But, yes, I like nuclear power, because the electricity it provides is just too dang cheap to even bother metering--not to mention that I have an affinity for anything that has the potential, regardless of how remote that potential may be--that can kill thousands of people without them even being aware it's happening.
And yes, they can build one in my back yard and even use my little lake for cooling water.
Not to mention, clearing out entire cities (Chernobyl) forever.
IP: Logged
05:55 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
Here is an article I was emailed. [QUOTE]FYI: With all the death, > devastation and disease now threatening tens of thousands in Japan, it > is trivializing and almost obscene to spend so much time worrying about > damage to a nuclear reactor. > (Bartleby > Press, 2010).
[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure the country of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are on the same page as this guy. A little steam is released and dispersed-huh? Also, anybody know what makes the author an "expert?"
OK I found it and I quote, "WILLIAM TUCKER is a veteran journalist. Educated at Amherst College, his work has appeared in Harper's, the Atlantic Monthly, the American Spectator, the Weekly Standard, National Review, Reason, the New Republic, Reader's Digest, the Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. His articles have won the John Hancock Award, the Gerald Loeb Award, the Amos Tuck Award, and he was a finalist for the National Magazine Award."
IP: Logged
06:17 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
Yep, I think that's the one. Maybe it's time to reconsider?
Let the states that make the waste, store the waste. If I was in Nevada or any state in between where the waste was created and where it is stored, I'd say "bite me" to transit of waste. As if just because there is Federal land and it is remote, one state should carry the burden for the nation when it comes to storing nuclear waste. I
IP: Logged
06:46 PM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Now that the U.S. "A" team is on the scene, there is a plan to fly an unmanned recon aircraft over the reactor complex, in order to get better data about what exactly's going on.
So I just heard ...
IP: Logged
07:07 PM
Mar 17th, 2011
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
CNN STORY HIGHLIGHTS NEW: Radiation outside plant doesn't fall after [helicopter] water drops, company tells Kyodo News - Helicopters make four passes in dropping water over the Daiichi plant's No. 3 reactor - Authorities focus on reactor No. 3, after finding there was water in the No. 4 unit - Engineers plan to try to restore power to the complex Thursday, for the cooling system - Plans to bring in an array of "water cannons" to douse the No. 3 unit
As far as the spent fuel goes... I don't see why we can't pack it up into a rocket and launch it into space! I suppose there is the chance of explosion.. So in that case, hurry up, build the dang space elevator and put that crap off this planet!
Outer space IS radioactive.. so they can take this crap!
As for Japan... Like I have kept saying.. We are screwed and it IS bad!!!!!
As far as the spent fuel goes... I don't see why we can't pack it up into a rocket and launch it into space!
It would cost more money than exists in the world to launch that much waste. There are thousands of tons of high-level radioactive waste spread around the world, and we produce tons more of it every year.
Why we want to keep making more of a product that stays extremely radiologically and biochemically hazardous for longer than the human species has existed on this earth I have no idea. It boggles my mind.
IP: Logged
09:02 AM
couldahadaV8 Member
Posts: 797 From: Bolton, Ontario, Canada Registered: Feb 2008
Why we want to keep making more of a product that stays extremely radiologically and biochemically hazardous for longer than the human species has existed on this earth I have no idea. It boggles my mind.
As a fan of electricity (something that I think has done more for the advancement of human civilization than anything except maybe books) your point escapes me.
IP: Logged
09:41 AM
PFF
System Bot
couldahadaV8 Member
Posts: 797 From: Bolton, Ontario, Canada Registered: Feb 2008
As a fan of electricity (something that I think has done more for the advancement of human civilization than anything except maybe books) your point escapes me.
My point is, if you don't want the nuclear waste, then how do you want to produce electricity? How do you want to power aircraft carriers and subs? Of course it is not without waste and risks, but what isn't? How many coal miners die each year?
My point is, if you don't want the nuclear waste, then how do you want to produce electricity? How do you want to power aircraft carriers and subs? Of course it is not without waste and risks, but what isn't? How many coal miners die each year?
