Fuel rod removal: Fukushima’s most dangerous operation yields first successes

[MineralMan]

http://rt.com/news/fukushima-nuclear-fuel-rods-072/

Published time: November 21, 2013 13:59

Workers at the Fukushima nuclear power plant have successfully removed the first nuclear fuel rods from a cooling pool suspended above ground in what is one of the most dangerous operations ever attempted in nuclear history.

Already riddled with problems, the complex process of cleaning up and decommissioning the plant consists of many components. The removal of these rods is of paramount importance for safety and the prevention of another nuclear catastrophe.

Each fuel assembly contains 50 to 70 fuel rods – there are a total of 22 assemblies that have been transported today aboard a trailer to another, newer, storage pool on the final day of an operation that lasted four days, according to a statement by Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), Reuters reports.

What used to be done by computer will now be an entirely manual process, because of the tilted position of the cooling pools, which was affected by the tsunami and earthquake that battered the power plant in 2011.

It's looking better for this risky operation. They've managed to move 22 fuel rod assemblies so far, with no major issues. Let's hope this success continues.

Nuclear Power Generation is not safe. It cannot be made to be safe.

[MineralMan]

1. To add: There were lots of predictions of disaster

from this fuel rod assembly removal project. Almost nobody would consider the possibility that it would succeed, and the horrible possibility that it would not and that another major earthquake might make removal impossible was almost never mentioned.

Now, the removal process has begun, successfully so far. They worked for four days, and are now stopping temporarily to analyze the process and to plan improvements for the rest of the fuel rod assembly removal program.

There is still a possibility of failure or problems down the road, but every assembly that is removed is one that won't have to be removed again and will not be there in the case of another major earthquake. The situation at Fukushima is terrible, but it is the situation that must be dealt with.

This successful removal of 22 assemblies gives me a bit more optimism that the operation will be successful. I certainly wish TEPCO success in carrying this operation out.

Nuclear Power Generation is not safe. It cannot be made to be safe.

[Katashi_itto]

68. Not Predictions. The odds simply didn't look good.

I am all for this going well. I plan on retiring to Japan. I would like a Japan to retire to.

[malaise]

2. K & R

Hope it works

[MineralMan]

3. Thank you. I hope so, too.

As difficult as the operation is, it pales in the face of not removing the fuel from the damaged reactor building. That would create a far more serious danger.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one. That's all I can do, sadly.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. Something they should have done a year ago.

[MineralMan]

6. I think the planning process was done very carefully.

It's a must-succeed operation, and they've been going over and over the plans. They had a rehearsal at one point, removing one assembly. Then, they went back to the planning phase again. Now, they've removed 22 assemblies, and they're pausing again. I assume they are analyzing the operation based on more experience.

While it's important to act quickly, it's even more important to act successfully, I think.

[Egnever]

5. Wait what?

I am pretty sure I was told on here just the other day the whole world was going to implode when they attempted this.

Guess that was all alarmist bullshit.

[MineralMan]

7. Almost all of those stories were from advocacy websites and publications.

Opponents of nuclear power generation, of which I'm definitely one, tend to look at the entire industry with horror, and that colors their publications. Fear-mongering is not a solution to problems like this. Engineering is. Apparently engineering has produced a technique that appears to be working so far. That's a good thing.

Now that the operation has started, we're seeing reporting about it as it is going on. So far, so good.

[Egnever]

8. I think being an opponent of nuclear power is great!

but posting outrageous alarmist BS only serves to discredit nuclear opponents.

[MineralMan]

9. That's a lesson that advocacy groups rarely learn.

Crying wolf is not a good activism strategy. It never has been.

[Egnever]

11. Agreed and it is very unfortunate

There are legitimate concerns with much of this stuff but chosing to post hyperbol almost always ensures those concerns are dismissed out hand.

It's a shame.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Ive learned to take Arne Gundersen's hyperbole with a grain of salt

And I think fission power as it exists today is a monumentally stupid idea.

[madokie]

10. Nope not even close

You weren't told anything resembling that. What has been said time and time again is this operation is one very dangerous operation and that it has the possibility of catastrophic consequences if things go badly. I don't think anyone here is hoping for this not be a very successful operation.

[Egnever]

12. oh really?

David Suzuki warns that Japan could be wiped out and that North America's west coast could be forced to evacuate if the Fukushima nuclear facility falls in an earthquake. .David Suzuki has issued a scary warning about Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant, saying that if it falls in a future earthquake, it's "bye bye Japan" and the entire west coast of North America should be evacuated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3983039

[madokie]

13. Operative word here is 'could'

if things go wrong. We're hoping things don't go wrong. He didn't say it was going to happen, he said it could happen. Big difference between going to and could.

[Egnever]

14. LOL thats just one of many hair on fire world is going to end

doomsday scenarios posted here.

I do love the parsing now that things are going successfully.

Could

[madokie]

16. do show me more

You didn't even get this one right and you're acting as if you did. Now that is fall down funny

[Egnever]

18. Why so you can continue to stick your fingers in your ears?

sounds like a huge waste of time to me.

[madokie]

20. go pound sand

I'm not the one with a comprehension problem here. guess who is

[MineralMan]

15. Even so, the statement was an exaggeration.

The reality is that neither of those things would happen, even in the worst case situation. Overstatement is always an aspect of advocacy propaganda. Scare tactics are lousy activism, IMO.

It would be a major disaster, but not at that scale, at all.

[madokie]

17. I don't think you are a nuclear expert MM

with all due respect. I'm not saying Suzuki is either. What I'm saying is no one was saying what the person who I repied to said they did. thats all.

[MineralMan]

19. I would not call myself a nuclear expert.

Nor have I done so. However, we have had major nuclear reactor incidents in the past. The result was not the destruction of entire countries, nor evacuation of distant ones. I have good sense and enough knowledge of such things to detect when smoke is being blown up my leg. I'm not a nuclear expert, but I have been working against nuclear power generation since it first began, and have spent a lot of time learning the technology and risks. I understand it.

Overstatement and exaggeration are poor strategies. I won't engage in them, and I'll point them out when I see them. I'll also post positive stories like the one above. And I'll do that without any apologies.

[longship]

23. Plus, people sniping from the sidelines is not good form.

No matter what their apparent credentials. The people at the scene are the ones who know the actual situation.

I have studied physics and understand nuclear. I even worked at a DOE federal lab where they stored a vast amount of Pu. We had regular "criticality alarm" tests, which if real would mean that a criticality had occurred some place on the site of the lab. Needless to say, one did not work there without understanding nuclear physics.

There's altogether too much hyperbole about Fukushima. People are writing checks that their accounts cannot cover.

And yes! I also am totally against nuclear power. But when you make shit up it doesn't help the cause one smidgen. In fact, it destroys ones credibility. Why would anybody want to do that?

Happy to R&K.

[99Forever]

30. From the "sidelines?"

Last I heard, radiation isn't real respectful of artificial boundaries on maps. It goes where the wind and ocean currents carry it. There is no place on this planet that could be considered as "on the sidelines" by any one of rational mind.

[longship]

50. It also dissipates with distance. That's how it works.

Japan is about 5,000 miles from the west coast. I am not too worried, especially since the Japanese are obviously not going to do anything crazy. If they have trouble, they will stop and figure it out.

What I mean by "from the sidelines" are the people making hyperbolic statements who have no first hand knowledge of the actual situation at Fukushima. That's not very helpful when it comes to things like radiation which is generally a scary thing to people.

Why would anybody want to blow this up out of proportion anyway? It's bad, yes. But trying to make it sound worse does not help matters. The Japanese did not do themselves any favors by trying to hide things. Now many people will not believe them. I don't really blame those who don't trust them, but making shit up or inflating the dangers is almost worse.

They need to be open and frank about what's happening. That's the only solution.

[MineralMan]

48. Thanks for that.

[FBaggins]

32. The problem is that this was never even close to rational

"If things go wrong" in the worst possible way... workers at the plant would be in danger. Japan (let alone the West Coast) simply isn't.

[pa28]

21. Excellent.

It's a long road ahead and I feel much better about the remediation effort now that the Japanese have asked for and received technical assistance from the Department of Energy.

[Art_from_Ark]

22. They're doing the easiest stuff first

Relatively clean pool (they cleared out the debris), unused fuel rods. The real test will probably come when they start to remove the spent fuel rods.

[dixiegrrrrl]

24. Thank you for that clarification.n/t

[magical thyme]

25. exactly. furthermore, reactor 4 is the easiest of the reactors to remove the fuel from...

2 and 3 have fuel melted into the sides and bottom.

