Fukushima Disaster Becoming Megadisaster

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
Here's one of several articles I read this morning on the worsening situation.

BBC News - Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

Summarizing the articles:

In the two years since the tsunami they built something like 1000 tanks on-site to contain radioactive cooling water. Within two years the capacity of the tanks will be exceeded. Some 400 tons of water is generated daily to deal with the molten reactor cores.

Meanwhile leaks into the ground water have been detected. They're not sure how much leakage is actually taking place as only about 10% of the tanks have gauges. Monitoring is done by manual observation in a highly radioactive environment. A recent leak was "detected" when someone noticed the level was down more than 10 meters (over 30 feet). Robot inspection is not viable as the robots can't negotiate the extensive rubble on the site or simply don't return.
 
Last edited:

RyCo1983

Formerly known as TheFlyingAlamo
Messages
3,596
Reaction score
191
Fukushima's gonna have to wait until after Temple.

STAY FOCUSED ON TEMPLE!
DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE MASSIVE NUCLEAR REACTOR LEAK THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BECOME A MASSIVE DISASTER WITH WORLDWIDE IMPLICATIONS

FOCUS ON TEMPLE




In all seriousness,

I've been following this for the last few weeks, this is actually more important than the Temple game folks.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Nuke does not approve...

Mumford and Sons
Hipsters
Green beans
High waisted shorts
Short shorts on fat girls
Cardinals
Cardinals fans
Miley Cyrus
Bieber
Kardashians, Kanye included
The Miami Heat
PETA
The Humane Society
Government of California
Opponents of nuclear power
Vegans
BLOGGERS
People who don't discipline their children
People who keep their children on a leash at the mall like a f'ing dog
People that won't stop texting while you're talking to them
High school kids
People who use the term "zen"
People who say they're sending one of the following your way: positive thoughts, positive energy, good vibes, light, other similar stupid shits
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
So I'm inferring Temple caused the nuclear leak? Bastards. They're about to get what's coming to them.
 

RyCo1983

Formerly known as TheFlyingAlamo
Messages
3,596
Reaction score
191
So I'm inferring Temple caused the nuclear leak? Bastards. They're about to get what's coming to them.

Jesus....then we must defeat them...not for Notre Dame...but for mankind!
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
Incredibly high radiation levels discovered at crippled Fukushima plant | Fox News
Published February 08, 2017

Newly-discovered radiation levels in one of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant’s reactors are stunningly high, the Japan Times and others have reported. The space is so radioactive that even a robot couldn’t last two hours, let alone a human.

It was on March 11, 2011, that the coastal power plant in Japan’s Fukushima Prefecture was hit by a tidal wave, which not only cut off the plant’s electrical power, also took out the generators that provided its backup power. The natural disaster triggered the meltdown of three reactors at the plant.

The new readings come from inside reactor two, where the radiation levels are 530 sieverts per hour, according to Tepco, the Tokyo Electric Power Company. That’s highly radioactive— most radiation is measured in thousandths of a sievert, a unit called a millisievert.

One dental X-ray is just .01 millisievert, according to the Guardian— which also pointed out that 10 sieverts can lead to death.

At the end of January, Tepco said that they had taken, from inside reaction two, “intriguing images that may be fuel debris from the March 2011 accident,” but needed to study them more. (They have provided more information of their findings in this PDF.)

The company would like to deploy a robot, but the robot would be fried before even two hours at those radiation levels, since it is designed to endure 1000 sieverts, according to the Japan Times.

The radiation levels are the highest yet measured at the devastated plant, which could take as many as four decades to fully deal with.

Not since Chernobyl suffered a catastrophic meltdown in 1986 in the former Soviet Union has the world witnessed such a serious nuclear accident— and it was only in 2016 that experts succeeded in covering Chernobyl’s site with a large protective dome to protect the concrete sarcophagus.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-fukushimas-toxic-water-buildup-idUSKCN1GK0SY
ENVIRONMENTMARCH 8, 2018 / 1:43 AM
Aaron Sheldrick, Malcolm Foster

OKUMA, Japan (Reuters) - A costly “ice wall” is failing to keep groundwater from seeping into the stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, data from operator Tokyo Electric Power Co shows, preventing it from removing radioactive melted fuel at the site seven years after the disaster.

When the ice wall was announced in 2013, Tepco (9501.T) assured skeptics that it would limit the flow of groundwater into the plant’s basements, where it mixes with highly radioactive debris from the site’s reactors, to “nearly nothing.”