Your assumption that the only way to make electricity is with nuclear reactors is not correct. Your assumption that the only alternative way to make electricity is with coal is also erroneous. Your assumption that what's good for a military naval vessel is also appropriate for land-based civilians is baseless.
You ask the question sarcastically: "...if you don't want the nuclear waste, then how do you want to produce electricity?"
I'll answer honestly, civilly, and respectfully, this way:
In order and in time context:
Short term: Wind, distributed solar photovoltaic, geothermal steam, geothermal Peltier, natural gas fuel cell, strong conservation. Now to 20 years
Mid term: Wind, distributed solar photovoltaic, geothermal steam, geothermal Peltier, nuclear thorium, wave/tidal, phase out nuclear fission, fossil, 20-50 years
In my ideal future, from now to 20 years from now we'll implement short-term generation technologies that can be leveraged from existing proven concepts such as geothermal, wind, and PV. We'll expand the use of natural gas only because it's in-house and that will buy us some breathing room to work on longer-term technologies such as nuclear thorium. The emphasis on natural gas usage for power generation will be using fixed-site fuel cell technology rather than straight combustion in order to maximize electricity yield per amount of NG consumed. Strong conservation will help us to also extend the short-term resources until more long-term strategies can be brought online. Heavy investment will continue into mid and long term sustainable non-and low-polluting energy generation and, as importantly, energy utilization. Not only how to make it in an environmentally neutral manner but also how to use it in the most efficient way possible in our day to day activities.
In the mid term, 20-50 years, implementation of the proven technologies listed above will continue, and with the benefit of practice and experience the goal of 100% on-shore creation and generation of all energy used in this country will be near. A new proven technology, nuclear thorium, will have completely replaced uranium fission and there will be no more uranium reactors aside from limited military use for weapons as well as certain naval applications..The transition from fossil hydrocarbons being used for fuel will be nearly complete with the phasing out of NG-fueled generation facilities. Solar PV will be common to the point of being standard on most houses being built, as will 98th percentile energy-conserving construction techniques.
Half a century down the road from today, in the year 2061 when most children today will still be alive, 100% of all domestic energy use will be from sustainable sources and will produce very little waste of long-term environmental consequence. Fusion will be coming on line as a viable means because of quality investment in the prior 50 years. Carbon-neutral will be the standard of the day. Due to the constant development and implementation of sustainable electrical generation technologies electricity will be cheap enough to use for hydrogen generation, that hydrogen now usable in fuel-cell-powered vehicles that aren't amenable to EV designs. Most of the population will move around most of the time in EVs. The only real use for fossil hydrocarbons will be for certain plastics. Due to the massive drop in value of hydrocarbons as fuel triggered by the largest consumer of them all, us, leaving the market, all the third-world tin-pot leaders who used to rely on our oil-cash to prop up their little dictatorships will have long since collapsed. The quality of life will be significantly improved, and the trillions of dollars that used to bleed out of our nation to buy foreign oil will instead flow into our economy and build this nation's wealth and power, thus ensuring our ability to survive. With this wealth we can do in the world what we could not do with guns and bombs. You can't buy happiness, but you sure as heck can buy a future.
The other thing we can do with that wealth is figure out what to do with nuclear waste such that it cannot ever represent a threat to our descendant's futures again.
------------------ Bring back civility and decorum!
It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?
Your assumption that the only way to make electricity is with nuclear reactors is not correct. Your assumption that the only alternative way to make electricity is with coal is also erroneous. Your assumption that what's good for a military naval vessel is also appropriate for land-based civilians is baseless.
That was not his assumption at all, and he even stated as much.
quote
You ask the question sarcastically: "...if you don't want the nuclear waste, then how do you want to produce electricity?"
