible to handle too?

                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 24 2017, @12:23PM (1 child)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 24 2017, @12:23PM (#543646) Journal

                  Maybe the structure can handle it. But, something that needs to be factored in, is the entire front will be hit. If you have half a mile of bulwarks, all of that half mile will come under the same pressure, and probably all at the same time. If there is any difference in timing, it will be slight.

                  And, I have to bring up the canal that failed in New Orleans, after Katrina. The wall didn't have to withstand a frontal assault, and there should have been no reason for it to fail. Except, water and sewer department crews had performed maintenance some years earlier. They lifted some sections of retaining wall out of the canal, then replaced them, without removing the soil and repacking that soil. The wall was undermined by the pressure going under the wall.

                  If concrete is the solution, then that wall must be dug in deep, and the earth stabilized around the wall after it is poured. I suspect that the structure should look something like a buttress dam, when finished - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttress_dam [wikipedia.org]

                  Personally, I don't have the formulas or the math skills to figure out just what is needed here. All I can do, is bear witness that water can, and does, defeat some of man's best laid plans. As often as not, those defeats are the responsibility of bean counters, rather than the engineers. If accountants tell you that you CANNOT build to the specs you want, then what? If you don't build to the specs approved by the money-counters, then someone else will.

                  One thing I know for sure is, the further from the shore, the less force the water will carry when it finally reaches the structure. And, the higher you build, the less likely that the water will even reach your structure. Distance and elevation are almost free - I would take advantage of them, as much as possible.

                  TheLink supplied this link in his comment: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/08/how_tenacity_a_wall_saved_a_ja.html [oregonlive.com] You are correct, in that walls work. But, the article is all about the fight to have the wall built RIGHT, rather than cheaply.

                  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday July 25 2017, @04:39PM

                    by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday July 25 2017, @04:39PM (#544216) Journal

                    It won't matter if the entire front is hammered. As long as each surface of it is supported by a proper anchor. It should preferably have some wave break ahead which can have slightly less horizontal load bearing capacity.

                    The walls in New Orleans (re Katrina) had insufficient foundation due to insufficient maintenance.. ie bean counters in high government.

                    Concrete or rock, structural integrity and anchoring as per strict calculation is everything more or less.

                    Bean counters can be exposed to the public to make them do the right thing. Not that the public is that bright..

                    The Japanese tsunami made it obvious that distance is not much of a protection. But elevation on solid foundation is. The alternative being solid foundation and water tight compartment.

                    Onagawa plant proves that stubborn engineering is the way ;)
                    The hard thing is to repeat that feat.
                    Anyway Yasuzaemon Matsunaga [ndl.go.jp] (1875 - 1971) trained Yanosuke Hirai (1902 - 1986), that trained Tatsuji Oshima (1930 - ).

                    "Matsunaga-san hated bureaucrats," Oshima said. "He said they are like human trash. In your country, too, there are probably bureaucrats or officials who never take final responsibility. "So Matsunaga's attitude was that you've got to go beyond the regulations,"

                    So true!

                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 24 2017, @12:28PM

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 24 2017, @12:28PM (#543648) Journal

                  Also, scroll down to the links supplied by requerdanos. Elevation and distance played a role at Fukishima, in that the generators were placed in the basements.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheLink on Monday July 24 2017, @06:39AM

        by TheLink (332) on Monday July 24 2017, @06:39AM (#543587) Journal

        There was another plant where they spent more and built it right: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/08/how_tenacity_a_wall_saved_a_ja.html [oregonlive.com]

        Hirai said the plant should be built almost 50 feet above sea level. He called for a unique cooling system that would provide water even if a receding tsunami temporarily left the plant high and dry. And Hirai said the plant should be protected by a seawall 49 feet high, not 10 feet as originally designed.

        Colleagues told Tohoku Electric's president that 39 feet would be sufficient. But Hirai, trained by the formidable Yasuzaemon Matsunaga, known as Japan's king of electric power, disagreed.

        "Matsunaga-san hated bureaucrats," Oshima said. "He said they are like human trash. In your country, too, there are probably bureaucrats or officials who never take final responsibility.

        Thing is, it cost a president's job to do so:

        Finally, Oshima said, Tohoku's president agreed to spend more for the higher wall -- before resigning to take responsibility for an electricity rate increase. The wall ended up at 46 feet, according to the team's recent inspection.

        The plant shut down so safely that it served as an evacuation center in Onagawa, where 827 died. The fishing town, where I spent a few days reporting after the tsunami, escaped a far worse fate, thanks to Hirai.

    • (Score: 1) by Muad'Dave on Wednesday July 26 2017, @01:45PM (1 child)

      by Muad'Dave (1413) on Wednesday July 26 2017, @01:45PM (#544625)

      Even better even better, go with gas coolant reactors [wikipedia.org] that don't need any water cooling at all.

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday July 26 2017, @04:43PM

        by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday July 26 2017, @04:43PM (#544727) Journal

        The schematics include a gas blower directly attached to the reactor..
        And that will need power.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by requerdanos on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:26PM (4 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:26PM (#543436) Journal

    For the record, reality has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was stupid, stupid, criminally stupid, to build so close to the sea.

    What's been proven is that regardless of where it was built, it was a bad idea to put the generators in a basement. Even atop the world's highest mountain, hundreds or even thousands of meters higher in altitude, the smallest-scale localized spill that can flood *just the basement* renders the generators inoperable, and in a power failure, leads inexorably to loss-of-coolant and meltdown.

    This was a concern even before the tsunami [japantimes.co.jp], concerning at any altitude:

    Yukiteru Naka, [who] took part in designing and operating reactor units [at Fukushima], is just one of a few engineers whose knowledge spans the facility’s 40-year history. Naka recalls [a lingering question]: Why were the backup emergency diesel generators and DC batteries still located in the turbine buildings’ basements? “If an earthquake hits and destroys some of the pipes above, water could come down and hit the generators... Many of the middle-ranking engineers at the plant shared the same concern.”

    Whereas, built in Godzilla territory right on the shore, while being actively shaken by earthquakes and actively inundated by tsunami, having the generators located just a few meters higher up than the basement would have caused the whole event to have been a minor blip on the world's radar, long-forgotten even by Japan.

    Locating backup air-cooled diesel generators in basements, for example, was a sign that Fukushima wasn’t fully prepared for a tsunami, says Tony Irwin, a lecturer in nuclear technology...

    - Technologyreview.Com [technologyreview.com]

    If the emergency generators had been installed on upper floors rather than in basements, for example, the disaster would have stopped before it began.

    - IEEE, "24 Hours at Fukushima" [ieee.org]

    Placing the critical generators in the basements of the turbine buildings left the plant vulnerable to the tsunami threat...
    “This accident would have been prevented if the generators had been placed inside the (more tightly sealed) reactor buildings [instead]...” said Masatoshi Toyota, a former senior vice president of Tepco.

    - The Japan Times, July 14th, 2011 [japantimes.co.jp]

    It would border on criminal for us as a people to come away with lesson here that it's ok to build it wrong, as long as you build it far away from one or two types of potential threat. And "mountain-not-sea" thinking leans very troublesomely in that direction.

    • (Score: 2) by snufu on Monday July 24 2017, @01:57AM

      by snufu (5855) on Monday July 24 2017, @01:57AM (#543550)

      All your regulations just kill jobs. You don't want to kill jobs do you? Who cares if we introduced a new form of orange radioactive metal into the sea. Think of it as TEPCO's glowing coral reef. Charge admission for snorkling.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday July 24 2017, @06:39AM (1 child)

      by kaszz (4211) on Monday July 24 2017, @06:39AM (#543588) Journal

      Why were the backup emergency diesel generators and DC batteries still located in the turbine buildings’ basements?

      Exactly. The question then becomes why were it designed to be there in the first place? Why didn't management do anything about it?

      And have nuclear power facilities even learnt their lesson by now to place backup generators high enough to lower the chance of flooding and made them such that if they are flooded they are located in a water tight building with a snorkel to handle high level flooding like any WWII submarine could?

      • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday July 24 2017, @01:37PM

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 24 2017, @01:37PM (#543668) Journal

        The question then becomes why were it designed to be there in the first place? Why didn't management do anything about it?

        These reactors were designed in the United States of America by GE. As for why they were designed with backup generators in the basement, that designer, Yukiteru Naka [japantimes.co.jp] opines that it was a Japanese sea vs. American river mindset:

        Former GE engineer Naka pointed out that most of GE’s boiling water reactors — the same type as unit 1 at Fukushima No. 1 — in the United States were built along rivers to take in coolant water, not near the sea. “So GE’s design concept did not put much emphasis on tsunami,” he said.

        That doesn't mean it was a good design; reactors like that go through a lot of water and if it leaks into the basement, goodbye generators. But that seems to have been the thinking.

        And why wasn't the design changed? Because TEPCO didn't feel comfortable changing GE's designs. From that same article:

        ...plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. did not allow any alteration to the U.S. company’s blueprints... Some engineers long had concerns over this apparent misplacement of the critical backup power systems. But Tepco, conservative by nature, didn’t allow the Japanese companies building the plant to make any alterations to GE’s basic design, said Tadaharu Ichiki, a 75-year-old former nuclear plant designer at Toshiba Corp. “That had been the tradition at Tepco. When Tepco introduced thermal plant technologies from overseas, (the utility’s executives) also told the Japanese makers to build the plants exactly in the same way as those of foreign makers,” Ichiki said. “Tepco was very bureaucratic.”

        I suppose the idea was that since GE was more experienced in designing and building nuclear power plants, that safety might be compromised if less-experienced TEPCO or its contractors changed the designs. Sure didn't work out that way.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @11:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @11:04AM (#543631)

      And if the emergency generators where built as dry reservoir of a mini hydro-plant with turbines and generators, tsunami flooding would had provided instant emergency energy to it.

      The backup mini hydro could had been even used in constant operation, letting the nuclear plant supply the energy for pumps to keep the reserve full at all times, so that there is never a need for a switch mechanism. If it malfunctions, you immediately know.