Special Report: Mistakes, misfortune, meltdown: Japan's quake

To all you nuke critics. These are old plants, and like the gulf oil spill, the emergency fixes were not thought out, plus the emergency backups were not in place. I guess we just have let the engineers go and fix things, because that is how you learn good design practices. We live in an unpredictable world.

At this point in time the private company that operates the plant is still in charge. The Japanese Government seesm to be totally incompetent and impotent to control what will be a disaster of giant proportions. Broad swaths of Japan could become uninhabitable !
Japan needs help !

There is no evidence to support the diesel generator failure was due to the tsunami. The generators shut down after an hour, but the tsunami had hit 40 minutes before that. The electric powered cooling system is actually a steam powered cooling system that required a small amount of battery power to run the valves. The battery powered valves were operational for 20 hours after the quake and Tokyo Electric had replaced the batteries with electric generators. There is a possibility that the fuel tanks for the diesel generators were washed away due to their having been located at shore line, but no official confirmation of this can be found and the fuel supply could easily have been replaced under almost all circumstances.

It is really hard to believe that reactor cooling system power was not restored in time, causing hyderogen blow out of outer wall. Isn’t it the world famous Honda portable power generators are made in Japan? The way they are transporting water using civil defence helicopters, can’t they transport bunch of Desel Powered Honda generators to the site in time before the struictures got damaged. I mean why do they need extension cord to power up the cooling system, is’t it a SPOF (Single point of failure)? Seriously, I am systems administrator I can think of bunch of alternatives when things go wrong with our data center. I am single individual with very limited resources, this is third biggest economy we are talking about, should we really believe what is going with nuclear reactors in Japan or is it something big planned already?

Who would have thought building a Nuclear reactor on an earthquake fault line next to a coastline subject to tsunamis would be problematic or should that be catastrophic?

This is another case against sovereignty because Governments and their officials are not held criminally accountable for dangerous decisions.

If Government officials, be they in Democracies or not, were made criminally responsible they would tend to be much more diligent in making decisions which affect the health and welfare of citizens around the world.

Democracy has not changed the fact Government cannot be held criminally accountable for gross negligence which results in mortal damage to their citizens.

Clearly this has to change if citizens are to end up with outcomes they deserve rather than imposed by unaccountable bureaucrats.

Who would have thought building a Nuclear reactor on an earthquake fault line next to a coastline subject to tsunamis would be problematic or should that be catastrophic?

Like it or not, nuclear is embedded in the world’s power grid, 20% of U.S. power is nuclear from 104 reactors. Europe, Russia, China are committed to nuclear and have hundreds of plants planned and proposed for the next 15 years.

Okay, so nuclear is not going away. Some questions:

How do folks feel in the Gulf of Mexico about Deep Sea Oil Exploration/Drilling? No one wants to live near an oil refinery (so the number of refineries are shrinking). Clean Coal? There’s no such thing. Hydro? Dam more rivers? Doubtful. Solar and Wind — great ideas if it were affordable, if battery technology took a huge leap (storage) and if we could get the oil companies (and the World Economy) to adjust and force utilities to commit to a power grid overhaul at the neighborhood level.

Disaster-Accident-Incident Response is the issue. Japan’s reaction mirrors the U.S. Government – FEMA’s after Katrina-Rita and BP’s in The Gulf. Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, and China’s multiple post disaster mistakes (and cover-ups)…we can go on and on. The decision to take the “all-has-failed, there’s nothing to save” needs to happen immediately. Yes, mass-panic is always a huge concern, but trying to save company assets, first, is always a loser; especially in terms of human life and quality of life for those who survive.

It is embarrassing to watch Japan bring in Chinook helicopters with buckets of water to douse a reactor that is throwing incalculable high temps that exceed 2000 F. I feel for those crews — giving up years of their lives for a mission that dissipated upon take-off. It was all “show” to calm the Japanese public (and the world?) that something was being done.10 or 20 fixed-wing wildfire tankers, in line, making water drops would have been “iffy”.

But Japan did not ask for the help, so, that observation is moot.

Old Guard bureaucrats will, thankfully fall. And, the incredibly resilient Japanese will prevail. For now, let’s get those displaced folks water, food and shelter.

Oh, and the reactors that are melting? Throw everything at them. A half-mile extension cord, diesel generators, tanker drops, hell, send in a robots to deploy a fire hose. Obviously it is not that simple. Just do whatever it takes.

@jacal – that’s interesting, I haven’t heard anything about that aspect. Is there a good source for more information on that level of analysis (steam vs electric cooling, valves and batteries, timing, fuel tanks, etc)?

