Reactor Dome blown away.
Found this tidbit from the Guardian.
The 23 nuclear plants of the same model in the US have just four-hour battery reserves, according to UCS's Ed Lyman.
And now the (relatively) good news. Lyman notes that the spent fuel pools, which were located above the reactors, may indeed have been compromised. "They have may suffered some structural integrity damage," he said. That raises the risk of an explosion, and possible radiation leak, from the pools if technicans are unable to restore cooling systems.
But Lyman added: "The inventory of spent fuels in the pools was well below capacity. That could limit potential impact if there was a loss of coolant to the pools."
The 23 nuclear plants of the same model in the US have just four-hour battery reserves, according to UCS's Ed Lyman.
And now the (relatively) good news. Lyman notes that the spent fuel pools, which were located above the reactors, may indeed have been compromised. "They have may suffered some structural integrity damage," he said. That raises the risk of an explosion, and possible radiation leak, from the pools if technicans are unable to restore cooling systems.
But Lyman added: "The inventory of spent fuels in the pools was well below capacity. That could limit potential impact if there was a loss of coolant to the pools."
CHoff
Me thinkest thou doth misunderstand the "China Syndrome". No one but an idiot believes that the core matterial will REACH China! Merely that is will head off "toward" China, in the American vernacular that China is"straight down". The problem is that on the way "straight down" it will put nasty things into the environment (read aquafers, etc.). Of course, the final containment structure is SUPPOSED to prevent that from happening.AcesHigh wrote:that China syndrome story is the biggest nonsense I ever heard. Why would molten radiactive material cross the entire Earth,
Guys, slow down.
If you want some detail on the internal structures and issues PM me, and I'll send you a Power Point (2007) file.
They do have fuel pools in the upper level of the building. They are used when doing fuel transfer operations, when the plant is in maintenance layup.
The buildings are concrete and steel re-enforced containments.
These plants are BWR Mark I designs. Units 2 & 3 were up power versions with Unit 3 burning MOX fuel.
There are many H2 gas controls included in plant designs, however, the old designs (Mark I) have less controls.
The Japanese are staying relatively mum on the post blast containment inspections. So far they are having (go figure) difficulty accessing the structures, and are relying on stand off visual as well as intrumentation. However, that said, Unit 2 is reported with damage to the Containment (Suppression Pool is part of the Containment Structure) via instrumentation, and Unit 3 from photos is significant damage.
These three units share the Mark I Containment design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BWR_M ... utaway.jpg
If you want some detail on the internal structures and issues PM me, and I'll send you a Power Point (2007) file.
They do have fuel pools in the upper level of the building. They are used when doing fuel transfer operations, when the plant is in maintenance layup.
The buildings are concrete and steel re-enforced containments.
These plants are BWR Mark I designs. Units 2 & 3 were up power versions with Unit 3 burning MOX fuel.
There are many H2 gas controls included in plant designs, however, the old designs (Mark I) have less controls.
The Japanese are staying relatively mum on the post blast containment inspections. So far they are having (go figure) difficulty accessing the structures, and are relying on stand off visual as well as intrumentation. However, that said, Unit 2 is reported with damage to the Containment (Suppression Pool is part of the Containment Structure) via instrumentation, and Unit 3 from photos is significant damage.
These three units share the Mark I Containment design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BWR_M ... utaway.jpg
Oh, almost forgot. TMI-2 Reactor Vessel and the Core (what was left that is) were removed from the plant, and transported to Idaho for post accident analysis and subsequent disposal storage. Some other components were stripped from the plant for analysis and disposal storage as well. The rest of the plant was entombed.
The Japanese are going to be faced with the same choice. Remove the Vessels, or entomb. I think they will eventually remove the Vessels like we did. No reason not to, other than not at all easy to do.
The Japanese are going to be faced with the same choice. Remove the Vessels, or entomb. I think they will eventually remove the Vessels like we did. No reason not to, other than not at all easy to do.
believe me, there are plenty of idiots, who take it literally. I already saw them talking about China syndrome literally, 3 times, in the last two days. (not here)KitemanSA wrote:Me thinkest thou doth misunderstand the "China Syndrome". No one but an idiot believes that the core matterial will REACH China! Merely that is will head off "toward" China, in the American vernacular that China is"straight down". The problem is that on the way "straight down" it will put nasty things into the environment (read aquafers, etc.). Of course, the final containment structure is SUPPOSED to prevent that from happening.AcesHigh wrote:that China syndrome story is the biggest nonsense I ever heard. Why would molten radiactive material cross the entire Earth,
I liked the plastic outfits, they were way serious.
http://www.digitalglobe.com/downloads/f ... 011_dg.jpg
Steam from Unit 3 would seem to indicate Containment failure.
http://www.digitalglobe.com/downloads/f ... 011_dg.jpg
Steam from Unit 3 would seem to indicate Containment failure.
Update from DigitalGlobe, but still no post explosion imagery for Unit 2.
http://www.digitalglobe.com/downloads/D ... ch2011.pdf
http://www.digitalglobe.com/downloads/D ... ch2011.pdf
Actually, look more like an "anti stupid" bias. There are certain things in the nuclear industry that are just plain STUPID. Not having back-up syustems on "temporary" storage is one of them. Expecially when "temporary" is 40 to 60 years... or longer.Skipjack wrote:Choff, that paper is clearly showing its anit nuclear agenda. Whatever they say should be taken with a grain of salt.
I am about as pro-nuke as it can be, but even I can be anti STUPID nuke. This style plant is STUPID nuke.