Massive Quake Hits NE Japan

[germanos]

If the problem started with seawater getting into the diesel fuel of the back-up pumps or power generators could the whole problem have been avoided by putting snorkels on the air intakes for the diesel engines and their fuel tanks? Just think, for about $100 dollars this whole thing could have been averted.

They want to do this for a new reactor that could possiby be build in Zeeland (southwestern Netherlands) The snorkels should be 7 meters high as the place was submerged 4,5 meters in the 1953 flood.

I'm not in favour of this solution .

Just think of a nice containership heading to Antwerp smashing into the snorkels.

[germanos]

Close up of two of the Japanese reactorbuildings:

[germanos]

This video is incredible:
You see the cracks in the earth appearing

The water is probably not from sprung mains as the author thinks but from the water saturated soil that pushes it out like you can do at the beach near the waterline.

[dannubis]

They want to do this for a new reactor that could possiby be build in Zeeland (southwestern Netherlands) The snorkels should be 7 meters high as the place was submerged 4,5 meters in the 1953 flood.

I'm not in favour of this solution .

Just think of a nice containership heading to Antwerp smashing into the snorkels.

Me neither. They should build it downtown Amsterdam.

[germanos]

So you would feel at home there?

[Docfeelgood]

So, the spent fuel rods are kept in non-containment vessel above the reactor! I sure hope the new plants don't do this.

[dannubis]

So you would feel at home there?

I know what you are but what am I ?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I guess he failed to think of Indiana Jones and The Holy Grail when the earth just opened up.... that would be on my mind when looking at ground nicely opening up and then closing again...

[germanos]

I know what you are but what am I ?

A knee jerk poster?

[Docfeelgood]

This video is incredible:
You see the cracks in the earth appearing

The water is probably not from sprung mains as the author thinks but from the water saturated soil that pushes it out like you can do at the beach near the waterline.

wow!

[dannubis]

And why would that be ? What else would you have them do? It is easy to be against something without providing solutions.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Spent fuel pool heat loads are worst following an outage when 1/3 of the core is freshly offloaded. This was the case for unit 4. Unit 4 has no fuel in the core at present if I read correctly but has offloaded spent fuel into the SFP.

After 30 days the spent fuel typically requires no additional cooling source as the sensible heat rise of the pool is offset by normal evaporative cooling.

Spent Fuel Rods are loaded into boron encased enclosures before going into the SFP. Boron is the strong moderator that allows control rods to kill nuclear reactions by sucking up the neutrons being generated by the fissile materials. These enclosures are intended to prevent fuel rod overheating even in the event of SFP failures. The loss of the SFP water inventory is a concern from a contamination stndpoint. THe water in these pools is highly radioactive (not nearly as much as the core however) from irradiated metails activated corrosion products (radioactivated rust etc that accumulate of fuel from piping etc.) etc. This is the reason I was interested in the damage that happened to unit 1 and 3 upper containment decks. That being said the dispersion of the SFP water inventory will be a local groundwater issue most likely. Despite claims to the contrary water does not burn. So anyone thinking OMG the spent fuel pool is on fire remain calm. The unit 4 fires were and continue to be lube oil fires on pumps.

[Docfeelgood]

Ogie? would it be a good idea to say build nuke plants under ground or under water? I was thinking this last night as a way to make the plants safer. Could even put them inside a mountainside say like NORAD.

[Docfeelgood]

Spent fuel pool heat loads are worst following an outage when 1/3 of the core is freshly offloaded. This was the case for unit 4. Unit 4 has no fuel in the core at present if I read correctly but has offloaded spent fuel into the SFP.

After 30 days the spent fuel typically requires no additional cooling source as the sensible heat rise of the pool is offset by normal evaporative cooling.

Spent Fuel Rods are loaded into boron encased enclosures before going into the SFP. Boron is the strong moderator that allows control rods to kill nuclear reactions by sucking up the neutrons being generated by the fissile materials. These enclosures are intended to prevent fuel rod overheating even in the event of SFP failures. The loss of the SFP water inventory is a concern from a contamination stndpoint. THe water in these pools is highly radioactive (not nearly as much as the core however) from irradiated metails activated corrosion products (radioactivated rust etc that accumulate of fuel from piping etc.) etc. This is the reason I was interested in the damage that happened to unit 1 and 3 upper containment decks. That being said the dispersion of the SFP water inventory will be a local groundwater issue most likely. Despite claims to the contrary water does not burn. So anyone thinking OMG the spent fuel pool is on fire remain calm. The unit 4 fires were and continue to be lube oil fires on pumps.

But do they do this in the 40 year old plants?

[SlowwHand]

The top 10
Here are the 10 nuclear power sites with the highest risk of suffering core damage from an earthquake, showing their NRC risk estimates based on 2008 and 1989 geological data. (The full list of 104 reactors is below.)

1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Increase in risk: 72 percent.

2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent.

3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent.

4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent.

5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent.

6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.

7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent.

8. Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent.

9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A.


10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42103936/ns/world_news-asiapacific/