What Does A Melted Nuclear Core Look Like?

[wtmusic]

"One of the most useful ways to overcome fear of the unknown is to gain knowledge about the source of the fear. There have been a lot of scary sounding reports recently about the state of the nuclear fuel cores inside the pressure vessels at Fukushima Daiichi units 1, 2, and 3. Many of them have breathlessly implied that there is still danger to the people who live within 20-50 miles of the plant boundaries.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Those nuclear cores stopped producing fission heat about 80 days ago and their decay heat production has decreased rather dramatically.

The materials inside the pressure vessels melted and a few of the many radioactive isotopes escaped with some leaking water, but the vast majority of the material has solidified inside the reactor pressure vessels. No one outside of the plant boundaries is in any danger; the people working inside the boundaries need to take some protective measures, but they are at a higher risk from normal industrial accidents than from radiation."

http://theenergycollective.com/rodadams/58247/what-does-melted-nuclear-core-look?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

(video of Three Mile Island core at link)

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bananas]

2. Great post by Rod Adams: "Stop Worrying About 'Spent' Fuel Pool Fires. Zirconium Tubes Do Not Burn"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x288023

Great post by Rod Adams: "Stop Worrying About 'Spent' Fuel Pool Fires. Zirconium Tubes Do Not Burn"

http://theenergycollective.com/rodadams/53997/stop-worrying-about-spent-fuel-pool-fires-zirconium-tubes-do-not-burn

Stop Worrying About 'Spent' Fuel Pool Fires. Zirconium Tubes Do Not Burn

Posted March 20, 2011 by Rod Adams

The contents of this post were incorrect. I acknowledge the error and apologize.

What an idiot.

[Ian David]

3. Hey, that's the same guy. n/t

[bananas]

5. Bazinga! nt

[kristopher]

7. And a particularly nasty piece of work he is.

Here is a response to one of his comments about a critic made at a prominent online climate forum.

"if you disagree with the substance of the report, that is fine. but, disparaging insinuations through an "I wonder" framing cheapen the discourse and make this reader want to disagree with you on the substance because your presentation is so unpleasant. If you know something, say it. Otherwise, engage with the substance and skip the smear tactics."


That said, here are some relevant things to consider about why people oppose nuclear power besides irrational fear.
Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs
(PhysOrg.com) -- The 440 commercial nuclear reactors in use worldwide are currently helping to minimize our consumption of fossil fuels, but how much bigger can nuclear power get? In an analysis to be published in a future issue of the Proceedings of the IEEE, Derek Abbott, Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia, has concluded that nuclear power cannot be globally scaled to supply the world’s energy needs for numerous reasons. The results suggest that we’re likely better off investing in other energy solutions that are truly scalable.

As Abbott notes in his study, global power consumption today is about 15 terawatts (TW). Currently, the global nuclear power supply capacity is only 375 gigawatts (GW). In order to examine the large-scale limits of nuclear power, Abbott estimates that to supply 15 TW with nuclear only, we would need about 15,000 nuclear reactors. In his analysis, Abbott explores the consequences of building, operating, and decommissioning 15,000 reactors on the Earth, looking at factors such as the amount of land required, radioactive waste, accident rate, risk of proliferation into weapons, uranium abundance and extraction, and the exotic metals used to build the reactors themselves.

“A nuclear power station is resource-hungry and, apart from the fuel, uses many rare metals in its construction,” Abbott told PhysOrg.com. “The dream of a utopia where the world is powered off fission or fusion reactors is simply unattainable. Even a supply of as little as 1 TW stretches resources considerably.”

His findings, some of which are based on the results of previous studies, are summarized below...
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

[madokie]

11. Which one

the author or the poster? Maybe both, huh

[bananas]

4. Another great post at TEC by Dr Josef Oehmen: “Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors.”

Oops! The Energy Collective has a severe credibility problem.

http://theenergycollective.com/robin-carey/53745/statement-all-us-social-media-today-hosts-energy-collective

<snip>

Over the past few days, a great deal more information has emerged about the situation at Fukushima, requiring Dr. Oehmen’s factual account to be revised in light of current events.

<snip>

"Dr. Oehmen’s factual account" BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Ian David]

6. "I'm not saying I *LIED*. I'm just revising my factual account." n/t

[Barrett808]

8. Here are some corium photos from Chernobyl:

The "Elephant's Foot". Once molten fuel/debris mixture that dripped down through the floors of the exploded RBMK-1000 reactor at Chernobyl. It was so radioactive and solid, they had to use a rifle to chip a piece of it off.




In the "steam distributing corridor", pictures translated from russian: 1 - fuel lava (aka FCM), 2 - concrete, 3 - parosbrosnoy valve, 4 - capacitor.

http://gallery.spaceman.ca/main.php?g2_itemId=4130&g2_page=1

[txlibdem]

9. Chernobyl: you mean the reactor design that NOBODY in the west ever has or ever will build

Because of the well known (to the western nuclear scientists) lack of fail safe and other flaws in its design and its lack of containment vessel.

When I say "Chernobyl" you say "Booga-Booga"

"Chernobyl!!!"

"Booga-Booga"

(just a little homage...)
:hi:

[madokie]

12. Booga-Booga my dying ass. Just what did all that containment get the Japanese?

We've got a real catastrophe going on in Japan today and its not going away, its only going to get worse before it gets better but yet a few of you guys want to cloud the issue with shit like you just posted. Its total bullshit and if you're half as smart as you want us to believe you are you would know that.
At this point in time it matters not the reason the Japanese nuclear plant is where it is, catastrophically, it matters that nuclear energy has the potential to cause grave danger. Theres 440 working nuke plants on this planet at last count and each and every one of them has the potential to do the same or worse.

On the fingers of two hands I can count the number of people here who are still trying to minimize this and you are close to the top of that list. I'd be ashamed of myself if it was me. What are you getting out of this shilling for the nuclear industry anyway? You damn sure aren't showing us the level of intelligence you proclaim you possess so what is it?

[txlibdem]

14. Don't like Booga-Booga? How 'bout "Yaaa Hoo!!!! We finally got the disaster we've been hoping for"

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110315014359AAJURwh
"There are now over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries.
56 countries operate a total of about 250 research reactors and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines." Note I think these numbers are approximately right so I'm going with them for now.

You know what shilling is? It's jumping up and down pissing and moaning about a failure of your competitor's product. Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Natural Gas (the people who brought you tap water that you can light on fire!) are just loving each and every one of these anti-nuker posts.

But nobody is posting about the 800+ reactors operating smoothly and safely worldwide. What is happening instead is an inundation from the anti-nuker, pro-(fill in the blank) tolls/fools/trolls.

I'm just pointing out that posts #5 and #7 have finally come out and clearly stated that the anti-nuker bunch have been hoping for a disaster like this for quite some time now. "I've read it -- I can't un-read it!"

[madokie]

15. Warning is not hoping for, for starters. In other words you can't even be trusted with that

Any one of the 800, you say, has the potential for great harm. What other things in this world do we have that has the same potential for catastrophe like nuclear power does. I'll answer that thank you, NONE, ZILCH, NATA Not a fucking thing other than maybe a asteroid hitting our planet but that would totally be out of our control where with nuclear energy it is us who has foisted it upon this planet. before the testing and using of atomic energy the background levels were hardly detectable where as today its very real and growing with each and every accident.

ACTUALLY SHILLING MEANS, take your pick. http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=shilling&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8. So you don't know jack shit either.

In the sense I was using it, it means in support of, when the evidence does not support your enthusiasm as you so clearly have for nuclear energy. I truly suggest you go back to worrying about the admixtures for concrete you asked me about early on because its clear you're way out of your league on this subject. In other words you are in over your head.
I have not posted one thing that can be construed as non factual concerning nuclear energy. Whereas you've done nothing but

I have you on ignore of a post you make but I want you to be able to pm me if you want at some point and to read your replies so as to not allow you to blow smoke up my ass without my knowing it and that allows me if i'm in a View All page reply to you. Otherwise I'd not know you existed. I suggest we mutually agree to put each other on full ignore so I won't even know you've replied and vice versa. I find you have nothing to say that is of any substance concerning this one subject and you insist on continuing the charade. Is that a deal?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madokie]

17. Tiny minority? 4 or 5, You make me laugh

I parrot no word of anyone I speak of my own.

[bananas]

20. What an ignorant and offensive post.

In 2006 seismologist Ishibashi Katsuhiko resigned from a government nuclear safety panel in protest over this issue.
Your claim that he was "hoping" for this disaster is disgusting.

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Ishibashi-Katsuhiko/2495

Why Worry? Japan's Nuclear Plants at Grave Risk From Quake Damage
Ishibashi Katsuhiko

I had warned that a major earthquake would strike the Chuetsu region around Kashiwazaki, Niigata Prefecture, and about the fundamental vulnerability of nuclear power plants.

<snip>

I was a member of the expert panel that developed the new seismic design guidelines, but I resigned during the final stage of the work last August to protest the panel's stance on this issue. This defect must be fixed quickly, learning from what happened at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.

<snip>

Ishibashi Katsuhiko is a professor at the Research Center for Urban Safety and Security of Kobe University.

This article appeared in the International Herald Tribune/Asahi Shinbun on August 11, 2007). Posted at Japan Focus on August 11, 2007.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/12/japan-ministers-ignored-warnings-nuclear

Japan ministers ignored safety warnings over nuclear reactors
Seismologist Ishibashi Katsuhiko claimed that an accident was likely and that plants have 'fundamental vulnerability'
Robin McKie, science editor
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 12 March 2011 18.51 GMT

<snip>

However, the real embarrassment for the Japanese government is not so much the nature of the accident but the fact it was warned long ago about the risks it faced in building nuclear plants in areas of intense seismic activity. Several years ago, the seismologist Ishibashi Katsuhiko stated, specifically, that such an accident was highly likely to occur. Nuclear power plants in Japan have a "fundamental vulnerability" to major earthquakes, Katsuhiko said in 2007. The government, the power industry and the academic community had seriously underestimated the potential risks posed by major quakes.

Katsuhiko, who is professor of urban safety at Kobe University, has highlighted three incidents at reactors between 2005 and 2007. Atomic plants at Onagawa, Shika and Kashiwazaki-Kariwa were all struck by earthquakes that triggered tremors stronger than those to which the reactor had been designed to survive.

<snip>

[Javaman]

22. wrong spot nt

[Barrett808]

18. I just thought they looked cool

:shrug:

[bananas]

19. And yet there's a Chernobyl-scale disaster at a western-style nuclear plant.

And there will be more.

[madokie]

10. After all this time you're still trying to minimize this catastrophe

I stand with those here who have been very vocal in the dangers of using nuclear energy to make our electrical power and as this unfolds I have just one thing to say to you. I TOLD YOU SO.
Go pedal your bull somewhere else if you don't mind. Go out in the garage and create something, go take a walk, anything but continue this charade you're engaged in.

unrec'd

[wtmusic]

21. You haven't told me anything.

One person has died so far in your catastrophe, which is something in the neighborhood of 1/1000 of the lives that were lost in Joplin, MO last week.

Which is largely the result of global warming.

Which is largely the result of hysterics peddled by people like you against clean, carbon-free nuclear energy.

I've put up with your shit until now but because of your intolerance and ignorance you're ignored, dude. Long time coming. And I'll continue to "pedal" nuclear power right here without your ignorance to distract me. :hi:

[meow mix]

13. go help in japan then.. not holding my breath..

fucking armchair &%*#&*%#'s

[Javaman]

23. Dr. Glowlove or how I have learned to love the irradiated blob. nt

[SpoonFed]

24. +1 hilarious n/t

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.