And there are still over a thousand to remove , and a year to go, from Reactor 4. So success in the first 5 days of removal is reason for contained optimism, but it is far too soon to be celebrating.

[FBaggins]

35. Plenty to celebrate

IF you believed any of the nonsense about melted fuel and crushed racks.

The videos clearly show what looks like a perfectly normal extraction process.

[magical thyme]

37. perfectly normal except manually operated and the easiest of the rods to be removed.

It will be a year before Reactor 4 is emptied of its spent fuel, and several years before they can even attempt to remove the fuel from the other reactors.

A lot can go wrong in that time frame. As I wrote above, 4 successful days into a year-long operation is reason to be cautiously optimistic. I'm holding off on celebrating. You can do as you like.

[FBaggins]

42. Manual doesn't really make it harder

Watch the videos... they aren't just using a fishing rod and hoping to hook something by luck.

Fuel handling isn't always done by computer. The most important assistance the computer provides is not the "down to the millimeter" location of each assembly, it's the tracking of which assembly you're dealing with as it moves from fresh fuel, through each refueling move, placement in the pool (and occasionally restacking within the pool) and eventual move out of the pool to other storage.

and the easiest of the rods to be removed.

We don't know that. Certainly the rest of pool #4 would be roughly comparable. For all we know, #2 will be easier since it avoided a hydrogen explosion and still has the original fuel-handling equipment. No debris in the pool or explosion above it. No badly damaged building to work around (etc).

A lot can go wrong in that time frame.

Of course. And some of it could endanger people working at the plant.

But not something that would be "the end of Japan" - let alone the rest of the world.

[magical thyme]

44. Sorry, but I'm taking the word of people who actually do the job of fuel removal

over yours.

I've been alive and done enough in my life to know that watching somebody do something on video and actually doing it are not even close to the same thing. Fuck, I could watch a video of Kristi Yamaguchi on ice all day and see how easy it is to skate.

[FBaggins]

46. Like who?

There haven't been any such people talking about the kinds of imagined dangers we've read about here.

[magical thyme]

49. Like Toshio Kimura, former Tepco technician

"Removing the rods from the pool is a delicate task normally assisted by computers, according to Toshio Kimura, a former Tepco technician, who worked at Fukushima Daiichi for 11 years.

“Previously it was a computer-controlled process that memorized the exact locations of the rods down to the millimeter and now they don’t have that. It has to be done manually so there is a high risk that they will drop and break one of the fuel rods,” Kimura said."

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/the-real-fukushima-danger.html


And there are plenty of nuclear experts looking at and talking about the risks involved.

[FBaggins]

55. I figured that's who you were thinking of

He's parroting Arnie's nonsense (and visa-versa). You're claiming by implication that he's someone who performed fuel transfers. Can you back that up? And please avoid the sources that claim (as with Arnie's fake "reactor operator" credentials) that he designed the cores for Fukushima. The evidence suggests that he was fairly junior technician in another part of the plant (monitoring the core and reporting on power generation after graduating from a TEPCO trade school after Jr High). He appears to be trying to follow in Arnie's footsteps by pretending to have identifies safety issues and quitting over them... to go on to create custom "expert reports" to support anti-nuclear positions.

And there are plenty of nuclear experts looking at and talking about the risks involved.

Actual risks, sure. But there aren't any actual experts who are talking about the kinds of nonsense we've seen in recent weeks (criticalities from fuel assemblies touching, rods bursting into fire on contact with air, molten assemblies at the bottom of the pools, "greatest threat to humanity" etc)

As I said... It's simply false to claim that fuel handling must be handled by computer. That was a red herring. Let alone that a manual process means there's a "high risk that they will drop and break one of the fuel rods".

[magical thyme]

56. thank you for the source links to back up your claims...

oh, wait a minute. There aren't any.

Enough. I have better things to do with my time than read your claims.

[Warpy]

27. They might not remove those.

They might just entomb them where they are.

[Art_from_Ark]

28. According to TEPCO, they've already started removing them

11月18日より、福島第一原子力発電所４号機使用済燃料プールからの燃料取り出し作業を開始しております
On November 18th, work started on removing fuel (rods) from the spent fuel pool of Unit 4 of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Facility.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2013/1232336_5117.html

[Warpy]

29. Yes, from those pools but not from the reactor

I'm sorry I didn't clarify that enough. The reactor core will likely be entombed.

[FBaggins]

34. Why would the unused fuel rods be easier than the spent ones?

The nutcase argument was that those unused fuel rods posed the greatest risk of criticality (true in the sense that it's a slightly less infinitesimally small possibility). Unused fuel rods would not be in any less danger from imagined damage from falling debris, explosions, or the earthquakes... so why would they be easier to remove?

[Art_from_Ark]

36. This video explains why

http://www.news24.jp/articles/2013/11/07/07239867.html#

[FBaggins]

38. Could you translate the key point?

The graphics certainly don't appear to imply one.

[Art_from_Ark]

41. I can't listen to it right now

I will listen to it when I have some time, which will probably be several hours from now.

The video is from Nippon News Network, and contains an interview with one of the journalists who was allowed into Unit 4, as well as video images of the work site. There is also a discussion of the risks involved.

[FBaggins]

43. ???

Then how do you know that it supports the notion that unused assemblies in the SFP are easier to remove than spent assemblies?

[Art_from_Ark]

45. I have watched the video before

It is a long video, I don't remember the exact place that has the discussion that is relevant to what you want to know, so I will have to review the video to find the place that talks about it. I can't do that right now.

[FBaggins]

47. Ok. Thanks.

[Throckmorton]

60. well, for one thing, if they have never been critical, they are only alpha emitters.

No daughter products emitting high energy gammas. Physically, there is little difference between a burned and unburned assembly. Rad safety wise, there is a world difference between the two. Before I left nuclear power last year, I was frequently on refueling teams.

I rarely post on these topics, because I just can't stand all the hate mail. Those of you that accused me of being a monster will be glad the hear that I am working on microgrids now. Trying to sole the conundrum of how we make them safe, a harder task than you might think.

[FBaggins]

61. That doesn't make them harder to remove.

The process is identical in either case.

The greatest fear the anti-nuke crusade brigade is pushing is the chance of dropped (or even touching) fuel bundles achieving re-criticality and forcing Tokyo to evacuate. While the chance of that has a whole mess of zeroes after the decimal (and before any other digit)... the unused fuel is at least theoretically more likely to do that. In fact... most of the creative fiction they were working on a week or two ago was that the unused bundles were the dangerous ones.

The equipment can't lift either of them out of the water, so the only real radiological risk would be if the transfer cask is dropped and bursts open (also unlikely in the extreme)... but that's after removal and little different from other fuel movement at undamaged reactors since we're now about three years from their last fissioning (and over the dry-cask 5-year line for the vast majority of the pool contents).

Those of you that accused me of being a monster will be glad the hear that I am working on microgrids now.

I don't remember accusing you of anything.

[Throckmorton]

72. Never said you did,

Burned assemblies do tend to be warped from there time in the reactor. Some bundles will require "The Shoehorn" to get them in/out of the reactor/spent fuel rack.

[Sirveri]

73. These are MOX rods, Pu239 undergoes spontaneous fission

If you did large amounts of refuels then I would defer to your judgement if you did any MOX reloads. Still less dangerous than the spent rods from a radcon perspective.

[FBaggins]

75. No they aren't.

There was no MOX in unit 4.

Pu239 undergoes spontaneous fission

All spent fuel contains plutonium. Spontaneous fission occurs even in natural uranium (and is far too small to be relevant).

[Sirveri]

77. Scratch that, double checking the numbers you're right.

Always thought SF was a higher decay mode for Pu239. Are you sure about zero MOX in Unit 4, since everyone keeps saying that there is MOX in that pool I'm curious where you're getting your info.

U234-
? : 100.00 %
SF : 1.6E-9 %
Mg : 1E-11 %
Ne : 9E-12 %

U235-
? : 100.00 %
SF : 7.0E-9 %
Ne ? 8.E-10 %
28Mg : 8.E-10 %

U238-
? : 100.00 %
SF : 5.5E-5 %

Pu239-
? : 100.00 %
SF : 3.E-10 %

[FBaggins]

78. I'm sure. Yes.

Unit #3 had just started using MOX at their last refeuling outage... so there wasn't even any spent MOX in the #3 SFP (though there would be a little "fresh" MOX that hadn't been loaded). None of the other units had started using MOX yet - Unit #3 was one of the first in Japan (receiving the fuel in 1999 from France, but not being given permission to start using it until late 2010).


everyone keeps saying that there is MOX in that pool

"Everyone" rarely knows what they're talking about when it comes to nuclear reactors. Note that (as I said above)... all spent reactor fuel has plutonium in it... so it isn't as if there would be a big difference if there was MOX in the pool. For some reason, people latched onto that early on as something else to fear about Fukushima when it really didn't matter a bit (MOX behaves in essentially the same way as other fuel rods during a meltdown).

[Sirveri]

79. Right, due to U-238 activation via neutron flux you'll have Pu-239

This is the real problem is that there was never any postings as to scientifically why MOX would be worse. Thinking logically there would be more Pu, which has a shorter half life, so you have an increase alpha emission rate. SF neutron flux would be similar since U238 is E-5 while Pu is E-10, and by volume you'll have dramatically more 238 than Pu239 or U235 since LEU is only up to 5%. I suppose they could have been arguing the toxicity of heavy metal poisoning from Plutonium, which is likely accurate, however the same holds true for Uranium and we have studies about the health effects of depleted uranium that at least support concerns about that subject from a heavy metal perspective.

They might have been concerned about airborne uptake of Plutonium due to the differences in half life which would cause an increase in curie count per particle. U235 = 704000000 year half life compared to Pu239 of 24110, so you would in theory get a greater neutron flux and alpha emission rate off of Plutonium, though it's still much lower than traditional nuclides of concern like radio cesium, strontium, and cobalt. Obviously I haven't done the math in this post to see the exact variance in rates. I compared U235 to Pu239 since those are the fertile fuels and the significant difference by volume. Probably still well under limits, don't feel like doing the math right now.

[Art_from_Ark]

74. I listened to it again-- twice

The narrative is a little confusing because they talk about the fuel pool ("nenryo pool&quot and removing fuel rods ("nenryo&quot , but at the beginning, around 0:20, the narrator talks about removing spent fuel rods ("shiyou-zumi nenryo&quot from the fuel pool, although other Japanese sources call places where spent fuel rods are kept "nenryo shiyou-zumi pool". At any rate, Unit 4 was chosen because it had the easiest conditions among the damaged units, and apparently they made no distinction between the ease or difficulty of moving unused vs. spent fuel rods in that video.

However, according to yesterday's Sankei News,
初回の作業では、習熟などが必要だったため、高い放射線を出さず移送時のリスクが比較的少ない未使用燃料２２体を取り出した。
In the first operation, 22 unused fuel rods were removed because the work requires a high level of skills, among other things, and the unused fuel rods were removed first because they do not emit a high level of radiation and there was a relatively low risk associated with transporting them.

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/science/news/131124/scn13112400570000-n1.htm

[MineralMan]

39. Yes, of course. When faced with

a difficult task, you start with the easiest part, to familiarize yourself with the process. In the game of pickup sticks, for example, you don't start with the most deeply buried piece. You start with the easiest to remove. Same here.

[Warpy]

26. Thank you for this, I am a bit relieved

It's taken this long for them to figure out that leaving them there was not going to be possible and to figure out how to remove them without combusting the outer casing and releasing huge quantities of radiation into the atmosphere.

Nuclear power has never been safe. It won't be until we figure out what to do with the radioactive garbage it generates.

[FBaggins]

31. It's just silly to call this the "most dangerous operation"

This phase is little different from many thousands of fuel transfers performed all over the world. The fear mongers had to invent fantasies of badly bent and partially melted fuel assemblies and "crushed cigarette pack" racks.

But none of that reflected reality (nor has there been any reason to think so for over two years).

What used to be done by computer will now be an entirely manual process, because of the tilted position of the cooling pools

Not all fuel transfers are performed by computer... nor do they need to be. And the pool isn't "tilted"

[RobertEarl]

53. It is dangerous

Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 10:40 PM - Edit history (1)

The whitewashing of the situation by you is a swing and a miss. You do like the nuke industry, don't you? Why else all your whiffing?

You write: ""This phase is little different"
Oh? You mean they have removed rods from pools where the roof fell in before now? Or from a building that exploded? No, FBaggins, this is very different. One strike for you.

Then you argue against the news article saying "the pool isn't tilted"
Yes, the pool is tilted. The whole building is tilted and on a shaky foundation. You are the only person to say it isn't. Strike two.

The unused fuel rods can go critical. Those rods are designed to go critical and do so at a maximum, unlike the spent rods. IOW, the unused rods are not yet spent. And they have been in a pool of badly contaminated water, what with salt water being pumped in, and all kinds of debris from the building explosion. Strike 3, FBaggins. You're out!

[FBaggins]

57. Not to the rest of the world

Oh? You mean they have removed rods from pools where the roof fell in before? Or from a building that exploded? No,

And why would that make it more dangerous? This isn't exactly rocket science. The racks are clearly undamaged and the worst we've seen for the fuel assemblies themselves is rubble (and no visible damage). How exactly does that make it dangerous?

Now... if you fell for your own nonsense about some of the fuel melting to the bottom of the pool... or an explosion in the pool... or racks that were badly deformed - that would be one thing. But none of that matches reality.

Yes, the pool is tilted. The whole building is tilted and on a shaky foundation. You are the only person to say it isn't.

No I'm not. The only evidence of any "tilt" was so tiny that it met the original construction requirements. What they do know is that the pool itself is perfectly level. Nor has there been any evidence of a "shaky foundation" (nor "liquefaction" or "subsiding&quot .

The unused fuel rods can go critical. Those rods are designed to go critical and do so at a maximum,

What entertaining nonsense you provide. Sure... if enough of them are placed in just the right configuration, have an effective moderator and a neutron source, they could go critical. That does not include the ridiculous notion that without a neutron source, and with neutron poisons in the water... that just a couple/few of them could accidentally end up in such a configuration.

Back to that "little different" point. Many thousands of unused fuel rods are moved around in pools every year. In fact, they're loaded into perfect configurations for criticality every time they load a core. They don't miraculously burst into criticality.

and they have been in a pool of badly contaminated water what with salt water being pumped in and all kinds of debris from the building explosion

It's hilarious that you believe that's relevant from a criticality standpoint.

Just watch the videos RobertEarl. You don't understand what you're talking about.

[RobertEarl]

58. Aww, you are such a dreamer

You dream that everything is just peachy. Remember when you told me your dream that building #4 wasn't wrecked? That it wasn't even damaged.

Even Tepco thinks you are dreamer. Thank Gawd you don't work for Tepco. Wait... did you? Where were you on 3/11? Bwahahaha!

[FBaggins]

59. I'm not the one with the active imagination

That would be the people who saw maximum deformations of about one inch (with most of the rest being much smaller than that) out of 70+ feet...

... and imagined that this meant the building was "bulging" and "tilting".

They're the same people who read report that the earthquake caused the entire coastline (for miles around) to subside slightly... and imagined that this means that unit #4 was "sinking".

Then they read reports that hundreds of tons of groundwater was flowing beneath the plant every day. "OMG! All that water must be turning the ground to mush! Liquefaction is going to turn the bedrock holding up those reactors into quicksand!" they imagined. All while ignoring the fact that the plant is right next to the ocean... and groundwater has been flowing through there for millennia.

You dream that everything is just peachy.

Not at all! It's really screwed up and the operators have an embarrassment of errors to deal with.

It just isn't anything close to "mankind's most dangerous hour".

[RobertEarl]

62. Hey, you almost got something correct.

You are getting closer......

Yes, the groundwater used to flow under the buildings. It was designed that way: Under and around. But since the earthquakes, the water is now flowing through the buildings. These buildings were not designed to have water flow through them. The pools, yes. But the earthquakes put a kink in that, too.

Tepco, much to your dismay, it seems, has quit their dreaming that "this could never happen", and have finally began, belatedly, to tell the Truth, a bit.

They even finally asked the US to help! F'n miracle? Or just an awakening to how damned serious this is? Hard to believe even the idiots of Tepco are way out head of you. Hard to believe.

[FBaggins]

63. Lol! You're the entertaining gift that just keeps on giving, aren't you?

These buildings were not designed to have water flow through them.

So you're saying that several feet of steel reinforced concrete is subject to liquefaction? That you were never actually talking about the ground under #4, but it's the building itself that is hurt by... wait for it... water?

Hilarious.

These buildings were not designed to have water flow through them

You mean other than the hundreds of thousands of gallons of water per minute that used to flow through them? It's just the pools?

They even finally asked the US to help!

The US has been helping all along. You misread the game they were playing. Remember how just a few days ago you were pitching that line about how the fuel removal was delayed indefinitely because the American experts had raised red flags? Compare that to the fact that the first load of those assemblies has already arrived at the shared pool destination.

[RobertEarl]

64. Quit yer dreaming, FBaggins

It really makes you look..... not so smart.

Water is a solvent. Water destroys rocks, concrete too. Add in the rads and the movement and the physics of erosion, and you end up with problems. Really, I have to be the one to remind you of such elemental facts?

The buildings were damaged by the earthquakes. Now ground water is flowing into the basements, and water from above that is used to cool the cores is adding to the amounts flowing into and out of the basements. And that is becoming a big problem. Even Tepco admits these facts.

[FBaggins]

65. Stop... I can't take it.

Anyone consuming carbonated beverages really shouldn't read your posts.

Water is a solvent. Water destroys rocks, concrete too.

So the answer was yes? You think that the steel reinforced concrete of unit 4 is in danger?

Heavens... Let's hope anyone downstream of any of those concrete dams is evacuating now!

Add in the rads

Ah... so radiation impacts erosion and liquefaction now?

and the movement

All that magical "movement" that just doesn't show up in the measurements, eh?

The buildings were damaged by the earthquakes.

There hasn't been any evidence of significant structural damage from the quakes. These happen to be things that can be measured (and have been). The concrete strength exceeded the design specs in every case.

Now ground water is flowing into the basements, and water from above that is used to cool the cores is adding to the amounts flowing into and out of the basements. And that is becoming a big problem. Even Tepco admits these facts.

Water leaking from the cores is most certainly a problem... because it's radioactive. Feel free to provide any Tepco admission "admitting" that the buildings are eroding away because of it.

[RobertEarl]

66. Heh

Tepco is planning, or were planning, an ice wall to keep ground water from the buildings. Fact.

I don't get it, FB, how can you sit there and deny physics? Have you ever seen what water has done to mountains? Ever see where the Colorado river has cut the Grand Canyon?

Now when we add in the radiation, and the nuclear heat, and knowing how steel rusts, it is easy to see, as Tepco does, they have looming problems.

[FBaggins]

67. You shoud just stick with that "I don't get it"

Tepco is planning, or were planning, an ice wall to keep ground water from the buildings. Fact.

And now you're trying to tell us that this is because they're worried that the water is damaging the buildings and not that it's adding to the volume of water they have to treat?

Have you ever seen what water has done to mountains? Ever see where the Colorado river has cut the Grand Canyon?

You one of those creationists that think it did it in a few thousand years?

Now when we add in the radiation, and the nuclear heat

Your imagination is making you look foolish again.

[SidDithers]

69. "the entertaining gift that just keeps on giving"...

Nailed it.



Sid

[99Forever]

33. A start.

It's wonderful that it went well. May this very dangerous and necessary process continue to go without incidents.

[MineralMan]

40. Yes.

[Tikki]

51. Storage is a MAJOR ISSUE.

Tikki

[Bennyboy]

54. Just the beginning.....

Cross posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4072574

[Bonobo]

70. Good job, Japan.

You're getting it done.

Never should have followed USA into the old nuclear minefield to begin with. Nuclear power and Japan don't mix.

[MineralMan]

71. Nuclear power generation was very, very attractive

as an option at one time. For a while, new nuclear plants were being built willy-nilly all over the planet, many times in places that were very unsuitable for them: Diablo Canyon in California and Fukushima, to name just two unfortunate decisions on placement of a plant.

Eventually, people who questioned the wisdom of building so many nuclear power generation facilities finally managed to at least force some regulations that took some such factors into consideration. But, by that time, it was too late, really, and aging facilities began to fail, sometimes in more or less spectacular ways. TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc.

The problem of storing spent fuel for the time necessary still remains to be solved. Nobody wants it around, so it is just stored at the facilities, for the most part. Looking at Hanford, for example, that is another problem that needs a solution.

In the end, nuclear power generation has turned out to have been a very bad idea. Not only is it not "electricity so cheap you won't even get a bill for it," it has become a costly and persistent money sink for those who have built the plants. Nobody really thought long term, and by the time they did, it was too late, and plants were scattered across the world.

I started questioning the wisdom of nuclear power generation in about 1960, following the partial meltdown of the first commercial power reactor at Santa Susana, CA. I lived nearby. It was kept a secret, sort of, but even as a high school kid in a nearby town, I knew about the meltdown, and started studying the issue and nuclear power generation.

Nuclear Power Generation is not safe. It cannot be made to be safe.

Nevertheless, there are nuclear plants all over the freaking place. They are there. We have to deal with them as best we can. Fukushima happened. Now, we must deal with the consequences of our choices. May it go well.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. Keeping fingers crossed.