Poop Nuclear emergency declared at quake-damaged reactor - Page 36

googlegoogle · 12:36 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...reactors_N.htm

**KC Dan** · 03-15-2011, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Well, the question becomes would they have had a problem absent SCRAMming. I agree that perhaps you SCRAM out of precaution regardless, because if you're going to have an event, it's best to have it after full SCRAM. The partial scram they had at Chernobyl didn't exactly do the job.

But the problems at Daiichi all seem to relate to coolant issues, which seem to have as their source a failure of power. If there were mechanical failures as a result of the earthquake and/or tsunami, then I agree that SCRAMming saved the day.

If all these problems are solely as a result of power failures, when they took their primary power supply offline, then that's horribly ironic and unfortunate (althoguh, again, it's almost without question the "right" move, as the risk of a worse alternative is too high to bear).

I think that the main understanding is that the Tsunami took out the cooling system thus SCRAMming had to happen otherwise you'd be fissioning, creating mass heat with no way to remove it -> thus BOOM.

**Donger** · 03-15-2011, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Well, the question becomes would they have had a problem absent SCRAMming. I agree that perhaps you SCRAM out of precaution regardless, because if you're going to have an event, it's best to have it after full SCRAM. The partial scram they had at Chernobyl didn't exactly do the job.

But the problems at Daiichi all seem to relate to coolant issues, which seem to have as their source a failure of power. If there were mechanical failures as a result of the earthquake and/or tsunami, then I agree that SCRAMming saved the day.

If all these problems are solely as a result of power failures, when they took their primary power supply offline, then that's horribly ironic and unfortunate (althoguh, again, it's almost without question the "right" move, as the risk of a worse alternative is too high to bear).

If they hadn't SCRAMed, the control rods would have been outside the core, allowing the fission reaction to occur. So, when the tsunami hit and knocked out the diesels (and then the battery backup dried up), they would have had a core that was still critical with no water to cool it.

That's bad.

Since they DID SCRAM, the core was no longer critical.

A critical core makes a LOT more heat than a non-critical one (just decay heat).

**Donger** · 03-15-2011, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Hey, I actually knew that. Well, the no containment part. Fricking Russians.

**Donger** · 03-15-2011, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC Dan

I think that the main understanding is that the Tsunami took out the cooling system thus SCRAMming had to happen otherwise you'd be fissioning, creating mass heat with no way to remove it -> thus BOOM.

Let's qualify the "Boom!" though. These reactors do not contain WG uranium or plutonium. They can't create a "nuclear explosion." A big ass dirty bomb, yes, but not Hiroshima.

Amnorix · 03-15-2011, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

If they hadn't SCRAMed, the control rods would have been outside the core, allowing the fission reaction to occur. So, when the tsunami hit and knocked out the diesels (and then the battery backup dried up), they would have had a core that was still critical with no water to cool it.

That's bad.

Since they DID SCRAM, the core was no longer critical.

A critical core makes a LOT more heat than a non-critical one (just decay heat).

(to both you and KC Dan):

Right, I get all that.

My only point, and I think I'm talking past you guys, is that if the only reason the plant is having trouble is because it lacks POWER to operate the cooling system -- and it would have power if it hadn't SCRAMed -- then the problem is (inadvertently of course) self-induced to a degree.

But I agree that (1) you have to SCRAM, as the risk for the alternative worse case scenario is massively worse, and (2) that if ANYTHING at else threw the cooling system off kilter -- mechanical failures or whatever, then SCRAMming saved the day.

I ntoe also that even if the tsunami ONLY affected the deisel backups, that running a nuclear power plant fully operational without any backup system in place is, ummm, not so bright to say the least.

Mr. Plow · 03-15-2011, 02:12 PM

After reading through a couple pages of this thread, I quickly realize that I'm a lot dumber than I originally thought.

**Donger** · 03-15-2011, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

(to both you and KC Dan):

Right, I get all that.

My only point, and I think I'm talking past you guys, is that if the only reason the plant is having trouble is because it lacks POWER to operate the cooling system -- and it would have power if it hadn't SCRAMed -- then the problem is (inadvertently of course) self-induced to a degree.

