Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Japan nuclear power stations

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Japan nuclear power stations

Old 16th Mar 2011, 15:58
  #221 (permalink)  
jetsy
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US for now
Posts: 524
Chernobyl is still a cause for concerns.
Ukraine is looking/seeking for a lot of money to put a "capsule" over the damaged structure. If they do not, there will be radiation leaking again. True hells, the site was never cleaned up.
jet_noseover is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 16:13
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Well, pressure from the worldwide community should be put on Moscow to make the sarcophagus "safe", to make it so there isn't a major leak from there.


Mind you, when you think of what happened there, I don't think it would have been possible to "clean" what is under the sarcophagus at the time, the best solution was to encase it in concrete. But since that seems to have been "botched" by the authorities in charge, who are now not "responsible" since it's now in another country where relations between the two are not so good, then you have the problem we have now.

But enough of the politics regarding there.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 16:24
  #223 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Reports of requests for 'water cannon' to be brought to the Fukushima-Daiichi site.

I would have thought these to be inadequate - what they need is Airport Fire vehicles. These could throw greater volumes a greater distance than mere 'water cannon' . . .
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 16:37
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
True, but you're still going to need the airport fire vehicles for the open airports. So by bringing in the civilian ones you could probably get a high enough volume of water from more vehicles. You have to use the resources that are free, after all.

To be honest, it's a worrying development depending on the actual location of the spent fuel rods (since that is what these "water cannon" are wanted, they want the spent fuel flooded and cooled). It may be that multiple vehicles could flood the area well enough to do the cooling job with less risk compared to dumping water by helo (after all, the radioactivity will be going "upwards" due to the heat involved) without compromising airports.

And, of course, it depends on the state of the roads from nearby airports, it may not be possible to bring in the bigger airport vehicles in because of that.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 16:41
  #225 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Sendai airport (close to Fukushima) is out of use due to the tsunami (though I don't think the height of the flood was that high).
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 18:19
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Age: 50
Posts: 250
I guess Sendai airport's firetrucks might have been flooded. They could be unserviceable.

I don't know if a really big water flow is needed to add water in the pool. However it could be useful to permit a fast runaway.

A French expert in radiology and nuclear risks said yesterday evening on TV that the people who work to cool the plant must all be volonteers as the probability they survive is poor in regard of the radiations around the plant. He said 400mSv. So I googled...

I know, doses can be discussed.
A banana is 0.0001mSv.
400mSv/day would mean eating 4,000,000 bananas in just one day. Who could survive that ? (sadly joking)

0.4Sv/h means 2 Sv in 5 hours, 6 Sv in 15 hours, 8 Sv in 20 hours, 30 Sv in 72 hours. The guys who have worked there for 4 days have been removed from duty this morning. Remember they can't really leave the place to take a break, so the time they spend there is more or less the time they are exposed...
Probably they were replaced.

I just compared 2, 6, 8 and 30 Sieverts with Table 2 in this link.
Radiation Exposure and Contamination: Injuries; Poisoning: Merck Manual Professional

Maybe this will not end up in a global disaster (or Armageddon, or nuclear catastrophe, or whatever you might call it), partly thanks to these guys who, I reckon, are real heroes. As will be the next who will go there.

Last edited by BrATCO; 16th Mar 2011 at 18:55. Reason: Corrected incomplete correction
BrATCO is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 18:54
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 752
Decommissioning is the business to be in, probably more so now now that so many questions are being asked of this old plant.

Re water cannons, I wonder if there are any of those fire-fighting ships used for oil-rigs in the area which could be called into action? It could sit in the harbour and pump water all day long.

Maybe they need to open up a web site for ideas like BP did for the Gulf of Mexico incident. There's no point now trying to maintain face - they need all the help and ideas they can get.
dead_pan is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 19:11
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Water cannon ships, like you suggest, would be a good idea. But how many do they have in Japan and how quick could they get there?


Not trying to rubbish the idea, just thinking that it could take a day or two, or longer, where the "water cannon" would be there faster.

Time is of the essence, as they say, and the land based cannon will reach the site faster.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 19:14
  #229 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Does anyone in the Japanese nuclear industry management read PPRuNe?
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 19:19
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alderney
Age: 57
Posts: 80
I would imagine the nearest fire fighting tugs would be in Tokyo, approximately half a days sailing away. Not sure how close they would be able to navigate close inshore, tugs are usually quite deep draft vessels, still a good idea though as is having an open forum where ideas could be shared and built on.

EDIT : Tokyo Fire Dept. has 9 Ariake fire fighting vessels.

File:Fireboat Ariake.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last edited by beaufort1; 16th Mar 2011 at 19:30.
beaufort1 is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 19:26
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,473
This seems to be a sensible article.
Fukushima Nuclear Accident – a simple and accurate explanation BraveNewClimate
tony draper is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 19:30
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
But, and it's a big BUT, it depends on where they can fire the water in. The pics I see, and a look from googly earth, show another building in the way. They would have to fire the water over that to reach the reactors and by the time the "jet" got there it would be turning into a "spray" which I guess would not be as helpful in regard to actually reaching and cooling the "target"..........


Methinks using land based methods would work better
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 19:38
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Age: 50
Posts: 250
Maybe water bomber planes such as CL415...
3 tons of water each time. Why not add boric acid ?
Maybe their speed could save them from radiations when passing overhead.
Water is just the next door, so they could chose a place where they could wait their turn without endangering their lives.
They could probably land on USAF bases in order to de-contaminate the
plane.

I know, that's a "flight-sim" idea, but...
BrATCO is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 19:39
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 752
These ships are designed to stand-off a burning oil rig or ship and direct multiple water jets at the target. Like your garden hose they can pump water in a mist or jet - the former is used primarily to act as a thermal barrier to allow the vessel to get close in to the fire, although in this situation it could be used to damp down any airborne radioactivity in the atmosphere.

Either way they could pump a helluva lot more water than could be delivered by those Chinooks. It would be safer for the crew too - it would be relatively straighforward and quick to add shielding to the superstructure. No chance doing that on a Chinook in any meaningful way.
dead_pan is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 19:42
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by TonyDraper
This seems to be a sensible article.
Fukushima Nuclear Accident a simple and accurate explanation BraveNewClimate
BraveNewClimate seems to be a website advocating nuclear power as a solution to Anthropic Global Warming. I can see many ppruners tearing themselves in two trying to decide if they should support it or crucify it!
Jetex_Jim is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 19:44
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
It is a sensible article, Mr. D.

Oh, for everyone's information, according to the live feed on BBC, TEPCO are saying that a new power supply to the circulation pumps is almost in place. IF that is true then they should be able to start flooding the problem areas, including the spent fuel pool in reactors 3 and 4, with a combination of the pumped water and other methods.


The fact that AP said this and the BBC posted it online at 1832 GMT, yet nobody picked up on it is not surprising............
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 19:55
  #237 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
I heard (at least a day ago) that four out of five of the pumps were damaged in one of the explosions - which was one reason for the lack of cooling.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 20:14
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
How many reactors blew up so far? I think it was two last I checked, did the third go too?
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 20:15
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Age: 50
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDraper
This seems to be a sensible article.
Fukushima Nuclear Accident a simple and accurate explanation BraveNewClimate


BraveNewClimate seems to be a website advocating nuclear power as a solution to Anthropic Global Warming. I can see many ppruners tearing themselves in two trying to decide if they should support it or crucify it!
I saw this article during my research and, as Jetex_Jim, I felt it wasn't neutral/factual enough.

But I stand corrected : fuel is not "Uranium", it's Uranium-dioxyde. Melting point 2850C instead of 1200C (Uranium)
BrATCO is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2011, 20:16
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Jane

You are wrong

In a big way





Again





The last "reactor to blow up" was Chernobyl.
hellsbrink is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.