However, since the ice wall became fully operational at the end of August, an average of 141 metric tonnes a day of water has seeped into the reactor and turbine areas, more than the average of 132 metric tonnes a day during the prior nine months, a Reuters analysis of the Tepco data showed.

The groundwater seepage has delayed Tepco’s clean-up at the site and may undermine the entire decommissioning process for the plant, which was battered by a tsunami seven years ago this Sunday. Waves knocked out power and triggered meltdowns at three of the site’s six reactors that spewed radiation, forcing 160,000 residents to flee, many of whom have not returned to this once-fertile coast.

Though called an ice wall, Tepco has attempted to create something more like a frozen soil barrier.

Using 34.5 billion yen ($324 million) in public funds, Tepco sunk about 1,500 tubes filled with brine to a depth of 30 meters (100 feet) in a 1.5-kilometre (1-mile) perimeter around four of the plant’s reactors. It then cools the brine to minus 30 degrees Celsius (minus 22 Fahrenheit).

The aim is to freeze the soil into a solid mass that blocks groundwater flowing from the hills west of the plant to the coast.

However, the continuing seepage has created vast amounts of toxic water that Tepco must pump out, decontaminate and store in tanks at Fukushima that now number 1,000, holding 1 million tonnes. It says it will run out of space by early 2021.

“I believe the ice wall was ‘oversold’ in that it would solve all the release and storage concerns,” said Dale Klein, the former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the head of an external committee advising Tepco on safety issues.

“The hydrology of the Fukushima site is very complicated and thus the exact water flow is hard to predict,” he said, “especially during heavy rains.”

Overall, Tepco says a combination of drains, pumps and the ice wall has cut water flows by three-quarters, from 490 tons a day during the December 2015 to February 2016 period to an average of 110 tons a day for December 2017 to February 2018.

It is hard to measure exactly how much the ice wall is contributing, Tepco officials say, but based on computer analysis the utility estimates the barrier is reducing water flows by about 95 tonnes a day compared to two years ago, before the barrier was operating.

“Our assessment is that the ice wall has been effective,” said Naohiro Masuda, Tepco’s chief decommissioning officer, adding that rain falling within the ice wall perimeter contributed to surging volumes. “We now believe we have a system in place to manage the water level.”

However, a government-commissioned panel on Wednesday offered a mixed assessment of the ice wall, saying it was partially effective but more steps were needed.

Controlling the groundwater seepage using the ice wall has been central to Japan’s program to show it had the Fukushima decommissioning in hand.

The barrier was announced just days before Tokyo won the bid to host the 2020 Summer Olympics and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe declared that Fukushima was “under control” in his final pitch to the International Olympic Committee.

In addition to the building costs, the ice wall needs an estimated 44 million kilowatt hours of electricity a year to run, enough to power about 15,000 typical Japanese homes.

NO MORE SPACE
Meanwhile, Tepco must decide how to cope with the growing volume of water stored on site.

The purification process removes 62 radioactive elements from the contaminated water but it leaves tritium, a mildly radioactive element that is difficult to separate from water. Not considered harmful in low doses, tritium is released into oceans and rivers by nuclear plants around the world at various national standard levels.

But local residents, particularly fishermen, oppose ocean releases because they fear it will keep consumers from buying Fukushima products. Many countries, including South Korea and China, still have restrictions on produce from Fukushima and neighboring areas.

A government-commissioned task force is examining five options for disposing of the tritium-laced water, including ocean releases, though no decision has been made.

Ken Buesseler, a radiochemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the United States, suggests that Tepco should open the tanks to external inspections to see if the water is safe.

“From the public’s viewpoint, I think they’d want a bit of independent confirmation,” Buesseler said. “It’s no harder and a lot cheaper than building an ice wall.”
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,399
Reaction score
5,822
I almost had to go to cleanup work for my previous employer. I dodged that.

Now, I kind of wish that I did. The destruction must have been amazing.

The Ice wall is an interesting idea, but not a long-term solution. This cleanup is going to make the massive sarcophagus at Chernobyl look cheap.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
I almost had to go to cleanup work for my previous employer. I dodged that.

Now, I kind of wish that I did. The destruction must have been amazing.

The Ice wall is an interesting idea, but not a long-term solution. This cleanup is going to make the massive sarcophagus at Chernobyl look cheap.

No, the ice wall isn't a a long-term solution. It wasn't meant to be. Nor is it new technology. It's been around for about a century and a half used primarily for mining operations and to mitigate ground water intrusion during foundation construction. It was used in Boston on the Big Dig among other places.

