d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature >
Poll > Fukushima Fuel Rods Removal > One Down, 1500 To Go- Place Your Bet
Prev12348Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
  Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Nov 19 2013 08:25pm
They'll get them all out without any problems.
Member
Posts: 21,075
Joined: Apr 4 2007
Gold: 0.00
Nov 20 2013 01:26am
Quote (thundercock @ 20 Nov 2013 14:25)
They'll get them all out without any problems.


yes
Member
Posts: 799
Joined: Aug 16 2013
Gold: Locked
Trader: Scammer
Warn: 10%
Nov 20 2013 04:23am
Quote (thundercock @ Nov 19 2013 10:25pm)
They'll get them all out without any problems.


I hope so too! I'm being optimistic about it. Usually when the shit hits the fan, humans are down to solve a problem in this dire of need.

I read somewhere that in 6 years the whole pacific ocean will be covered in radiated water. The Japanese farmers went to the government complaining that they hate selling the radiated food and that they won't even eat it. They feel very bad for selling the food to their own people. It's pretty sad, Japanese people seem to be very respectful people. Hope all goes well :cry:
Member
Posts: 28,331
Joined: Jun 9 2007
Gold: 11,700.00
Nov 20 2013 04:50am
Quote (DarkNebula1 @ 20 Nov 2013 10:23)
I hope so too! I'm being optimistic about it. Usually when the shit hits the fan, humans are down to solve a problem in this dire of need.
I read somewhere that in 6 years the whole pacific ocean will be covered in radiated water.The Japanese farmers went to the government complaining that they hate selling the radiated food and that they won't even eat it. They feel very bad for selling the food to their own people. It's pretty sad, Japanese people seem to be very respectful people. Hope all goes well  :cry:


hope it was a nice, scary read
but let us put that into perspective
1. the ocean currents are likely not to disperse it over the whole pacific ocean - don't worry there will be more for the usa



2, the total amount of contaminated water currently stored is ~380,000 tons which is ~380,000 cubic meters
now that is a volume of 38 cm height over a square kilometer, the pacific ocean covers an area of ~165,000,000 square kilometers
which means the 'film' of contaminated water would be ~0.0000000023 cm (or ~0.0000000009 inch) thick if evenly dispersed
double or even triple the thickness due to the dispersion not covering the whole pacific ocean but rather less than half
scary isn't it? :rolleyes:

let's hope no further substantial problem occurs at fukushima but even if it does it is unlikely to have a significant impact apart from a quite close neighbourhood

This post was edited by brmv on Nov 20 2013 04:53am
Member
Posts: 3,290
Joined: Oct 22 2005
Gold: 3,100.00
Nov 20 2013 09:54am
Quote (brmv @ 20 Nov 2013 11:50)

let's hope no further substantial problem occurs at fukushima but even if it does it is unlikely to have a significant impact apart from a quite close neighbourhood


the amount of stored water is right, (soon to be upgraded to 700.000 tons) but there are another 400 tons of groundwater flowing into the reactor buildings, where 300 tons flow into the ocean, every day.
they have build these barriers in the ocean to contain some of it and try to freeze the ground around the plant below groundwater level to prevent the water from spreading.

Of course the worst consequences are in the neighborhood, no doubt. I hope for them and for the rest of mankind that everything goes as good as it can.

But I think, while your math is sure correct, the calculations are a bit useless.
1 ton of water can be highly contained or have only low levels.
You would need to calculate the total number of becquerels leaked into the ocean, not the volume of the water.
(consider the different isotopes, their weight, half time period and different effects on nature)

While on the topic of separated streams of water, the same goes for air, a german scientist made a worst case scenario in which a chain reaction causes another melt down
even then the airborne particles would only pollute the northern hemisphere.

I really think it is good to have a voice of "keep calm and carry on" here, it was not my intention to scare anyone, I was really interested in how others see the work done at the plant.
Hope for the best, and excuse any mistakes in my posts, english is not my native language



Member
Posts: 10,780
Joined: Jul 22 2011
Gold: 655.00
Nov 20 2013 10:02am
Quote (brmv @ Nov 20 2013 06:50am)
hope it was a nice, scary read
but let us put that into perspective
1. the ocean currents are likely not to disperse it over the whole pacific ocean - don't worry there will be more for the usa

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Corrientes-oceanicas.gif/640px-Corrientes-oceanicas.gif

2, the total amount of contaminated water currently stored is ~380,000 tons which is ~380,000 cubic meters
now that is a volume of 38 cm height over a square kilometer, the pacific ocean covers an area of ~165,000,000 square kilometers
which means the 'film' of contaminated water would be ~0.0000000023 cm (or ~0.0000000009 inch) thick if evenly dispersed
double or even triple the thickness due to the dispersion not covering the whole pacific ocean but rather less than half
scary isn't it?  :rolleyes:

let's hope no further substantial problem occurs at fukushima but even if it does it is unlikely to have a significant impact apart from a quite close neighbourhood


why would contaminated water only float on the top?
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Nov 18 2013
Gold: 147.00
Nov 20 2013 10:43am
Quote (Ylem122 @ 20 Nov 2013 09:02)
why would contaminated water only float on the top?


I do not think that is what he was implying.
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Nov 18 2013
Gold: 147.00
Nov 20 2013 10:48am
Quote (Hell Knight @ 18 Nov 2013 12:26)
Tepco started to remove the first of 1500 fuel rods
For what it is worth, I believe they have already removed more than 1500 rods. Perhaps you mean assemblies, which are packages of about 80 rods?

Member
Posts: 3,290
Joined: Oct 22 2005
Gold: 3,100.00
Nov 20 2013 12:36pm
Quote (Rocinante @ 20 Nov 2013 17:48)
For what it is worth, I believe they have already removed more than 1500 rods. Perhaps you mean assemblies, which are packages of about 80 rods?


Quote (Washington Post)
A: There are 3,106 fuel rod assemblies, each holding about 60-80 rods containing uranium-based pellets inside, in four reactors, Units 1-4. The goal is to remove them over the next five years.What started Monday was the removal of the 1,533 assemblies in Unit 4, which is the only one of the four reactors being decommissioned that didn’t melt down.


Yes, you are right, its 1533 Assemblies x 80 =122640 Rods (ignoring that there are some with 60)
The goal is to remove 22 assemblies in the first week, that would make 1320 of 122640.
So they did not yet remove, and will not remove in the first week more then 1500 like you believed
The term fuel rod was wrong, and to be honest, I pictured it wrong.
There are many articles that wrote it like I did, and I did not question it, thank you for clarification.



We are not talking about 1500 rods, but 1500 containers like those in the image, filled with 60-80 rods each.
That is more than I thought ^^

This post was edited by Hell Knight on Nov 20 2013 12:37pm
Member
Posts: 3,290
Joined: Oct 22 2005
Gold: 3,100.00
Nov 20 2013 01:13pm
Quote (Rocinante @ 20 Nov 2013 17:48)
For what it is worth, I believe they have already removed more than 1500 rods. Perhaps you mean assemblies, which are packages of about 80 rods?


Quote (Washington Post)
A: There are 3,106 fuel rod assemblies, each holding about 60-80 rods containing uranium-based pellets inside, in four reactors, Units 1-4. The goal is to remove them over the next five years.What started Monday was the removal of the 1,533 assemblies in Unit 4, which is the only one of the four reactors being decommissioned that didn’t melt down.


Yes, you are right, its 1533 Assemblies x 80 =122640 Rods (ignoring that there are some with 60)
The goal is to remove 22 assemblies in the first week, that would make 1320 of 122640.
So they did not yet remove, and will not remove in the first week more then 1500 like you believed

One BWR Assembly is a tube like this, it has 60-80 fuel rods inside



-snip-
the length of the elements is 4m and the weight is 300kg, 400 tons/0.3 tons= 1333
Quote (wikipedia)

In boiling water reactors (BWR), the fuel is similar to PWR fuel except that the bundles are "canned"; that is, there is a thin tube surrounding each bundle. This is primarily done to prevent local density variations from affecting neutronics and thermal hydraulics of the reactor core. In modern BWR fuel bundles, there are either 91, 92, or 96 fuel rods per assembly depending on the manufacturer. A range between 368 assemblies for the smallest and 800 assemblies for the largest U.S. BWR forms the reactor core. Each BWR fuel rod is back filled with helium to a pressure of about three atmospheres (300 kPa).



Never mind, I was right, ^this is the fixed version of the post above
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev12348Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll