Reactors in Japan

Note: I am not trying to start a huge controversial thread or anything of the sort.

Basically, from what I have read on various media sites, there has been a large amount of erroneous information being spewed. This does bother me, since my career is in this industry. In any event, my goal with this thread is simply to point you in the right direction if you are interested in this topic. Many sites, including legitimate sources, are containing errors in their reporting.

I don't generally fault the media, although there are a few outlets that definitely have agendas, but the reality is that most of this information simply goes over the reporters' heads. These are fairly complex plants and the media has been trained and educated on how to convey the news, not how nuclear reactors function or how accident mitigation takes place. Long in short, it's not necessarily their fault imo. Anyways, he is the link with accurate information.

http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/information-on-the-japanese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region/

I feel so sorry for them. I was going to go over there in the summer. Now I feel like I should use my travel money to help some families get back on their feet.

For such a smart country, it's just such a shame that they have to go through so much loss.

Yeah btimm, I think core is very unstable atm. Its not a good thing indeed. But, we have to face it and think clearly and objectively to take actions. I didnt bought any Jodi pills yet lol.

A terrible thing this is, but they're dealing with all of it pretty well under the circumstances. I heard through the BBC that many countries are sending plenty of aid too. It's a good job Japan has one of the worlds best economies so recovery won't be as hard.

Agree. These operators at the plant are doing a phenomenal job believe it or not. Sadly, they just never designed these plants to withstand 10m tsunamis. It is designed to be earthquake proof and in fact, withstood the earthquake without damage to critical functions of the plant.

I do think it is interesting though that the media is giving so much more attention to the nuclear plant situation when the earthquake/tsunami has killed tens of thousands of people and caused such damage. I do not know how it is in other countries, just how it is here in the States. The media loves to really attack the nuclear industry for some reason.

My thoughts and prayers are with all of the people dealing with this crisis.

Its same here in Finland, it been actually like that immediately the Plant problem/threat came out. In our country have 4 plants and plan to 5th, but even that our country is actually totally safe for catastrophes like in Japan, darn we have just not even tornados here lol... and still... one media dude interviewed one officials on the plant here in Finland, he told how they got five backups for power... where the media guy commented "But, what if they all fail?"... I almost started to cry XD...

Wow, people just boggles my mind sometimes. What if they all fail? Really?

I've been reading up on this stuff, and it's actually really interesting. I've got a few questions however, I don't know if anyone knows the answer to it. Maybe btimm or EMP?
In tchernobyl, they wanted to test the plant in a scenario where the power supply failed. So the cooling system should be supplied with energy by the still spinning generator-wheels until the emergency supply kicked in. (I read that on wikipedia, correct me if I'm wrong) Was that the point where the reactor started to extremely heat up?

And when they inserted the control-rods, I read that the top of the rods had graphite on them which will act as a moderator and so increase the energy in the system before the rods are deep enough in the water and then stop the neutron transmission. So I was just asking myself, why would they have Graphite on the control rods?

And I still didnt understand the whole principle of water circulation in the soviet reactors. Is it just circulating in the holes of the Graphite-block where the fuel rods are? Does anyone know a picture explaining it?
i found this one:
http://www.leifiphysik.de/web_ph12/geschichte/11tschernobyl/reaktor.htm
but the water cirulation around the rods isnt that clear.

The same debate starts as well in Germany. Now they are "checking" all plants over again. I don't really know what they are looking for..protection against tsunamis?

The main thing for countries and people of the world to understand here is that nuclear power plants are susceptible. Unfortunately, we dont' know to what until it happens. This is why, I think, there is so much news about it. They are already controversial and for this reason. When they leak radiation, the long term effects can cause suffering and death to many for years.

Well, people tend to fear what they do not understand. The reality is that coal and gas plants kill significantly more people than nuclear ever has, including Chernobyl.