But in Fukushima it's not working as intended. It hasn't reduced the ground water flow which has created an additional problem, an growing "ocean" of contaminated water to deal with. All they're doing is storing it for now and they're running out of space.

A "New Safe Confinement" was put in place at Chernobyl in 2016 but costs at the site will go on for decades at least.

I'm curious how Japanese officials plan on Fukushima facilities and all that contaminated water will hold up during their next tsunami. It's not a question of IF but when.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
In all my experience in environmental cleanup which is primarily limited to petroleum, heavy metals, and liquid organic solvents, the only truism I have learned is that when using these materials, releases will happen and cleanup is extremely difficult and long term and it will be expensive (more so if passed on to the future people) and never 100% Clean.
 

IrishLion

I am Beyonce, always.
Staff member
Messages
19,128
Reaction score
11,077
A "New Safe Confinement" was put in place at Chernobyl in 2016 but costs at the site will go on for decades at least.

The size of that structure is awe-inspiring in pictures. I can only imagine how massive it would seem in-person.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
I'll take clean coal over nuclear waste anyday.

There is no such thing as clean coal and there never will be. Coal is dead/dying. Its like VHS in the late 1980s. It will be replaced by better, cleaner, more renewable sources due to competition and it should be.

Clearly nuclear plants are also inadvisable. I can attest that my state has two proposed reactors under construction that may never actually be built in which the people of the state are on the hook.

We also have the Savannah River Site which is crazy screwed up. I cant even fathom the amount of money spent remediating that site on a continuous basis even with the super strong environmental laws in place.
 
Last edited:

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,975
Reaction score
6,464
Japan has been screwed ever since the Global economy really took off. The island is relatively small and does not have the suite of natural resources to easily compete, but it had already sold itself into being a technological production powerhouse. To do that, they had to import like crazy and use energy like crazy. Coal didn't seem to do it, so Nuclear it was --- this always seemed a bit weird for the only bomb-nuked country to "happily" go nuclear but it shows that when it comes right down to it, big economics and powerful decision-makers always select dollars over any other value.

Japan is one of the worst locations generally for any of this --- all "coast" with massive tropical storm threats and highly earthquake prone. But "the money's good so who cares if we risk an accident?" ..... and it's not like such decisions MUST be inevitable; another island in that general area of the world (NZ) made an opposite values choice.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
I'll take clean coal over nuclear waste anyday.

Why? Coal waste is very radioactive and unlike nuclear waste that can all be stored in a mountain, the regulations for coal waste are relaxed and it continues to poison us daily.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Japan has been screwed ever since the Global economy really took off. The island is relatively small and does not have the suite of natural resources to easily compete, but it had already sold itself into being a technological production powerhouse. To do that, they had to import like crazy and use energy like crazy. Coal didn't seem to do it, so Nuclear it was --- this always seemed a bit weird for the only bomb-nuked country to "happily" go nuclear but it shows that when it comes right down to it, big economics and powerful decision-makers always select dollars over any other value.

Japan is one of the worst locations generally for any of this --- all "coast" with massive tropical storm threats and highly earthquake prone. But "the money's good so who cares if we risk an accident?" ..... and it's not like such decisions MUST be inevitable; another island in that general area of the world (NZ) made an opposite values choice.

OMM you're anti-nuclear?

I think New Zealand is making a big mistake.

I'd be all about building twenty more nuclear power plants in the US. Ban coal by 2040, it's what is actually killing us via radiation.

Japan didn't engineer Fukushima to withstand a tsunami. It was bad engineering.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,975
Reaction score
6,464
I'm anti-nuclear for an island in the planet's greatest Earthquake zone and fully exposed to some of the biggest weather monsters the planet generates. (You, Buster, are usually more discriminating in your dividing of the issue rationally in my experience of your commentary.)

Nuclear CAN have its place if a country decides to pursue an easier way out on energy supply than small scale localized solutions --- as most do, of course. That decision is pushed by the Global Dollar race. To compete, some countries like France "solve" their problem with nukes, but they (with good engineering and state security) can handle that --- not being weather-prone nor particularly earthquake prone.

My deeper green position is to phase out coal as rapidly as possible, then phase out nuclear, and go with wind energy and properly scaled other solar technologies. This is not just fairytale. I use Wind-derived energy now here in Michigan. My brother in North Carolina is using Solar panels, and often selling excess back. My relatives in Ohio COULD have jumped on the extra support for wind turbines and net-metering had they not been too conservative and afraid.

We need to get rid of coal. It has almost every bad trait one might name. It rose when the country was ignorant about systemics and ga-ga about growth, and so it did its job. I can't fault the industry for its history except for how the fat cats at the top deliberately/knowledgeably refused to slow down and protect workers that they knew they were killing with their mining practices --- the history on this is awful. Still today, one pit mine owner in northern WV deliberately has refused to institute promised safety measures and the last "accident" a few years ago killed workers. "Casualties of the money war." I've known many sport buddies whose fathers died coughing up sh!t.


As to New Zealand: some of my best friends have relatives there. They live happy lives. Not sure why they should change, or what more they should be chasing. If they are coal-dependent (I've not asked), well, they should rethink that and go with the Sun and the Wind, and maybe tidal too.
 
Last edited:
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
I'm anti-nuclear for an island in the planet's greatest Earthquake zone and fully exposed to some of the biggest weather monsters the planet generates. (You, Buster, are usually more discriminating in your dividing of the issue rationally in my experience of your commentary.)

Nuclear CAN have its place if a country decides to pursue an easier way out on energy supply than small scale localized solutions --- as most do, of course. That decision is pushed by the Global Dollar race. To compete, some countries like France "solve" their problem with nukes, but they (with good engineering and state security) can handle that --- not being weather-prone nor particularly earthquake prone.

My deeper green position is to phase out coal as rapidly as possible, then phase out nuclear, and go with wind energy and properly scaled other solar technologies. This is not just fairytale. I use Wind-derived energy now here in Michigan. My brother in North Carolina is using Solar panels, and often selling excess back. My relatives in Ohio COULD have jumped on the extra support for wind turbines and net-metering had they not been too conservative and afraid.

We need to get rid of coal. It has almost every bad trait one might name. It rose when the country was ignorant about systemics and ga-ga about growth, and so it did its job. I can't fault the industry for its history except for how the fat cats at the top deliberately/knowledgeably refused to slow down and protect workers that they knew they were killing with their mining practices --- the history on this is awful. Still today, one pit mine owner in northern WV deliberately has refused to institute promised safety measures and the last "accident" a few years ago killed workers. "Casualties of the money war." I've known many sport buddies whose fathers died coughing up sh!t.


As to New Zealand: some of my best friends have relatives there. They live happy lives. Not sure why they should change, or what more they should be chasing. If they are coal-dependent (I've not asked), well, they should rethink that and go with the Sun and the Wind, and maybe tidal too.

I have not seen many studies or reports that say wind and solar will be enough to supply us with base load power anytime soon. There are technology hurdles in batteryland that need to happen, from everything I've read.

I hear ya on the earthquakes, but that can be engineered for. Japan engineered for the earthquake just fine, it was that they didn't engineer for the tsunami. Or more specifically, they didn't engineer the back up generator for a tsunami.

This reminds me of a story from work, maybe three years ago.

We were paving a municipal parking lot, a shared lot between the administration and police department. It's a town right down the road and we knew the head of their municipal works. Anyway, they hated their police department, because the works crew had 20+ year old equipment and the police were constantly replacing their equipment with newer shinier toys. There are all kinds of grants for public safety improvement, not so many for municipal road crews. I guess there was a palpable animosity between the two factions come budget time every year.

Anyway, one of our dump truck drivers was likely hitting the pipe too hard and was having an off day and left his truck box up as he...drove out of the parking lot. Ripped three power lines down, stopped traffic, cut off cable to half the city. It was...bad.

So the police department's backup generators kick on. Only, they had a new Homeland Security grant for these blast-proof all-glass power doors....and they didn't hook those up to the backup generator. The entire police force was locked inside their station. I had to be the guy standing in the road moving traffic for a half-hour.

The city municipal crews LOVED IT. It was well into the afternoon but they all ordered take out and sat, 7-8 guys, right in front of the glass windows and ate their dinner. I guess the police were in there until about 1am when Toledo Edison finally restored power.

I guess I'm just saying, engineer your backup generators people.

(We all had a side bet on what the cost to the company would be, median guess was about $50k. Turned out, only about $13k. huh..)
 
Last edited:

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,399
Reaction score
5,822
OMM you're anti-nuclear?

I think New Zealand is making a big mistake.

I'd be all about building twenty more nuclear power plants in the US. Ban coal by 2040, it's what is actually killing us via radiation.

Japan didn't engineer Fukushima to withstand a tsunami. It was bad engineering.

Real environmentalists like nuclear. The problem in Japan was somewhat design, but mainly culture. Had they vented the containment early and not needed government permission to do anything, perhaps it could have avoided melting fuel.
 
Top