Japan Fukushima nuclear thread

[dilbert]

With a view to the current widespread flooding, wind, and inclement weather I simply observe that it's happened.
I further observe how the situation has been brewing for nearly a month. The government are unprepared and have been unable to do anything in that time. I wonder that it is unlikely that things would be different if it were a nuclear power station with water, or wind damage.

I'm thinking of all the poor people with flooded living rooms.
In particular that the government reaction is to say "we're a wealthy nation - money is no object".

My observation is that all the money in the world might fix those living rooms.
If it had been a nuclear disaster, it would now be too late, and all the money in the world would not fix it.

This is my rationale for a helicopter based, specialist force - trained and on standby at a location other than a nuclear power station. Base it at a conventional power station if you want, but if you put it at a nuclear power station, sod's law will ensure that the standby force will be taken out when their station goes pop.

The standby forces at other power stations will be stuck in the floods.

[Chim]

dilbert said:

With a view to the current widespread flooding, wind, and inclement weather I simply observe that it's happened.
I further observe how the situation has been brewing for nearly a month. The government are unprepared and have been unable to do anything in that time. I wonder that it is unlikely that things would be different if it were a nuclear power station with water, or wind damage.

I'm thinking of all the poor people with flooded living rooms.
In particular that the government reaction is to say "we're a wealthy nation - money is no object".

My observation is that all the money in the world might fix those living rooms.
If it had been a nuclear disaster, it would now be too late, and all the money in the world would not fix it.

This is my rationale for a helicopter based, specialist force - trained and on standby at a location other than a nuclear power station. Base it at a conventional power station if you want, but if you put it at a nuclear power station, sod's law will ensure that the standby force will be taken out when their station goes pop.

The standby forces at other power stations will be stuck in the floods.

What the fook are you talking about, are you perhaps on crack

[dilbert]

Chim said:

What the fook are you talking about, are you perhaps on crack

Not a bit of it.
If you read back across the thread you'll see.

Oddly they've just said (on the local news) our lovely AGR at Dungeness has automatically shut down due to a steam valve leak. Automatic safety on a well built and maintained reactor like an AGR!

Just as well really. There's a naffing great sinkhole in the M2.

People have said I'm nuts before. When it all happens everything will be O.K. they say.
I'm not so sure myself.
Timely transport for heavy materials was critically absent at Fukushima, and one of the causal factors in an ongoing disaster that cannot be reversed.

Many have said that it couldn't happen in the UK.
I'm just illustrating that it *is* happening currently.
It is only good fortune that automatic safety measures have helped us here today.
It would be a stretch to call it a near miss, but not that much of a stretch.

[dilbert]

I'm just listening to people on newsnight now complaining that the response to the flooding by the government has been too slow.

If it had been a nuclear disaster, it would not have been any different.

[dilbert]

It's perfect.
The minister (Mr Hammond) is there on the telly, and he's telling everyone that they knew it was going to happen three days beforehand.
He's saying that it's the fault of the local people who didn't ask for help. He's saying that they must be at fault because they are the only people who can know what is happening.

My problem is that with a proper nuclear disaster the critical (local) people are all dead within the first 24 hours.

When the nuclear disaster happens we will not have a second chance.
This is why we need a airborne knowledge force, with heavy lift capability (pumps and generators) which can be deployed from a safe central location.

Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 12th February 23:00

[eharding]

dilbert said:

This is why we need a airborne knowledge force

...what, sort of an Air Mobile Swot team?

[dilbert]

eharding said:

...what, sort of an Air Mobile Swot team?

I quite like that!
(They might even drink Pimms on a quiet day)

And they don't use plastic spanners either......

Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 12th February 23:14

[eldar]

dilbert said:

It's perfect.
The minister (Mr Hammond) is there on the telly, and he's telling everyone that they knew it was going to happen three days beforehand.
He's saying that it's the fault of the local people who didn't ask for help. He's saying that they must be at fault because they are the only people who can know what is happening.

My problem is that with a proper nuclear disaster the critical (local) people are all dead within the first 24 hours.

When the nuclear disaster happens we will not have a second chance.
This is why we need a airborne knowledge force, with heavy lift capability (pumps and generators) which can be deployed from a safe central location.

Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 12th February 23:00

What do you see as a proper nuclear disaster - what happens, where and how?

[dilbert]

eldar said:

What do you see as a proper nuclear disaster - what happens, where and how?

I think it depends if you mean cause or effect.

From my perspective, I'd say one or more aspects of either category.

So for causes I'd say;

Earthquake
Meteor or plane strike
Solar electromagnetic anomaly
Flood, including tsunami
Terrorist attack
Unpredictable equipment failure - including
Unnoticed pressure vessel failure due to material erosion
Fuel loading failure -
stress fatigue in crane causes collapse during fuel rod swap which damages reactor and hot fuel element
Normally inactive manual safety control valve is used and seizes in undesirable opposed condition
Software fault causes unpredictable action or behaviour

(I can make up as many as you would like. Show me the plans, and I'll show you the ways it can fail.)

And for effects;
Radioactive release
Melted fuel
Melted pressure vessel
Melted concrete (well, ablated anyway)
Damaged building structures
Damaged powertrain components
Damaged instruments and controls


I think I would say that any non normative event should be considered a disaster, unless;

Repair and normal reuse of the reactor is possible within a six month time-scale of the original event.
Then, if the event did not cause immediate loss of life outside the reactor enclosure.
Then, if the event did not release enough radioactive material to render nearby livestock, fish, poultry or grain unfit for human consumption on any time-scale less than 10,000 years.

[hidetheelephants]

How is any of this stuff actually going to happen? AGR is practically passively safe; even a total loss of primary coolant isn't going to cause much more than the shift engineer to sweat a bit more than usual and a visit from some shouty ONR inspectors. The big green refueling machine doesn't have any failure modes that can reasonably be regarded as catastrophic; the worst-cases usually involve a lot of head scratching followed by long wait for the initial decay to happen and some willing volunteer will make with a long pole with a lump on the end to bang the gubbins until it works again. Some of the failures you've listed are possible in a PWR, but the safety systems at Sizewell are such that the odds for bad things happening are vanishingly small.

[MrCarPark]

International Rescue are warming up the helicopters just in case:

http://newsroom.edfenergy.com/News-Releases/Dungen...

[hairykrishna]

dilbert said:

My problem is that with a proper nuclear disaster the critical (local) people are all dead within the first 24 hours.

This wasn't the case at Chernobyl or Fukushima.

[mcdjl]

hairykrishna said:

dilbert said:

My problem is that with a proper nuclear disaster the critical (local) people are all dead within the first 24 hours.

This wasn't the case at Chernobyl or Fukushima.

I'd imagine that if it was the case that all the on site people were dead within 24 hrs and there was a proper nuclear issue, then the best anyone could do would be run away for 100 years or so.
On even the simplest basis each power station is different, layout, control room etc, the level of expertise needed for the remote emergency team would have to be such that they'd need to be incredibly familiar with every station to be of any use. if its just heavy lift to get pumps etc in to cool things then borrow the EAs from Somerset but that doesn't need a specialist/dedicated team. The army have big helicopters to deliver them, and if they won't then no one will.

[The Don of Croy]

dilbert said:

Oddly they've just said (on the local news) our lovely AGR at Dungeness has automatically shut down due to a steam valve leak. Automatic safety on a well built and maintained reactor like an AGR!

Did they not also say a second shut down occurred due to a power cut? One wonders why a generating plant is affected by an external power cut, but that's not my problem luckily.

[mcdjl]

The Don of Croy said:

dilbert said:

Oddly they've just said (on the local news) our lovely AGR at Dungeness has automatically shut down due to a steam valve leak. Automatic safety on a well built and maintained reactor like an AGR!

Did they not also say a second shut down occurred due to a power cut? One wonders why a generating plant is affected by an external power cut, but that's not my problem luckily.

It takes some of the power it generates to keep all its systems running. Using power from the grid is a back up to this (the battery banks are a second). Rather than being down to one back up they turn off until they have two again.

[eldar]

dilbert said:

I think it depends if you mean cause or effect.

From my perspective, I'd say one or more aspects of either category.

So for causes I'd say;

Earthquake
Meteor or plane strike
Solar electromagnetic anomaly
Flood, including tsunami
Terrorist attack
Unpredictable equipment failure - including
Unnoticed pressure vessel failure due to material erosion
Fuel loading failure -
stress fatigue in crane causes collapse during fuel rod swap which damages reactor and hot fuel element
Normally inactive manual safety control valve is used and seizes in undesirable opposed condition
Software fault causes unpredictable action or behaviour

(I can make up as many as you would like. Show me the plans, and I'll show you the ways it can fail.)

And for effects;
Radioactive release
Melted fuel
Melted pressure vessel
Melted concrete (well, ablated anyway)
Damaged building structures
Damaged powertrain components
Damaged instruments and controls


I think I would say that any non normative event should be considered a disaster, unless;

Repair and normal reuse of the reactor is possible within a six month time-scale of the original event.
Then, if the event did not cause immediate loss of life outside the reactor enclosure.
Then, if the event did not release enough radioactive material to render nearby livestock, fish, poultry or grain unfit for human consumption on any time-scale less than 10,000 years.

The causes are indeed plausible, and all the above have been and are considered and re-evaluated. Though personally I'd regard the biggest threat from people working there - complacency and familiarity, stupidity or just simple mistakes. I do believe that such errors are likely to cause incidents with minor implications, INES 1, typically.

Consequences are different. Range from a Fukishima type event to widespread low level contamination of active and or toxic materials in Central London via a dirty bomb. The latter could be extremely serious, but extensive mitigation and preventive steps are in place.

The bottom line is the risk of contamination. Not explosion.

I don't understand how a fleet of helicopters armed with generators and fuel would help more than having the right people available.

[MyNiceCarpet]

Dilbert, have you ever worked or been anywhere near a large site?

Other than take pictures, I have absolutely no idea what a trained helicopter Thunderbird team would actually achieve?

EDF have recently introduced guided tours for the general public, why not book yourself on one to get a better idea as to what a nuclear power station is about?

[V8 Fettler]

MyNiceCarpet said:

Dilbert, have you ever worked or been anywhere near a large site?

Other than take pictures, I have absolutely no idea what a trained helicopter Thunderbird team would actually achieve?

EDF have recently introduced guided tours for the general public, why not book yourself on one to get a better idea as to what a nuclear power station is about?

That's good news, these stopped in 2001

[llewop]

V8 Fettler said:

MyNiceCarpet said:

Dilbert, have you ever worked or been anywhere near a large site?

Other than take pictures, I have absolutely no idea what a trained helicopter Thunderbird team would actually achieve?

EDF have recently introduced guided tours for the general public, why not book yourself on one to get a better idea as to what a nuclear power station is about?

That's good news, these stopped in 2001

Quite a nice centre at Sizewell B, a friend of mine is one of the guides there. You can get (pre-arranged) tours through the station itself (not into the reactor building of course!)

[Crusoe]

some interesting articles to resurrect this one
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-14/we%E2%80%...