On one hand, every plant is built according to maximum expected hazard, and a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami at this location was a big surprise to geologists, so one might chalk this up to “you literally can’t prepare for everything you don’t know”. On the other hand, there are reports about repeated safety violations and coverups (some exposed & even prosecuted, some not) and poor performance in Japanese nuclear safety (eg: 2002 scandal, wikileaks). So maybe the cascading failures subsequent to the quake and tsunami do involve some lack of predictable adequate preparation.

While my main concerns for now are the quake and tsunami survivors (and those potentially harmed if the nuclear crisis gets much worse), there are obviously going to be worldwide repercussions regarding nuclear energy. I hope it can be rational, creating pressure for genuinely better safety and regulation to address real problems which do exist, rather than based on undue and ungrounded fears and reactivity.

Alas, while I strongly support renewable energy as our only known long term alternative (living within our means), I don’t see how to get past the CO2 issues in the medium term without relying heavily on nuclear for a number of decades. There are safer reactor designs, and it’s possible that thorium reactors can be developed (which could be safer on many levels, as well as cheaper). It would be a shame if newer and safer replacements were delayed due to this (but it would not be inappropriate to be more careful about siting, regulation, and emergency planning).

why they did not try a little earlier with a fire boat?

I know all of them washed away in the vicinity, but a harbor on the other side of the island might have one or 2 powerful fire boat. They r capable of launching a lot of salt water quite far away. Perhaps now is too late and the radiation at sea level is too strong.

And why they do not use a fire plane. Here in California we even have a retrofitted jumbo jet to pour fire retardant. Plane would fly faster and keep the radiation exposure lower.

I wonder if using Thorium as the nuclear power source would have been better. No weapons grade plutonium, but should that be the reason we build a power plant.

An now for all of you, nuclear fans – if you think this is all just a “misfortune” read this:

[Obama], just months ago, asked Congress to provide a $4 billion loan guarantee for two new nuclear reactors to be built and operated on the Gulf Coast of Texas — by Tokyo Electric Power Co.

Nuclear plants the world over must be certified for what is called “SQ” or “Seismic Qualification.” The most inexpensive way to meet your SQ is to lie. The industry does it all the time. In 1988, at the Shoreham plant in New York engineers were told to change the tests from ‘failed’ to ‘passed. The company that put in the false safety report was Stone & Webster, now the nuclear unit of Shaw Construction which will work with Tokyo Electric to build the Texas plant.

CNN repeats the official line that the tsunami disabled the pumps needed to cool the reactors, implying that water unexpectedly got into the diesel generators that run the pumps. These safety back-up systems are the Emergency Diesel Generators. That they didn’t work in an emergency is like a fire department telling us they couldn’t save a building because “it was on fire.”

One of the reactors dancing with death at Fukushima Station 1 was built by Toshiba. Toshiba was also an architect of the emergency diesel system. Now be afraid. Obama’s $4 billion bail-out-in-the-making is called the South Texas Project. It’s been sold as a red-white-and-blue way to make power domestically with a reactor from Westinghouse, a great American brand. However, the reactor will be made substantially in Japan by the company that bought the US brand name, Westinghouse — Toshiba. Toshiba and Shaw have recently signed a deal to become world-wide partners in the construction of nuclear stations.

So, if we turned to America’s own nuclear contractors, would we be safe? Well, two of the melting Japanese reactors, including the one whose building blew sky high, were built by General Electric of the Good Old US of A.

After Texas, you’re next. The Obama Administration is planning a total of $56 billion in loans for nuclear reactors all over America.

Read the entire nuclear expert article here:

http://www.zcommunications.org/tokyo-electric-to-build-us-nuclear-plants-by-greg-palast

Why is there no design consideration to utilize the thermal potential of an overheating facility in the same way a normally operating power plant drives turbines for electrical generation? I believe the steam coming from the reactor is used to drive cooled water coming from the turbines back into the reactor but what of the rest of the cooling system? Are the all valves in a normally open position in the event of power failure? As a reactor takes some time to cool after any shutdown, and the loss of cooling easily leads to still more heat in the reactor core it seems a complete waste not to use the steam power this problem creates and that the facility is designed to utilize to drive a cooling solution that is not dependant at all on external electrical supplies.

Why should not such a design solution also be the primary means of driving the spent fuel pool cooling system with outside electricity being the secondary, generators and batteries as the backups? Why have we not adequately dealt with the disposition of spent fuel rods to minimize their accumulation in reactor facilities?

