Fukushima Technical Discussion

[andrew]

Instead of a huge and complex containment structure, can't they use robots (they are already using, but more for info gathering rather than sorting the mess out, no?) to move the dangerous stuff elsewhere ? If they need bigger/stronger robots, they can be designed and manufactured rather than waiting a whole year surely ? In the meantime use some sort of fabric (as a fellow poster pointed out) to cover the site to limit exposure ?

I get what you are saying and it make sense but I think the sheer size of the operation and the complexity of the machines required would be the main stumbling block.

Unfortunately, there is always going to be some kind of human involement in the site so the "suicude squads" (as they were named a few pages ago) will still be needed, but the extent would vary.

What sort of fabric would be used, and again there is the size of the site to consider? I don't know if it would be possible to drop something akin to molten rubber over the site which will set as a solid and act as a barrier of some sort. We may be in the realms of fantasy here.

[autogyro]

Does anybody know if there are many American nuclear power plants close to Yellowstone Park?
I have the feeling that this will be the next disaster area.

[andrew]

A nuclear plant next to a national park is a bit strange. How close are we speaking?

Perhaps the abilty for below ground pressure to vent through the gysers has prevented anything from happening thus far?

[Richard]

Why Yellowstone? Have you been looking at this map? http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-a ... blog/33826

and http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqscanv/

and http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/m ... ctors.html

Andrew - Hinckley Point is next to Exmoor National Park, and Sellafield is next to the Lake District. Sizewell is just down the coast from Norfolk Boards National Park. It makes sense when you think that nuclear power is best located away from large population centres, which is also where National parks tend to be located.

[andrew]

Andrew - Hinckley Point is next to Exmoor National Park, and Sellafield is next to the Lake District. Sizewell is just down the coast from Norfolk Boards National Park. It makes sense when you think that nuclear power is best located away from large population centres, which is also where National parks tend to be located.

True but the geology in these areas is pretty stable compared with Yellowstone.

I just find the combination of a nuclear power plant next to a national park a massive contradiction of land uses but understand the reasoning behind it.

[Richard]

I'm not sure why autogyro focused on Yellowstone.

Anyway, have a look at the Greenpeace map of US nuclear power stations in seismic zones that I linked to earlier. The 2 in California seem to be in the highest seismic zone.

Of course there are other places in the world with high seismic activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country

[Mr Alcatraz]

I'm not sure why autogyro focused on Yellowstone.

Anyway, have a look at the Greenpeace map of US nuclear power stations in seismic zones that I linked to earlier. The 2 in California seem to be in the highest seismic zone.

I don't doubt that this is accurate; I do think it’s a little misleading.
In regard to San Onofre:
According to documents produced by The University of California at San Diego
There has never been a quake in San Diego County with an amplitude above 7.0 since 1800
Being a San Diegan I have a vested interest.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... VlO9KoGjTw

Similar records going back the same period of time report that there have been 26 events in (near) Japan with amplitudes of 7.0 or higher, a lot higher!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ea ... s_in_Japan

Diablo Canyon is another story altogether. They are at a much higher risk than San Onofre.



I realize these are very short periods of time on a Geological scale.
It would be interesting to see what the "experts" suggest on a grander scale. Something similar to this:

William Leith, acting associate director for natural hazards at the USGS, said that although most nuclear plants are in the central and eastern United States, where earthquakes are rare, the USGS ranks thirty-nine states as having a high or moderate earthquake risk. USA Today notes that new studies have shown that at least twenty magnitude-9.0 earthquakes have struck off the coast of Northern California, Oregon, and Washington in the past 20,000 years, most recently in 1700, he said.

Although USA Today's source is not listed!
http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/fiv ... uake-zones

[forty-two]

Thanks for your input Tazio, but not having had ANY form of geological event since 1800 is absolutely no yardstick when you're talking about geological time. 2,000 years is but the blinking of an eye to geology, so 200 years is nothing IMHO.

The events in Japan should teach us all to NOT rely on a few hundred years of records when writing off the likelihood of "freak" events. At the same time, we should also be careful to confuse terms like "1,000 year event" with an accurate timetable, nature has a habit of failing to conform to such timetables, sometimes quite drastically.

At best, the prediction of a "100 year event" or a "20,000 year event" can only be considered as a mean estimate of how many years elapse between events. So if we assume that the 9.0 magnitude earthquake in Japan was, say classified as a 10,000 year event, the classification would still be accurate if another 9.0 happened next week, and again the following week, but then the next one didn't come for another 30,000 years.

When all is said and done, companies like TEPCO can only play a gamble whatever they do, turns out this gamble has cost not only them, but every individual on the planet.

[Mr Alcatraz]

Thanks for your input Tazio, but not having had ANY form of geological event since 1800 is absolutely no yardstick when you're talking about geological time. 2,000 years is but the blinking of an eye to geology, so 200 years is nothing IMHO.