These plants are definitely designed to withstand so many things. In fact, the 9.0 earthquake actually didn't cause the issues at this Japanese site, it was the Tsunami that knocked out the fuel supply to the emergyency diesel generators. I might add here that the reactors have these fuel supplies underground as an additional level of safety. In the United States, the cost of a new 2-unit site if about $15 billion. This is because of all of the additional safety measures involved in these plants. I will not comment on other countries simply for the fact that I do not know as much about their regulations and don't want to offend people here, especially when I don't know enough really to comment. :o) The amount of safety features on these plants would be awe inspring I think to most of you. Also, there has only been one plant ever in the history of this industry to have any sort of leak to cause significant health-related issues and that was Chernobyl. So far, from what I have read from the NEI website, the release to the environment (this is different than the release inside the plant itself) has really been quite small. Again, people fear what they do not understand. And honestly, don't take that the wrong way, because I am the same way. I fear what I don't know as well, I think that is human nature.

Admiral, I will get to most of your questions tomorrow, I need to get in some poker before the wife yells at me to go downstairs and spend time with her before bed. lol

I will say this much though. Graphite was without question put into those rods at Chernobyl on purpose, along with many other plants. Water is also a moderator. Basically, the probability (or you may hear the term cross-section) that a neutron causes a fission increases dramatically as the neutron slows down. This is what moderation is, the slowing down of neutrons. When the neutron gets thermalized, it reacts with U-235 to create a fission, which releases fission products (not desirable), more neutrons (need them to keep the chain reaction going), and a boatload of heat (yay, to boil water). Some reactors in the world operate without moderating the neutrons, but it is the exception and not the rule. To combat this, there needs to be a way to control the neutrons. This is what control rods do. Controls rods are usually made of boron and boron absorbs neutrons. This is also essential. A fission reaction gives off on average 2.35 neutrons per reaction. Of course it is impossible to give off a partial neutron, so sometimes it gives off two and sometimes three. You can see that without boron to absorb some neutrons, the reaction would spiral out of control and would not be controlable. Interestingly enough, there are some natural nuclear reactors in the world! Primarily in Africa, but yes, there are uncontroled nuclear reactions going on as we speak in the world. Don't be concerned, these are not common and also not in theplain open land, it is within the earth. But it is still pretty interesting to me at least. I will get back to more of your post tomorrow Admiral. Take care!

Misread your question, I'd have to see a diagram or something, it makes little sense to me why they would have graphite on the control rods. I will get back to it tomorrow.

@btimm,

The plant was built on the coast of Japan. Japan has long since been susceptible to tsunamis. The word tsunami is Japanese. Yet they did not know if it could withstand a tsunami. Its on fire and exploding because of a tsunami. Now, we know. Its also been said that the news is not all that accurate. These are all facts that we all know. In this case, I fear what I DO understand. Not what I don't. Had this plant survived the tsunami, as well as the earthquake without incident, it would have been a positive advertisement for nuclear power plants around the world. But it didn't. I'm sure that the precautionary measures in design and construction of a nuclear power plant are astronomical. yet in this case something was missed. This is what I'm talking about. Drugs, cars, bridges, etc are labeled safe but fail and kill people all the time and are taken off the market, closed or recalled. Then produced again and labeled safe again and fail again and so on. Quote fromTommy Boy: "Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me."

I'm not being argumentative here Btimm. I live about 30 miles from San Onofre. We are in a fault zone. It was built to withstand a 7.0! That's a couple points shy of Japan's earthquake. Also, I understand the fear of the unknown. I'm not taking what you said the wrong way. I fear what I do know more than what I don't. And no, I don't think we ahold stop making drugs and cars and bridges. I think we should just be aware.

@ macandkanga

I am also not being argumentative, I just want to clarify a few things. First, the Japanese did know it could withstand a tsunami. The error was in the size of tsunami it could withstand. It is design to be able to withstand a tsunami that is 7m. I am not sure why it was not designed to withstand a larger tsunami, but it is not as if they blatantly disregarded the fact that a tsunami could and was really likely to hit.

One thing I do know is that if the fuel supply for the diesel generators was in safer place, NONE of this would have happened. The explosions were not from the tsunami, but from a buildup of Hydrogen when they lost the ability to remove the Hydrogen. They are related of course, but it wasn't directly because of the tsunami.

I will say that I think it is a testament to nuclear power that this reactor withstood a 9.0 earthquake, a 33-foot tsunami, and massive difficulties in attempting to cool these cores and they still have not had a significant release to the environment.

Also, I have learned some things about California and Japan and the earthquakes they experience. It appears (although I certainly am no seismic expert) that it is not reasonable to think an earthquake like what Japan experienced would be possible in California, based on the geology:

"We aren't capable of having an earthquake/tsunami event in southern california similar to the one that just occured in Japan. Our major earthquakes are typically caused by the lateral motion of plates travelling past each other, while the earthquakes in Japan are typically caused by vertical plate movement. That difference is due to different plate boundaries that exist in each region. Japan sits on a convergent plate boundary, where the oceanic plate is subducting underneath the continental plate. In our case, we are situated on a transform boundary, where the two plates are sliding past each other. In fact, the Newport-Inglewood fault that you cited typifies this type of movement. Additionally, the N-I fault isn't thought to be capable of generating much more than a 7.0-7.5 magnitude earthquake. This type of motion is not conducive to generating the tsunami events seen in Japan. Not to imply that a tsunami couldn't be generated elsewhere and travel to our coast, as we saw along the California coast recently, but that is a much smaller concern."

I will also say that even as someone in the nuclear industry, most of my colleagues agree with me in sense that we don't feel nuclear energy is the ultimate answer. We do believe that it is the best answer currently available. Believe me, no one would ever fight solar or wind if it was even remotely possible to generate the capacity of electricity needed to run the country (and other countries). I certainly would be all for it. It just flat out isn't possible.

And coal and gas kill many people every year. The numbers are absoltuely staggering. I would argue that these plants have actually killed more people in the last 50 years than the nuclear industry has, and if I looked and did the research, I am absolutely certain that it could be backed up.

So what choice do we have? We simply need to do everything in our powers possible to make nuclear as safe as possible and to learn from past failures. You better believe changes will be made to improve safety, even though no site in the US really needs it with respect to this isolated incident. We don't deal with large tsunamis and the plants are already designed to withdtand significant earthquakes. I do know the sites I do work for look at the largest quake in history in this area and then put a safety factor on top of that to ensure safety. I can't get into more details, as that information is possibly propietary and I don't want to risk anything over that. But that is based off of the guidance of the NRC, which is public knowledge and can be looked up on their website.

Finally, I will say macandkanga that I have shared this forum with you for a while and I definitely respect your opinion. In no way are these posts criticism of you personally or derogatory. And I did not take your remarks that either. I figure you know this already, but I want to preempt anything by just saying that. lol :o)

I respect yours as well Btimm. You know much more about the subject from a scientific perspective than I do. Thats for sure! I also want to add that I do not criticize the Japanese for any negligence in this matter either. I lean towards nuclear power myself believe it or not. However, being born and raised in So Cal and witnessing the power and destruction of big earthquakes, having to leave the beach because of a tsunami warning, and the recent events puts one on kind of an edge.

Ok. It's late and time for bed!

The test wasn't to see what happened if power failed - it was to see how long the generator would continue spinning and making electricity once the reactor shutdown. They ran the testing at low power, so the reactor was already quite hot. It is also is an extremely unstable reactor at low power. The operators notified the main operator in charge that what they were doing was unsafe, but the main poerator told them to press on is my understanding. Doing so caused the water to boil, which meant that less heat could be removed from the core, and that is when the core started to heat up. So yes, you are correct about when the reactor started to heat up. Here are some good links for information on the topic:

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/safetyandsecurity/factsheet/chernobylconsequences/

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml
This site above is from the IAEA's website or Internation Atomic Energy Agency. That's a legit source as well. btw, they are centered in Vienna. Working there gives you free housing, free transportation, a large salary, and that is tax-free. I tell you, working there must lead to a rough life. :o)

It should be noted that Chernobyl did not have multiple layers of protection. Most reactors globally now include multiple layers of protection. The coolant itself is one layer of protection. Another layer is the reactor vessel. Then you have containment as well. It is extremely difficult to get a major release of radiation now from the core. You can see this from all of the crap hitting the fan in Japan, yet minimal release has actually occured.

