Fukishima
 

I don't understand this. The news is now saying they are going to use a helicopter to drop water into a pool housing spent fuel rods.

The kind of quantity of water you can get in a helicopter isn't enormous.

I know they have the best scientists on this, but I don't understand why they can't pump water. Fire departments pump huge amounts of water using mobile appliances all the time. The plant is right next to the sea.

They are also saying that they are having difficulty restoring power to the site to run the pumps, mains supply has failed, diesel generators have failed, and batteries have failed, but a diesel generator can fit on the back of a truck, and there are several of them connected to every decent datacentre or industrial plant in the developed world.

Any developed neighbouring country could have had a ship packed with such equipment sitting in the docks at Fukishima 24 hours ago.

There has to be a lot more to this than the news are telling us. The problems the news says they are having, water supply and power supply, are not difficult to solve, and they have some of the best nuclear engineers in the world working on it. I wish they would just explain what the problem is, we are not stupid.

Re: Fukishima
 

I get the feeling they're trying to save face.

Re: Fukishima
 

I thought this too. They can't get power to the generators to restore water cooling. So get some mobile generators and get on with it.

However I guess if the Tsunami took out the generators why would they not have taken out the water pumps the generators powers?

The wave has probably broken many more components of the cooling system than just the generators powering them.

Re: Fukishima
 

I wouldn't want to be a fireman walking towards it with my pump etc whereas the helicopter method is a quicker in and out and with more distance in between.

They're the guys on the ground, so I guess they've got a better idea than us.

Re: Fukishima
 

Possible, though that's not what they are saying on the news, they are saying that they need to restore power to get the pumps running again, and that the pumps were running fine on generators, then on fine on batteries, and that power seems to be the issue, but they don't need more power than can be obtained from batteries or generators?

I just smell a rat, what the news agencies are being told doesn't stack up to the layman, and usually news agencies don't sit back and accept what they are told, and I have had CNN and BBC on in the background for a few days now, and there have been lots of experts come on the TV and explained, why does it need water, what is a nuclear meltdown, what has caused these explosions, all of which they have been able to explain to the layman.

Why is nobody asking on of these experts to explain why it's so difficult to supply power to these pumps?

My work has on one site, 8 diesel generators, supplying 4 datacentres, with 10 megawatts of power, and each one of these things is commercially available and no bigger than a long wheelbase transit van.

Re: Fukishima
 

I'm sure they do Bri, they wouldn't be risking a nuclear disaster because they are all a bit thick and can't be bothered to think of a solution. But I also suspect they are having difficulties they don't want to tell the outside world about and that restoring power and supplying water is not really the issue!

Re: Fukishima
 

Would you be happy to climb up to the top of the reactor buildings at the moment? The spent fuel rods are a separate issue to the main reactor, they are stored in a large tank of water within the reactor buildings since even when exhausted the fuel rods have enough energy to create a substantial amount of heat. The water in the tank has evaporated, so they want to top it up to keep the spent fuel rods cool.

Re: Fukishima
 

I think you are missing the point. The fact you can refill this tank from a helicopter, would suggest that it doesn't require a lot of water to fill it. So why does it seem to be so difficult to get the necessary electricity to the water pump that would normally top up this tank? It's not like you need megawatts to pump that amount of water.

I think they are having greater difficulties than they are admitting to, otherwise they would have solved it by now, and wouldn't have had 3-4 explosions.

Re: Fukishima
 

I am concerned and amazed that not one but 4 reactors are in trouble.

This is getting worse every day and it ain't getting better

Re: Fukishima
 

If its a fire fighting helichopping thing it just dips the tank in the sea/lake

Re: Fukishima
 

They also don't tell us about a volcanoe in Southern Japan that has erupted, or of the nuclear facility at Onagawa as it prepared for a meltdown after the earthquake and Tsunami.

Re: Fukishima
 

The problems are politics and enviromental and a good dose of stupidity.