I'll answer honestly, civilly, and respectfully, this way:
That last sentence. What is really going on with you? Seriously, you have had a 180* personality change, go get checked out, really. We all love you.
quote
In order and in time context:
Short term: Wind, distributed solar photovoltaic, geothermal steam, geothermal Peltier, natural gas fuel cell, strong conservation. Now to 20 years
Mid term: Wind, distributed solar photovoltaic, geothermal steam, geothermal Peltier, nuclear thorium, wave/tidal, phase out nuclear fission, fossil, 20-50 years
I can get with that to a degree, but I think Nuclear power is far cleaner than Any other form of energy we can produce.
quote
In my ideal future, from now to 20 years from now we'll implement short-term generation technologies that can be leveraged from existing proven concepts such as geothermal, wind, and PV. We'll expand the use of natural gas only because it's in-house and that will buy us some breathing room to work on longer-term technologies such as nuclear thorium. The emphasis on natural gas usage for power generation will be using fixed-site fuel cell technology rather than straight combustion in order to maximize electricity yield per amount of NG consumed. Strong conservation will help us to also extend the short-term resources until more long-term strategies can be brought online. Heavy investment will continue into mid and long term sustainable non-and low-polluting energy generation and, as importantly, energy utilization. Not only how to make it in an environmentally neutral manner but also how to use it in the most efficient way possible in our day to day activities.
In the mid term, 20-50 years, implementation of the proven technologies listed above will continue, and with the benefit of practice and experience the goal of 100% on-shore creation and generation of all energy used in this country will be near. A new proven technology, nuclear thorium, will have completely replaced uranium fission and there will be no more uranium reactors aside from limited military use for weapons as well as certain naval applications..The transition from fossil hydrocarbons being used for fuel will be nearly complete with the phasing out of NG-fueled generation facilities. Solar PV will be common to the point of being standard on most houses being built, as will 98th percentile energy-conserving construction techniques.
Define "Strong Conservation", and "Heavy Investment". You realize that having power cost more would be a death blow to our country, don't you?
quote
Half a century down the road from today, in the year 2061 when most children today will still be alive, 100% of all domestic energy use will be from sustainable sources and will produce very little waste of long-term environmental consequence. Fusion will be coming on line as a viable means because of quality investment in the prior 50 years. Carbon-neutral will be the standard of the day. Due to the constant development and implementation of sustainable electrical generation technologies electricity will be cheap enough to use for hydrogen generation, that hydrogen now usable in fuel-cell-powered vehicles that aren't amenable to EV designs. Most of the population will move around most of the time in EVs. The only real use for fossil hydrocarbons will be for certain plastics. Due to the massive drop in value of hydrocarbons as fuel triggered by the largest consumer of them all, us, leaving the market, all the third-world tin-pot leaders who used to rely on our oil-cash to prop up their little dictatorships will have long since collapsed. The quality of life will be significantly improved, and the trillions of dollars that used to bleed out of our nation to buy foreign oil will instead flow into our economy and build this nation's wealth and power, thus ensuring our ability to survive. With this wealth we can do in the world what we could not do with guns and bombs. You can't buy happiness, but you sure as heck can buy a future.
Sounds great, except I'm not sure that's the future I want. I don't have children, I cannot have children, and will never have children. I need a valid reason for me to care about your children (speaking figuratively of course). My main concern is my wife and I staying happy, and keeping our heads above water until we are dead and in the ground. Your plan sounds like we will suffer for the next 40+ years so that people we don't care about can be happy later on. I'm greedy, I want me to be happy.
quote
The other thing we can do with that wealth is figure out what to do with nuclear waste such that it cannot ever represent a threat to our descendant's futures again.
I'm still not seeing where this wealth is coming from. You are talking about spending more money than we currently do to switch over to another fuel source. Over the course of 50 years your saying that a country more powerful than the Soviet Union was, and much wackier will not break down and cause Global warfare once we stop paying them?
Your Utopia is going to hell because of reality.
Brad
IP: Logged
12:15 PM
couldahadaV8 Member
Posts: 797 From: Bolton, Ontario, Canada Registered: Feb 2008
My main concern is my wife and I staying happy, and keeping our heads above water until we are dead and in the ground. Your plan sounds like we will suffer for the next 40+ years so that people we don't care about can be happy later on. I'm greedy, I want me to be happy.
That's pretty much my view on life. You can think of it as selfish, but I think of it as realistic. After all, we have no way of predicting the technological advances that will be made down the road. I doubt the Wright brothers imagined walking on the moon in less than 100 years. The kids being born these days will be smart enough to solve the problems that we are creating. It'll give them something to do.
That was not his assumption at all, and he even stated as much.
He wrote:
quote
Originally posted by couldahadaV8: My point is, if you don't want the nuclear waste, then how do you want to produce electricity? How do you want to power aircraft carriers and subs? Of course it is not without waste and risks, but what isn't? How many coal miners die each year?
Here's how I parsed it:
"If you don't want the nuclear waste, then how do you want to produce electricity?" This sentence is a classic and simple "if, then" construct, and says essentially that generating electricity and nuclear waste are integrally related, i.e. one cannot exist without the other. I.e. if no waste, then no electricity. The second sentence, "How do you want to power aircraft carriers and subs?" seems to imply that somehow what's good for military assets is good for civilian use. That sentence is less clear. The third sentence says, "Of course it is not without waste and risks, but what isn't?", somehow seems to imply equivalency between the risks and waste costs of the various means of generating electricity; given the extreme nature of those two factors associated with nuclear fission compared to other forms which are far less damaging and far less risky, the intent of this sentence seems to be to minimize those problems associated with nuclear fission. False equivalency. Finally, the last sentence asks, "How many coal miners die each year? Why compare it to coal mining? Why not compare it to windmills, say, or solar PV? Or geothermal? All are proven, all are successful, all have less risks, and most importantly, none has the potential of rendering thousands of square miles permanently uninhabitable.
Putting all the meanings together, he seems to be saying that nuclear is only and best choice for making electricity in the future, and the implication is that there are no other options and never will be.
I'm a fairly literal fellow and words have very specific meanings to me, meanings derived from standard accepted mainstream dictionary definitions.
What do you think he meant to write?
quote
Originally posted by twofatguys: Define "Strong Conservation", and "Heavy Investment". You realize that having power cost more would be a death blow to our country, don't you?
Easy. Provide incentives, both economically and legislatively, to increase efficiency standards across the board for all aspects of the way we use energy in this country. Things like upgrading building codes to require more efficient houses and commercial buildings, increasing CAFE standards to increase gas mileage in consumer vehicles, discouraging waste by making it more expensive to waste, etc. We've been doing somewhat, though CAFE standards lagged through the last administration.
On investments, spend money on technology development such as thorium nuclear, PV solar, geothermal Peltier, etc, things that have much greater bang for the buck toward the goal of self-sufficiency. How much to spend and how fast? Well, how about just one whole percent of the budget? Is that too much?
And what's with the comment about power costing more? Death blow? I somehow don't realize this? Maybe it's because I'm stupid, eh? Too retarded to know better, you know, the old "Awww, look at the little moron that just doesn't get it." Should I take that as condescension? Is that how you meant it? Anyway, the whole point is to build a power generating infrastructure that is sustainable and low-impact to the environment, and that is low cost since high-cost resources limit growth. All of the things I proposed will greatly increase the chances we could accomplish that.
But honestly? I know it won't happen. The more likely future is one where most people struggle to just survive, energy resources will be scarce and so expensive that only a few can afford them, very third-world-like. We'll have a corner of the country where all the nuclear waste will be dumped, probably just a few thousand square miles that will be declared uninhabitable, a "cost of doing business". A very P.K. Dick dystopian future. It's human nature.
And one thing is for certain: Nobody will be able to say that Japan 2011 was the worst or the last nuclear disaster ever to happen.
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 03-17-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:21 PM
couldahadaV8 Member
Posts: 797 From: Bolton, Ontario, Canada Registered: Feb 2008
Logo # Napolitano: U.S. Screening Cargo, Passengers Coming From Japan
by Fox News | March 17, 2011
* Print * Email * Share * 26 Comments * *
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says the U.S. is conducting radiation checks on passengers and cargo coming from Japan in the wake of the disaster that has left nuclear facilities damaged.
"There is screening going on and it occurs at a variety of different ways. It depends on whether you're talking about passengers or cargo, where it's departing from," Napolitano said. "We have seen no radiation, by the way, even on coming cargo or passengers that comes close to reaching a harmful level."
Napolitano says despite the fact no contamination has been found in the U.S., the screenings will continue.
"We think working with the Department of Health and Human Services, working with the Food and Drug Administration, working with the Environmental Protection Agency there will continue to be this kind of monitoring," she said.
The secretary called the screenings an "exercise of caution."
FOX News producer Mike Levine contributed to this report.
Remember also there is no way for them to know what is exactly happening inside the core. There are no webcams inside the pressure vessel. The only way they know what is happening is to look at what is coming out and sometime later to disassemble it. That will happen sometime but far into the future.
Sounds like they are going to get grid power to the plant soon. That should put an end to the crisis mode of what is happening there.
I didn't hear if they found the missing two workers or not. I don't expect a good outcome on them.
Power lines may save reactors five and six, the fuel rod storage ponds were not damaged, reactor 4 has a huge hole in one side of the pond and there is no way they can keep the rods completely covered. Reactors 1-3 have had explosions and the plumbing is most likely not intact, plus the Japanese have said themselves partial meltdown highly likely and 3 containment vessels may breached. I doubt that the pumps are going to save reactor buildings 1-4.
I wonder if it's possible to have a passive failsafe design where a meltdown melts into a large volume of boron sand? That way the worst case scenario is a fully enclosed, stable, neutralized blob.
IP: Logged
03:10 PM
PFF
System Bot
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
The 'blob' will eventually stabilize. The problem is the release of radioactive particles until it does. Sand won't cool the blob. Boric acid doesn't 'stop' the decay, it stops the nuclear reaction. They decay will continue for quite some time. It produces heat. You don't want that heat to atomize and send aloft the particles.
At the power plant I worked at the heat from the spent fuel pools was captured and used. The decaying fuel would make the water glow btw. That is where the whole nuclear "glowing" thing got started. The water in the spent fuel pools provided enough of a 'radioactive shield' that you could be right next to it and not be in a high 'hot zone'. It was higher than normal however, but well within 'safe' tolerances.
I never made it inside containment. You couldn't enter containment while the reactor was running. It was just too radioactivly 'hot' then. I did make it right up to the containment walls however.
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 09-23-2011).]
IP: Logged
05:19 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Power lines may save reactors five and six, the fuel rod storage ponds were not damaged, reactor 4 has a huge hole in one side of the pond and there is no way they can keep the rods completely covered. Reactors 1-3 have had explosions and the plumbing is most likely not intact, plus the Japanese have said themselves partial meltdown highly likely and 3 containment vessels may breached. I doubt that the pumps are going to save reactor buildings 1-4.
Well the facade buildings are blown up. I highly doubt any part of that plant will ever be put online again. The Japanese are NOT the Russians. (The remaining reactors at Chernobyl were put back online after the disaster)
I wonder if it's possible to have a passive failsafe design where a meltdown melts into a large volume of boron sand? That way the worst case scenario is a fully enclosed, stable, neutralized blob.
That's a great thought.
Is there a way to keep it from leaving when the reactor explodes?
Brad
IP: Logged
05:30 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Well the facade buildings are blown up. I highly doubt any part of that plant will ever be put online again. The Japanese are NOT the Russians. (The remaining reactors at Chernobyl were put back online after the disaster)
Not talking about bringing them online again, talking about the pumps being able to cool whats left of the rods in the reactors and the rods in pool 4. I think 5 and 6 will be able to be brought back to normal as soon as the power is reconnected. Nobody is crazier than the russians btw.
IP: Logged
06:15 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
So much for UN experts YAMAGATA, Japan -- Japan's nuclear safety agency says smoke is rising from a building housing a damaged nuclear reactor at a power plant crippled by last week's tsunami.
A spokesman for Japan's nuclear safety agency said the smoke was seen rising from Unit 2 at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant on Friday morning. The spokesman says the agency does not know the cause, but an explosion occurred in Unit 2 earlier in the week, possibly damaging a chamber next to the reactor core.
Meanwhile, the utility that runs the nuclear plant says workers are laying a cable to restore power to the cooling systems. The military is also preparing to spray more water on the plant by helicopter and fire truck.
Japan's military said it had no plans to use helicopters Friday to cool nuclear reactor fuel pools.
Three reactors have had at least partial meltdowns at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, where wisps of white steam rose from the stricken units Friday morning. But Japanese and U.S. officials believe a greater danger exists in the pools used to store spent nuclear fuel: Fuel rods in one pool were believed to be at least partially exposed, if not dry, and others were in danger. Without water, the rods could heat up and spew radiation.
It could take days and "possibly weeks" to get the complex under control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jazcko said. He defended the U.S. decision to recommend a 50-mile evacuation zone for its citizens, a much stronger measure than Japan has taken.
A senior official with the U.N.'s nuclear safety agency said Thursday there had been "no significant worsening" at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant but that the situation remained "very serious." Graham Andrew told reporters in Vienna that nuclear fuel rods in two reactors were only about half covered with water, and they were also not completely submerged in a third.
If the fuel is not fully covered, rising temperatures will increase the chances of complete meltdowns that would release much larger amounts of radioactive material than the failing plant has emitted so far.
Low levels of radiation have been detected well beyond Tokyo, which is 140 miles south of the plant, but hazardous levels have been limited to the plant itself. Still, the crisis triggered by last week's earthquake and tsunami has forced thousands to evacuate and drained Tokyo's normally vibrant streets of life, its residents either leaving town or holing up in their homes.
The official death toll from the disasters stood at 5,692 as of Friday morning, with 9,522 missing, the national police agency said.
Japanese and American assessments of the crisis have differed, with the plant's owner denying Jazcko's report Wednesday that Unit 4's spent fuel pool was dry and that anyone who gets close to the plant could face potentially lethal doses of radiation. But a Tokyo Electric Power Co. executive moved closer to the U.S. position Thursday.
"Considering the amount of radiation released in the area, the fuel rods are more likely to be exposed than to be covered," Yuichi Sato said.
Another utility official said Wednesday that the company has been unable to get information such as water levels and temperatures from any of the spent fuel pools in the four most troubled reactors.
Workers have been dumping seawater when possible to control temperatures at the plant since the quake and tsunami knocked out power to its cooling systems, but they tried even more desperate measures on Units 3 and 4.
Two Japanese military CH-47 Chinook helicopters began dumping seawater on Unit 3 on Thursday morning, defense ministry spokeswoman Kazumi Toyama said. The choppers doused the reactor with at least four loads of water in just the first 10 minutes, though television footage showed much of it appearing to disperse in the wind.
Chopper crews flew missions of about 40 minutes each to limit their radiation exposure, passing over the reactor with loads of about 2,000 gallons of water. Military trucks blasted another 9,000 gallons of water with high-pressure sprayers used to extinguish fires at plane crashes, though the vehicles had to stay back from areas deemed to have too much radiation.
Special police units with water cannons were also tried, but they could not reach the targets from safe distances, said Yasuhiro Hashimoto, a spokesman for Japan's nuclear safety agency.
Tokyo Electric Power said it believed workers were making headway in staving off a catastrophe both with the spraying and, especially, with efforts to complete an emergency power line to restart the plant's own electric cooling systems.
"This is a first step toward recovery," said Teruaki Kobayashi, a facilities management official at the power company. He said radiation levels "have somewhat stabilized at their lows" and that some of the spraying had reached its target, with one reactor emitting steam.
"We are doing all we can as we pray for the situation to improve," Kobayashi said. Authorities planned to spray again Friday, and Kobayashi said: "We just have to stick to what we can do most quickly and efficiently."
Yamaguchi reported from Tokyo. Associated Press writers George Jahn in Vienna, Elaine Kurtenbach, Shino Yuasa, Jeff Donn and Tim Sullivan in Tokyo contributed to this report.
The 'blob' will eventually stabilize. The problem is the release of radioactive particles until it does. Sand won't cool the blob. Boric acid doesn't 'stop' the decay, it stops the nuclear reaction. They decay will continue for quite some time. It produces heat. You don't want that heat to atomize and send aloft the particles.
At the power plant I worked at the heat from the spent fuel pools was captured and used. The decaying fuel would make the water glow btw.
Blue glow from Cherenkov radiation?
On the decay heat, since that's fundamental to the existence of the material and since it's enough to cause melting unless cooled with water, how was it going to be stored in Yucca Mountain? I can't imagine any active cooling system being able to last a few hundred thousand years, heck, we can't even get active systems to last a decade without intensive maintenance now. Would they just allow the decay heat melt the waste and let it flow loose inside the tunnels?
IP: Logged
10:15 AM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Originally posted by JazzMan: On the decay heat, since that's fundamental to the existence of the material and since it's enough to cause melting unless cooled with water, how was it going to be stored in Yucca Mountain? I can't imagine any active cooling system being able to last a few hundred thousand years, heck, we can't even get active systems to last a decade without intensive maintenance now. Would they just allow the decay heat melt the waste and let it flow loose inside the tunnels?
Good question. If I understand it correctly, there was going to be a large, above-ground "aging" facility at Yucca Mountain, where the radioactive waste (clad in concrete casks) would be allowed to cool before being put into the underground disposal facility.
This is a perfect example of how the news is filtered and maybe some BS from TEPCO. I heard of this on 13 Mar, posted it here and now three days later Reuter picks it up. The original story was they were to start burying these reactors on the 13th. That story surfaced for a second along with a story predicting another earthquake and possible tsunami. One of my sources who researches for news services and individuals on Japanese issues said that internal discussions were focused on a "what if" there was another tsunami and how that would affect resolving the reactor issues. There were high level government talks with TEPCO about encasing the #1 and #2 reactor in cement ala Chernobyl. Sources that don't want to be quoted suggested that they ultimated decided to keep cooling with seawater because you can't pile on the cement while trying to keep the facilities cool. Radiated if you do, radiated if you don't.
It appears some kind of sarcophagus will have to be built around either individual reactors or the whole building.
Hopefully the rigged up power and massive auxiliary pumps provided by the US will get the cooling system back online. I have my champagne ready to celebrate cold shutdown on the reactors and safe water levels in the fuel storage pools.
I guess I could look it up, but since I don't know anything regarding the exact composition of the fuel rods...what are the long term decay daughters (I am assuming there are some) ...of the fuel that may possibly be encased in concrete?
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-18-2011).]
IP: Logged
06:23 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
Good question. If I understand it correctly, there was going to be a large, above-ground "aging" facility at Yucca Mountain, where the radioactive waste (clad in concrete casks) would be allowed to cool before being put into the underground disposal facility.
Radiation from Fukushima plant detected in Sacramento, EPA says 'Minuscule quantities' of radiation from the stricken Japanese nuclear power plant are found in Sacramento, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
By Rong-Gong Lin II Los Angeles Times
March 18, 2011, 3:54 p.m.
A minuscule amount of radiation from the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor in Japan was detected in Sacramento but at such a low level that it posed no threat to human health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Friday afternoon.
One station in Sacramento detected "minuscule quantities" of a radioactive isotope, xenon-133, that scientists said they believed came from the reactors at the stricken Fukushima plant.
Photos: In Japan, life amid crisis
But the level detected would result in a "dose rate approximately one-millionth of the dose rate that a person normally receives from rocks, bricks, the sun and other natural sources," according to an EPA statement.
Xenon-133 is a radioactive gas created during nuclear fission.
The detection of the xenon-133 came from a radiation monitoring system run by the U.S. Department of Energy able to "detect tiny quantities of radioisotopes that might indicate an underground nuclear test on the other side of the world," the statement said. "These detectors are extremely sensitive and can detect minute amounts of radioactive materials."
A separate detection system run by the EPA, known as RadNet, also has shown no harmful levels of radiation coming to the United States. The system was developed in the 1950s during the Cold War.
"As far as our monitors go, we have not detected any increases beyond what you'd expect historically," said Philip Fine, atmospheric-measurements manager of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the smog control agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
Experts have anticipated small amounts of radioactive isotopes from the stricken Fukushima Daiichi power plant to blow over to California as soon as Friday but said they expected that the radiation to be well within safe limits.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District has detectors in Anaheim, Fontana and Riverside monitoring airborne radiation; the California Department of Public Health operates a fourth detector in the downtown Los Angeles area.
Officials on Thursday said whatever radiation wafted into the atmosphere would be greatly diluted by the time it travels 5,000 miles to California.
"The basic physics and basic science really tells us that there can't be any risk or harm to anyone here in the United States, or Hawaii, or any of the other [U.S.] territories," Gregory Jaczko, chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said Thursday.
There is no sign that harmful levels of radiation are drifting into Tokyo or other large cities in Japan, according to the United Nations and World Health Organization officials.
The EPA said U.S. air monitors detected trace amounts of radioactive particles in 1986, after the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine. But the amounts detected were one-thousandth the level of what a typical person would absorb from natural sources in one year.
* Small amounts of radiation headed for California, but no health risk seen * Japan radiation risk to California is downplayed * Radiation exposure and the effects on human health
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 03-18-2011).]
IP: Logged
06:58 PM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Originally posted by carnut122: Or, is the thought that the heat would melt the salt and thus encase the fuel?
I'm not really an expert on the Yucca Mountain proposal, but I don't think that it was ever intended for the radioactive waste to generate enough heat underground to melt salt.
There's another rationale for wanting to store radioactive waste in underground salt beds:
quote
“The safest way to isolate something that you don’t want for a very, very long time is find an ancient salt formation and put your waste in the middle,” Nelson said. “Salt is still there for a very good reason, it has not been eroded away. It’s indicator of hydrological stability. The same hydrological barriers that protect the salt will protect the waste.”
Workers at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant exposed to radiation above past limit Six workers at the nuclear power plant have been exposed to radiation beyond the previous limit for an emergency operation, Tokyo Electric Power Co. says. The power company says the workers have shown no symptoms from exposure. By Abby Sewell Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 19, 2011, 9:34 a.m. Six workers at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have been exposed to radiation beyond the previous limit for an emergency operation, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Saturday.
Kyodo News reported the employees, whose job titles were not known, were continuing to work despite having been exposed to more than 100 millisieverts of radiation. The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry raised the exposure limit to 250 millisieverts for the current nuclear crisis. The power company said the workers have shown no abnormal signs from exposure.
Crews continue battling to restore power at the plant, which was crippled as a result of the magnitude 9 earthquake and resulting tsunami that struck the country just more than a week ago. The hope is to limit the emission of radioactive material and avoid a full nuclear meltdown.
The nuclear crisis has been upgraded from four to five on a scale of one to seven, putting it on the same level as the 1979 Three Mile Island catastrophe in Pennsylvania.
Meanwhile, reports of radioactive material in the country's food and water supply continue to emerge. Officials said radioactive iodine levels above the government-recommended limit have been found in tap water in the Fukushima prefecture, the Associated Press reported. Small amounts of radioactive iodine have found their way into drinking water as far as Tokyo.
Food has also been affected. Excessive radiation was found Saturday in milk and spinach in the Fukushima and Ibaraki prefectures. The health ministry said the levels were not harmful to humans, but is considering an order to end the sale of food products from the Fukushima prefecture.
The government also said rain could contain small amounts of radioactive substances in the Tohoku and Kanto regions. The office of the Prime Minister told citizens that the trace amounts would not pose a health threat, but cautioned them to avoid going outside and to wash clothes or skin exposed to rain.
Excessive radiation was found Saturday in milk and spinach in the Fukushima and Ibaraki prefectures. The health ministry said the levels were not harmful to humans, but is considering an order to end the sale of food products from the Fukushima prefecture.
Clearly the reporter doesn't know the definition of 'excessive'. I assume what was meant to be said was "above normal"
IP: Logged
08:38 PM
spark1 Member
Posts: 11159 From: Benton County, OR Registered: Dec 2002
When the Trojan nuclear power plant in Oregon was decommissioned, the fuel rods were placed in a cooling pool for ten years before being sealed in stainless steel drums and encased in concrete casks. There are 34 of the 150 ton casks still at the site with no where to go. I think they are still "warm" because convection cooling use is mentioned in the video shown here
edit: I wonder what they use now to measure radiation exposure of the workers? The old ones were just unexposed film but I last wore one over 40 years ago. There must be something better by now.
[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 03-19-2011).]
What is really going on with you? Seriously, you have had a 180* personality change, go get checked out, really. We all love you. 
...of the fuel that may possibly be encased in concrete?
