This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Two Nuclear Reactors Were Damaged by the Earthquake, BEFORE the Tsunami Hit ... and the Entire Nuclear Reactor Design Is Flawed
Bloomberg reported last week:
A
radiation alarm went off at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima
nuclear power plant before the tsunami hit on March 11, suggesting that
contrary to earlier assumptions the reactors were damaged by the
earthquake that spawned the wall of water.
A monitoring post on
the perimeter of the plant about 1.5 kilometers (1 mile) from the No. 1
reactor went off at 3:29 p.m., minutes before the station was
overwhelmed by the tsunami that knocked out backup power that kept
reactor cooling systems running, according to documents supplied by the
company. The monitor was set to go off at high levels of radiation, an
official said.
Nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen just confirmed that some of the Japanese nuclear reactors were severely damaged even before the tsunami hit.
Specifically,
Gundersen reports that the containment vessel at Fukushima 1 started
leaking and melting down before the tsunami hit. Similarly, Gundersen
notes that the fuel pool at reactor 4 cracked and started leaking after
the earthquake and before the water hit.
Remember that Japanese seismologists had warned for years that Japan's reactors were extremely vulnerable to earthquakes, with one top seismologist noting:
It's like a kamikaze terrorist wrapped in bombs just waiting to explode.
Gundersen
also points out that Florida's nuclear reactors are vulnerable to tidal
surges from hurricanes, and California's reactors vulnerable to tidal
surges caused by earthquakes.
And he notes that the attempt to release pressure at Fukushima failed 3 out of 3 times: 100% failure rate.
Gundersen notes that this shows that the entire design of these old-fashioned nuclear reactors is a failure.
Finally, Gundersen says - I've repeatedly noted - that conditions are in many ways even more precarious in the U.S. than in Japan.
The Implications of the Fukushima Accident on the World's Operating Reactors from Fairewinds Associates on Vimeo.
- advertisements -
All Mark 1s need to be shut down ASAP. Best thing to do is build brand new reactors right next to the current ones to make use of the existing turbine equipment. Then decommission the Mark 1s.
can't be done quickly without massive power deficits.
Nuclear is 25% of our electric right now.
The real problem is that nuclear development stalled and was led into particular directions by the government (for the navy primarily). So, the plants we have now are all old and haven't been replaced. As they've worked in some cases 40 or 50 years without incident, they are being extensioned. We can't live without the electricity and there is no backup generation for them.
"Nuclearpower generation accounted for 20.2 percent of the electricity generated in 2009, a 0.9-percent decrease from the prior year. The decline in nuclear generation in 2009 is the result of scheduled and unscheduled plant outages and derates. "
But more interesting is the serious decline in the demand for electricity as our industrial base is being eroded away...
"A 9.1-percent decline in industrial demand for electricity, which fell to the lowest level since 1987, accounted for most of the decline in overall electricity consumption. The drop in industrial electricity demand reflected the 9.3-percent drop in industrial output, as measured by the Federal Reserve Bank's index of industrial production.[3]"
Net generation of electric power fell 4.1 percent in 2009, to 3,950 million megawatthours (MWh) from 4,119 million MWh in 2008 (Figure ES1). This is the largest decline in electricity generation in at least 60 years. Electricity generation also declined 0.9 percent in 2008. The years 2008 and 2009 represent only the third and fourth instances that generation has dropped year over year since 1949 (the first two occurrences were during recessions in 1982 and 2001). Additionally, this is the first time over the last 6 decades that generation has declined in two consecutive years.
//www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html
Having lived "off grid" at various times in my life, you can do "nicely" with out the extension cord to the utility. It just requires some "life style" adjustments" (and that doesn't mean giving up my frig, computer or running water)... of course some ingenuity, patience and trouble shooting skills are required. (said tongue in cheek)
If price is allowed to rise to meet demand, then you'd see lots of people start paying attention to their usage and decreasing consumption accordingly. While that likely wouldn't equate to a 25% reduction in demand, it would sure be a good start. Also, since the grid is powered 24X7, shifting load to non-peak times is another way to alleviate spiking demand during peak hours.
Problem is though, electricity is a government controlled market, and the producers are not allowed to act in a sustainable manner, but instead act politically. Which has helped create the problem of energy inefficiency in the US (despite all of the green rhetoric you hear).
I think the issue is a bit more complicated than meets the eye.
There is a very large capital investment made into these facilities, the bankers that loan the money for the construction of these plants, will be paid off, in full. The contractors (think "confessions of an economic hit man") will also be paid in full with a nice tidy profit margin and if you think lawyer pad their bills you need to see what power plant contractors do!!! They put lawyer to shame!!!!! And don't get me started on the change order game....
The profitability of these plants depends on the consumption of the electricity produced. Therefore you will see consumption encouraged and realized to match production capabilities.
The Utilities are not going to do anything to meaningful to reduce consumption, they would be "cutting their own throats".
The government is not in control of this market, Enron proved otherwise a few years back. The producers are not acting "politically", unless your definition of politically is buying off politician and judges to see things their way, and "their way" is the way to make the most profit for themselves and their "buds" (contractors, fuel suppliers, etc).
The producers and utilities are acting in a manner to maintaining their control over the market place and protecting their turf and profits, it truly is a good old boys club....
Load sharing is easier said than done. And the utilities have no interest in playing ball; peak demand drives system design capacity (they are guaranteed a rate of return on money invested into “approved” generation capacity to meet demand). Load sharing is a money loser for the utilities and it's a pain in the ass to implement.
Transmission capacity is a real issue, perhaps the easiest fix, in an ideal world, would be to construct smaller local generation capacity, but the profit margins are substantially less for the utility, (your incrememtal costs are significantly higher on a smaller facitily) no incentive.. not going to happen.
Wind and solar? Not enough profit in it for the good old boys. You also have to remember that there is a very incestuous relationship between the power utilities, "the oil and gas patch" and the large contractors. If you dig deep enough you will find many times they are one and the same.... It is common to see the same "players" sitting on differents sides of the table over a short period of time.
Ok, I'm done my rant.....
Tough. Start decommissioning these clusterfucks now, or wait until Fukushima Amercian Style starts at a plant near you.
It seems few have noticed that the radiation monitor in Reactor 1 suddenly spike up to ~200 Sv/hr over the weekend.
http://atmc.jp/plant/rad/?n=1
?? The chart I see is empty?
Sanitized information?