But I agree that (1) you have to SCRAM, as the risk for the alternative worse case scenario is massively worse, and (2) that if ANYTHING at else threw the cooling system off kilter -- mechanical failures or whatever, then SCRAMming saved the day.

I ntoe also that even if the tsunami ONLY affected the deisel backups, that running a nuclear power plant fully operational without any backup system in place is, ummm, not so bright to say the least.

Oh, I see what you are saying. I guess it's the nuclear power plant equivalent of a NASCAR driver flooring it when he see a wreck in front of him.

Pants · 03-15-2011, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow

After reading through a couple pages of this thread, I quickly realize that I'm a lot dumber than I originally thought.

Shit, I could have told you that without this thread.

teedubya · 03-15-2011, 02:19 PM

This is part of the problem of having 55 nuclear power plants on the "Ring of Fire" fault... or however many there are. Sure, nuclear is safe... until it isn't. Then it's potentially devastating.

Eventually an earthquake will happen... most likely triggering a tsunami. Plus, these plants are 40 years old. A newer plant probably would have been able to better handle this scenario, most likely.

They were decommissioning this plant on March 26th, 2011. So, the timing on this is extra ****ed.

**KC Dan** · 03-15-2011, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

Let's qualify the "Boom!" though. These reactors do not contain WG uranium or plutonium. They can't create a "nuclear explosion." A big ass dirty bomb, yes, but not Hiroshima.

I know...a poor attempt at a joke

**Donger** · 03-15-2011, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC Dan

I know...a poor attempt at a joke

I knew that you knew, but I didn't want other people to think that such a scenario was even possible.

Like Mr. Plow...

teedubya · 03-15-2011, 02:21 PM

Donger, what are your thoughts on MOX fuel?

WoodDraw · 03-15-2011, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teedubya

This is part of the problem of having 55 nuclear power plants on the "Ring of Fire" fault... or however many there are. Sure, nuclear is safe... until it isn't. Then it's potentially devastating.

Eventually an earthquake will happen... most likely triggering a tsunami. Plus, these plants are 40 years old. A newer plant probably would have been able to better handle this scenario, most likely.

They were decommissioning this plant on March 26th, 2011. So, the timing on this is extra ****ed.

"They're funny things, Accidents. You never have them till you're having them."

Pants · 03-15-2011, 02:24 PM

I think we can all agree that it's about time we discover a way to make cold fusion work.

**Donger** · 03-15-2011, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teedubya

Donger, what are your thoughts on MOX fuel?

We never should have stopped reprocessing.

03-11-2011, 07:35 PM
googlegoogle Banned Join Date: Nov 2008 Casino cash: $10004900	Japan going Chernobyl <-original thread i got banned for. thanks idiot mods. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...reactors_N.htm Last edited by googlegoogle; 03-16-2011 at 12:36 PM.. Reason: na
Posts: 4,700

03-15-2011, 02:12 PM	#531
Mr. Plow In Search of a Life Join Date: Dec 2005 Casino cash: $1667391	After reading through a couple pages of this thread, I quickly realize that I'm a lot dumber than I originally thought.
Posts: 30,854

03-15-2011, 02:19 PM	#534
teedubya Most Valuable Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Casino cash: $9470002	This is part of the problem of having 55 nuclear power plants on the "Ring of Fire" fault... or however many there are. Sure, nuclear is safe... until it isn't. Then it's potentially devastating. Eventually an earthquake will happen... most likely triggering a tsunami. Plus, these plants are 40 years old. A newer plant probably would have been able to better handle this scenario, most likely. They were decommissioning this plant on March 26th, 2011. So, the timing on this is extra ****ed.
Posts: 36,664

03-15-2011, 02:21 PM	#537
teedubya Most Valuable Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Casino cash: $9470002	Donger, what are your thoughts on MOX fuel?
Posts: 36,664

03-15-2011, 02:24 PM	#539
Pants Time Keeps On Slipping Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Overland Park Casino cash: $5479900	I think we can all agree that it's about time we discover a way to make cold fusion work. __________________ "Turn the channel to 26!"
Posts: 27,294