You cant build new reactors coz the tree huggers wont let you...which are safer...
So instead you keep old reactors...which are less safe...working well past their bedtime and then wonder why when they go pop.

You have to wonder the logic of building reactors in a earthquake zone as powerful as Japan. If they can survive or work safely in extremes then fine...but any kind of risk and then you cant.

Japan has very few energy resources so the nuclear option seemed ok...but I bet it is less ok now than a week ago.

Re: Fukishima
 

I'll bet it isn't. What choice do they have? They have no natural resources to speak of so if they have any scense they will continue building them. The new GEN IV reactors are safer and hell... if a 1960s built reactor can withstand an R9 quake followed by one of the most horrendous Tsunamis known in living history without going BANG the way Chernobyl did then I say that makes them a pretty good bet for Japan... especially a this is a once in a 1000 year event.

Re: Fukishima
 

It's just for a photoshoot
http://www.aviastar.org/foto/gallery/mil/mi-26_15.jpg

Re: Fukishima
 

Who here has a degree in nuclear physics?

Re: Fukishima
 

not me

however the sea water has debris from 10000 houses in it.. if that doesn't fk up pumps what will..?

Re: Fukishima
 

I'm guessing nobody, but I'm guessing there are a few engineers around the place and judging by the response to the UK energy thread quite a few people with an interest.
But come to think of it there are a few ex rum and sodomy types on here, some of them must know a bit about nuclear stuff.
Then again the last I remember about that was being inconvenienced at the Spanish border as a kid because of some leaky tube full of seamen floating in the harbour. Probably better the uninformed opinions ;)

The presence of a human factor shouldn't put people off discussing things, and if every non-expert kept out of these discussions all we'd have is the official view.

Re: Fukishima
 

Remember that 99.9% of the voting public whom supposedly decide on whether nuclear power is a good thing or not are not qualified to make that choice. That is the glory of a democracy. Discussion on these types of topic, qualified or not, is healthy.

Re: Fukishima
 

If you say so:D

Re: Fukishima
 

Indeed I do sir:)

Re: Fukishima
 

I have spent 25 years working on power stations, ok most of them coal and gas but I have worked on a couple of nuclear jobs in China.

I have never considered a BWR design particularly safe and like most who have an interest in nuclear power generation would question right now just what risk analysis was done for a failure to have power to the feedwater and condensate pumps etc.

I would also wonder what systems were in place in an earth quake prone zone to enable a rapid but safe shutdown.

Re: Fukishima
 

You would also have to question why the 4th reactor that was already shut down got into trouble. I heard somewhere that the ponds are now so hot and need cooling befoe the fuel rods go off. The trouble you have is nobody is telling the whole story

Re: Fukishima
 

...including on here;)

Re: Fukishima
 

Not saying it is correct but do you think that instead of flooding the reactors completely and ruining the rods/reactors they are possibly trying to salvage something from the situation which will allow them to restore a certain amount of power at a later date, considering the percentage of the electricity demand that is placed on nuclear reactors in Japan.The overall impact on recovery can possibly be a lot quicker than if they have to start rebuilding from scratch.
Alternatively the are so clever they are stupid.

Re: Fukishima
 

I think the main thind is that Western culture can't get to grips with the Eastern culture. The reporting that they are doing is what they always do. its how they do it.
and its different from us so of course we are going to get paranoid and think that something is amiss

Re: Fukishima
 

The problem with deisel generators is that they require fuel, somethng that japan has very little of and getting more in anytime soon is easier said than done, given that it needs to settle after transport before it can be used.
I dont understand why they dont start up the turbines of the reactors to allow the reactors to power they're own cooling but i'm guessing there is some greater reason for that

Re: Fukishima
 

if the substations are down where does the power go?

Re: Fukishima
 

Our generators are fuelled and ready to run for three days, after which they can be refuelled direct from a tanker without interruption. Datacentre generators may be very different of course. In either case I think the news said the generators themselves were damaged in the Tsunami.