I am not sure why would they would want graphite on control rods. That is not commonplace in the US. Probably not internationally either really. Most control rods have no graphite and are made of boron.

Yes, that is correct.

I do not live in an a region where earthquakes and tsunamis are commonplace. I am sure if I did and was in your shoes, I'd ** a brick too. Fortunately, I feel extremely confidence in the safety of San Onofre and other reactors. Rest easy my friend!

"I do think it is interesting though that the media is giving so much more attention to the nuclear plant situation when the earthquake/tsunami has killed tens of thousands of people and caused such damage. I do not know how it is in other countries, just how it is here in the States. The media loves to really attack the nuclear industry for some reason. "

there is a lot of fear mongering going on right now. nobody is scared of nuclear power. an incident happens, fear mongering! suddenly everyone is afraid of nuclear power! what is constant here? the threat of a nuclear incident. that hasn't changed. so why do you ignore it until an incident happens?

blegh.

i love hearing people say things like "put a solar field there not a nuclear plant". do you know how large and expensive a solar field would have to be to make the same amount of power as a nuclear plant? those mirrors are not cheap!

The picture is awesome, thank you btimm! It helps me a lot! Are the Fuel Bundles in this reactor type also removable? i mean can you pull them out of the water circle during operation?



What exactly does "Low power" mean? I know that it implies, that not much energy was produced but how do you run low power? Small Turbine resistance?



Isn't the water boiling most of the time in the circle?

Here is the link with the information of the graphite on the control rods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Operator_error_initially_faulted

Point 2.2 "Operating instructions and design deficiencies found"

If you read this passage it says that:
"A more significant flaw was in the design of the control rods that are inserted into the reactor to slow down the reaction. In the RBMK reactor design, the lower part of each control rod was made of graphite and was 1.3 meters shorter than necessary, and in the space beneath the rods were hollow channels filled with water"

Thats just a bit confusing to me, it makes no sense, does it?

Btw thank you so much for all the information! Are you working in the energy industry or how come you know so much stuff about it? :D
Thanks for the links too, really helpful information!

They are removable, but you don't move them during operation - you move the control rods to control the reactor. The only time you move the fuel assemblies is when you refuel.



Yeah, that is what low powers is. I am not in operations though, so I don't know the answer to how it is done. lol



Ah yes, it is a boiling water reactor. Most reactors in the world are pressurized water reactors, which is the only reactors I look at for my job.So in this case, the problem would be departure from nucleate boiling, where heat removal from the core becomes worse.



Yeah, I think it has something to do with creating a positive void coefficient, but am not totally sure. Basically, a void coefficient is a means to measure how the core will react to air pockets. Reactors (at least in the US) cannot be built ever having a scenario with a positive void coefficient, directly becausde of Chernobyl, although they were steering away from it before then. If it is positive, it means reactivity is added to the core with air pockets and if it is negative, that means it takes away reactivity. It doesn't mean nothing can ever happen, it just means this variable itself won't add to the reactivity.



I am a nuclear engineer. More specifically, I am a radiological engineer. Some of these things I learned at the university, but my memory is not as good as it used to be, especially since I don't use this information to do my job. Mostly I do accident analyis that proves that just in case an accident happens, both the workers and the public would be safe and not receive more than the current NRC limit for dose. It varies for accident and location, but any US limits can be found publicly in the Code of Federal Regulations, 10CFR50.67.

I have no idea about any regulations in Germany, but that's be interesting to know! :o)

Hope this helps.

This is the most logical in depth thread I think I've ever read on a guitar forum.

this i s just **in great,california is set to recieve a radioactive plune cloud later this afternoon.i guess i better go buy some iodine pills and a lead vest ):

The amount of dose from that plume cloud is so trivial, it isn't even worth mentioning. I saw thaton the news, and they were making it out to be such a problem for California and it truly pissed me off, because it conveys misleading information to the public. I am not making these comments about you gshredder, it is about the media.

Let's put it this way. The dose received in Tokyo fromo this incident is 10% of the dose received from an xray. So how small will the dose be after it travels 3000 miles to California? A radioactive plume will dissipate in much the same manner as smoke or any other gas. It gets dispersed significantly over a distance. Would people be worried about a bunch of smoke over in Japan making its way towards California? Well, honestly, they'd give about the same dose.