To the Japanese government I submit this. There is insufficient honor in what you do. Offering public apologies and downplaying the seriousness of a global public concern in lieu of clear, timely and necessary information is not in at all in keeping with the spirit or intended purpose of being a member nation of the IAEA and threatens the fragile fabric of our world community in our time. Nor do you demonstrate a genuine determination to both safeguard your people and retain the goodwill of the world at large with open honesty. I urge you to earn and sustain the trust of your people in these times for your democracy to hope to prevail. The Japanese people have lost much and given still more in these horrific days. Of them you can be proud. Make them now as proud of how they are governed.

It may be a stupid question: But why don’t they lower the water from the helicopter in a vessel on a rope as far down as possible before releasing it? If it’s possible fo the water to fall down from that height and mostly disperse around the reactor, it should be possible, too, for the water to be lowered first and then dropped and therefore disperse far less. Maybe it would be even possible to get or produce a hose as long as necessary attach a heavy weight to one end, lower it from a helicopter to where it is supposed to release water, leave the end there and get the other end to the sea as well as a strong diesel-pump (brought in for instance by helicopter) — then you can pump the water in directly. I’m not an expert in any of the instruments involved in this plan but if they are running out of ideas, why not consider these??

@JanArthurVales: Not a stupid question…but the reason they can’t lower the vessel on a cable, etc. is that they’d have to hover over the reactor while lowering the vessel, exposing the crew to high levels of radiation. (The levels that close in are high enough that they can stay there only a few seconds.) To minimize the amount of time the crew is close to the reactor, they have to do a “drop the load while flying by” maneuver instead.

Difference in opinions of nuclear experts.

Those insisting on the ‘no Chernobyl’ theory for the events at Fukuchima Daiichi seem to base their opinions on current radiation levels only. And they seem not be aware of the full risk involved if 3 reactors have a full meltdown at the same time with possible core breach(es).

And all this along with 40 years of spent fuel rods. Radioactive compounds involved are Cesium, Iodine, Plutonium and Uranium. This is such a massive amount of radioactive material and variables that no thoughtful scientist could ever declare as predictable or perfectly manageable, doing so only undermines their own credibility.

These experts tend to base their opinion on an archaic mantra of reassurance and in this case they are also the minority opinion. Even the main experts who have actually worked at Chernobyl say that the accident Fukushima Daiichi plant poses a substantial threat.

No event is the same and this one is also unique, but to sound the ‘all clear’ because this is ‘no Chernobyl’ when there are 3 reactors in meltdown requires and extraordinary level of ignorance.

I’m not anti-nuclear, but I’m disturbed by some of the comments being made by the pro-nuclear camp. The version of events they’re presenting is that (1) the situation at Fukushima arose because anti-nukes wouldn’t allow safer modern reactors to be built; and (2) the media are sensationalizing that situation, to the detriment of rescue efforts in other parts of Japan.

Taking the second point first, we, the general public, have no way of knowing whether the situation is being “sensationalized”. Supposedly-responsible experts differ shockingly in their assessments of its. seriousness. The media would be irresponsible to not report all of those expert opinions. We won’t know what (if anything) is being “sensationalized” for several days.

Regarding the blame being placed upon the anti-nukes, we now know that for years, TEPCO has falsified safety records and downplayed/ignored experts’ concerns that (a) the Fukushima plant was underdesigned for earthquakes that had already occurred elsewhere in Japan; and (b) its backup systems were vulnerable to tsunamis.

In short, the heroic efforts of the Fukushima workers and the diversion of resources from other rescue efforts, should never have been necessary. The media is entirely justified in dedicating the majority of its attention to Fukushima.

It all comes down to money, specifically, not spending it.

The old mantra was, “That will never happen,” the new mantra will be, “It will never happen again,” at least not for another 1,000 years.

30 years ago engineers raised alarms about the safety of the GE “Mark 1.” They ended up quitting their jobs rather than be associated with these reactors and the company, when their now validates concerns were ignored. Weren’t these substandard Japanese plants recently certified for another 10 years, despite being designed to archaic design criteria?

The EU plans to “evaluate” the safety of their nuclear power plants later this year, after all the public attention has subsided, as after all, the general public has very short attention spans. Do they truly need to “evaluate” deficiencies in their reactor plants, or are their deficiencies already well documented, just not known to the general public?

Plant operators will resist making changes, and shutting down nuclear plants, because of cost, money. As after all, how many EU countries, plus the the US, are bankrupt?

If Toyota makes a defective product a recall is issued. If you are GE or Westinghouse, how do you recall a power plant that is defective? You don’t. You minimize the dangers, spin public opinion, bribe officials and delude yourself that nothing bad will happen (at least in your lifetime). PROFITS PROFITS PROFITS! Corporations suck.

For raising water from sea level why not use an Archimedes screw (a spiral within a tube that revolves inside the casing to deliver water from a lower to a higher level), siphoning it into the reactors and pools? It would be more focused than dropping water from helicopters and could allow for the electrical work to be carried out at the same time.
Can the ships bringing fuel and other supplies travel with floating docks, forklifts and road repairing equipment to use in the damaged harbours?

There are many factual errors here.

First, the meltdown scenario is wrong. The power densities are too low and the time of fuel uncovery too late. The zircaloy cladding and channel boxes and water rods in the fuel rapidly oxidized to produce all the hydrogen. The fuel did not melt. It is now in a coolable rubble bed covered with sea water.

The hydrogen was not vented properly in units 1 and 3. That led to the explosions. Unit 3 explosion probably obliterated the spent fuel pool and that is where most of the radiation came from.

The reactor in unit 4 has no fuel so there cannot be a core meltdown. All the fuel was removed to the spent fuel pool. This is very bad because it is not inside primary containment. This fuel is probably coolable by air natural circulation but why risk it. Add sea water.

The spraying of water over the site with a water cannon is to cut down on the airborne radiation that originated primarily from the obliteration of the spent fuel pool from unit #3. Additional contributions to the radiation from unit #4 spent fuel pool is unknown but probable.

Yes, it can happen in the US. Because of grid-locked nuclear policy regarding spent fuel we have literally tons of spent fuel stored outside containments in spent fuel pools all over the country. Wise up. This is a huge risk in many different ways.

Cooling of the spent fuel outside the containment was identified as a key issue within the first 24 hours of the earthquake. No one could even imagine the scenario of a huge hydrogen explosion in close proximity or perhaps even under the spent fuel pool of unit #3. This disaster was entirely avoidable if proper hydrogen venting procedures had been followed, but hindsight is 20/20.

TEPCO did not seek help. The world community of nuclear experts were ready to help but their help was initially refused. Most of the human mistakes could have been avoided. I do not fault the dedicated and heroic people at the plant. They were operating under extremely difficult conditions. That is precisely why help from others not facing these difficulties was essential.

japanese media does not make public the name of the workers at the plant as a practice to protect people`s privacy BUT all background information on the workers like their relatives names or career at the plant have widely covered.

One worker who will retire in six months has become very popular and his son complete name is well known even by chinese media.

When discussing or analyzing Japan is just better to understand properly the way the country and its society works.

Like most Reuters articles on this Fukushima incident, this article contains grave errors of fact. But this one wrongly accuses the Japanese government of an even worse failure than it really was.

Why couldn’t you get this right? The government told the truth when they said the reactors were shut down: they were. But the problem is what “shut down” means. It means they introduced moderators and/or neutron absorbers to stop the fission chain reaction. But most reactors, and in particular reactors of this design (the Mark I), require continual cooling even when shutdown.

THAT is what failed.

It is the containment design that is called “Mark I”. There are actually 3 different BWR reactor designs at this site.

The Mark I containment is not the issue. The Mark I containments took a nearby 9.0 earthquake followed by a massive tsunami then excessive pressure and temperature well above design limits accompanied by multiple massive hydrogen explosions in the reactor building. In all cases the containments held and continued to fufill their intended function.

Everyone should know that the real problem is with the spent fuel that is stored in the reactor building outside the primary containment. This very same condition exists in the US.

If not properly cooled, the spent fuel pool can boil dry and then all this fuel will overheat and can even ignite and rapidly burn away its zirconium to produce explosive hydrogen. Hot fuel rods exposed to air will release their fission products to the environment. It is essential that the spent fuel be covered with water both for cooling and shielding.

It is clear that large amounts of hydrogen were produced from hot fuel rods inside the reactor as the zirconium overheated and oxidized rapidly (”burned”). The hydrogen explosions caused when this hydrogen was intentionally vented from the containment blew up reactor buildings 1 and 3. For unit 3, it is likely that the initial explosion also damaged the spent fuel pool and perhaps even scattered spent fuel into the air and around the site. Unit 4 may have experienced a fire caused by or even initiating the exothermic zirconium burn in its spent fuel pool.

Helicopters spraying water do not cool the “core” or the reactors. Both reactor and core are inside the containment where water cannot reach them. The water was released at relatively high altitudes so that it would spray across a larger area so as to reduce the amount of airborne radiocactive particles most of which probably came from the spent fuel pool.

The Japanese engineers are doing a stellar and heroic job in the face of incredible circumstances. However, the public will learn when all the facts are revealed that human mistakes were made both in the design and layout of the plants and in responding to the accident.

Until all the facts are revealed, the media should be more careful about the misinformation they are spreding. Like radiation, it is not helpful and even harmful. It is also clear that there are many people being represented as “nuclear experts” who clearly are not.