The events in Japan should teach us all to NOT rely on a few hundred years of records when writing off the likelihood of "freak" events. At the same time, we should also be careful to confuse terms like "1,000 year event" with an accurate timetable, nature has a habit of failing to conform to such timetables, sometimes quite drastically.

At best, the prediction of a "100 year event" or a "20,000 year event" can only be considered as a mean estimate of how many years elapse between events. So if we assume that the 9.0 magnitude earthquake in Japan was, say classified as a 10,000 year event, the classification would still be accurate if another 9.0 happened next week, and again the following week, but then the next one didn't come for another 30,000 years.

When all is said and done, companies like TEPCO can only play a gamble whatever they do, turns out this gamble has cost not only them, but every individual on the planet.

I guess you didn't read this part:

I realize these are very short periods of time on a Geological scale. It would be interesting to see what the "experts" suggest on a grander scale. Something similar to this:

William Leith, acting associate director for natural hazards at the USGS, said that although most nuclear plants are in the central and eastern United States, where earthquakes are rare, the USGS ranks thirty-nine states as having a high or moderate earthquake risk. USA Today notes that new studies have shown that at least twenty magnitude-9.0 earthquakes have struck off the coast of Northern California, Oregon, and Washington in the past 20,000 years, most recently in 1700, he said.

M

[forty-two]

Oh Crap, Sorry man!

That will teach me to speed-read!

Apologies.

[Mr Alcatraz]

Oh Crap, Sorry man!

That will teach me to speed-read!

Apologies.

No problem,
I was only pointing out in response to the map that Richard posted, that it is correct but a little misleading. San Diego County is very large as counties go, and the San Andeas Fault enters from the south well east of the city. We do get a lot of small quakes but it is extremely rare for the epicenter to be near the City.
It does come a lot closer to LA and passes directly under San Francisco
The only time I experienced a serious quake. I was staying in a hotel in Pasadena when the Whittier Narrows Quake hit. It was only about a 6 but I was 8 miles from the epicenter. I came very close to jumping off a third story balcony on to a van in the parking lot, because I had serious concerns the building was going to collapse.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/ ... _10_01.php

[WhiteBlue]

[...] an earthquake and offshore Tsunami can be prediced weeks, nay months in advance! If you don't understand my reasoning behind this as others have by now, you never will or you don't want to.

Of course it has been predicted years ago that this tsunami will happen. [...] The exact time of the tsunami is irrelevant because the defective placement of the backup power generation does not get affected by the point in time when the tsunami hits. Experts all over the worlds know that tsunami height can reach 50m depending of the magnitude of the event and the geometry of the shore line.

The international nuclear authorities are aware of that and utilities with NPPs are supposed to do a full digital coast simulation with determination of wave heights and how far inland the tsunamis will run. In the USA you do not get an approval for a license extension without such an analysis. Tepco in their [...] negligence chose to simply not follow the guidelines so safety evaluations and their Japanese nuclear authority was probably in their back pockets and did not say one word.

Independent Japanese scientist have testified that they made TEPCO aware of the real danger. They found regular mega tsunamis on the northern Pacific coast of Honshu back for 3,000 years by sediments and they knew from the places they found the sediments that 6.5 m sea walls are not nearly enough to protect against the water.

[...]

[Mr Alcatraz]

Does anybody know if there are many American nuclear power plants close to Yellowstone Park?
I have the feeling that this will be the next disaster area.

As you can see from the map Richard posted absolutely not.
We're not that absurdly stupid.

I'm not sure why autogyro focused on Yellowstone.

Yellowstone National Park sits atop a subterranean chamber of molten rock and gasses so vast that the region, known for its geysers and grizzlies, is arguably one of the largest active volcanoes in the world.

The crater atop Mount St. Helens is about 2 square miles. The Yellowstone "caldera" — a depression in the Earth equivalent to a crater top — is some 1,500 square miles.



The 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption blew 1,300 vertical feet off the mountain, sent an eruption column 80,000 feet high in 15 minutes, ejected 1.4 billion cubic yards of ash detectable over 22,000 square miles, and killed 57 people.

But the last major eruption at Yellowstone, some 640,000 years ago, ejected 8,000 times the ash and lava of Mount St. Helens.

And were due! [-o<

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/su ... under.html

[Mr Alcatraz]

The way I see this, blaming the inevitable earthquake for this is a bit like blaming the moon for the destruction of a precious sand-sculpture on the beach when the tide came in!

I blame that B@stard Fermi for building the Atomic Pile in which he conducted the first controlled nuclear fission chain reaction.
In his later years he was probably a Ferrari fan to boot!

[autogyro]

Hahaha
Yes, I have my doubts about Ferrari, I am sure they are building a car to run on plutonium to met the newer CO2 regulations.
So if Yellowstone has a super event, how near is near for nuclear plants?