Oh btw, if you really want to see things that give off doses of radiation, check out what cigarettes do to you and other things.

http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/external/PublicActivities/EmergencyPublicInformation/AboutRadiation/tabid/319/Default.aspx

Sorry for the rant, and gshredder, this is not directed at you, I just get annoyed witht he media misleading people. And they do it on purpose, because they need interesting news to have people come back for more. It's sickening.

Long story short: don't sweat that plume Californians.

aye,thanks brian,ya set me straight,like you said the media misleads peoplee for ratings.

go ahead and ask, I'm sure I'll be able to find out the regulations in Germany! :)

And the graphite on the rods is still bothering me. Can it actually be, that by too much moderation you actually slow the neutrons down so much that no further reaction will happen?

What is you opinion what is going to happen in Japan btimm? Do you think they will be able to stop the process?

No, it has something to do with the fact that those plants use natural Uranium and don't bother with enrichment.



I think the public will be safe from harm. I think there may be some issues with operators though.

From the NEI website ...

"A World Health Organization spokesman said that radiation levels outside the 20-kilometer (12-mile) evacuation zone around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan are not harmful for human health. He said the WHO finds no public health reason to avoid travel to unaffected areas in Japan or to recommend that foreign nationals leave the country. He also said there is no risk that exported Japanese foods are contaminated with radiation.

The Japanese government issued an advisory on Tuesday for people to evacuate from a 12-mile zone around the plant, and also told people living within an 18-mile radius to stay indoors. Radiation levels at the plant boundary have been declining in the last day or so."

Anyone in here is into conspirations and NWO ideas? There is a lot of crazy stuff ppl should look after...

Personally im a believer

^^ there out ther*whistles x-files theme*
but on a serious note i tottally agree with alex,there some big things goin on behind the scenes in all off the worlds governments,extremely powerful people we have never heard,of and expieriments,and there is not a damn thing we can do about it,ya know why,because we dont waht there doin xp.

Actually more than radiation Im conserned Japanese way to handle things there, dont get me wrong, but I believe that Japanese culture is based on strict hierarchy on business world where they follow Processes like its only law in the world, its not just to get the things done and doing job, but its also matter of honor... hard to explain, but its risky in situations like this.

Emp

ps. and gs, internet is full of documentaries what TRULY are goin on in the world if you are really interested, but be warned its not nice to realize.

Oh, anyone who thinks there aren't disgusting things going on behind the scenes is naive. Just look up the Odessa Files, which has been proved to be factual in nature.

Media has got us by the b@ll$,has anyne hears of the HAARP project? Everyone is focusing on the nuclear alert in japan right now..but on the other side ofthe world, the UN gave authorization to the US/Allies to attack libya,in fact,france is doing that right now,they are taking all the air traffick,later to attack by earth

Every 19 years,the is a "Supermoon" wich means,the moon is as close as it can be to the earth,but also..the prphecy says,today,the war begins.

but media preffers to cover the apparent chaos in tokyo and the mini armaggedon they live in japan,wich at some point,yeah its true,but they exagerate..search youtube for video in japan in recent days,life is normal,not as it used to be,but there is no hell in tokyo either

Yeah and its somehow funny when it comes to that "who fund these kind of things ^_^".... :P

Emp

What prophecy says that the war starts today?

something big is happening,dont now what there planning but i say be prepared for the worst.

Edgar Cayce is what you are looking for

"...The earth will be broken up in the western portion of America. The greater portion of Japan must go into the sea. The upper portion of Europe will be changed as in the twinkling of an eye. Land will appear off the east coast of America. When there is the first breaking up of some conditions in the South Sea and those as apparent in the sinking or rising of that that's almost opposite same, or in the Mediterranean, and the Etna area, then we many know it has begun.."

"Strifes will arise through the period. Watch for them near the Davis Strait in the attempts there for the keeping of the life line to land open. Watch for them in Libya and in Egypt, in Ankara and in Syria, through the straits about those areas above Australia, in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf."