Links for 2011-03-14

  • Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors. | Morgsatlarge – blogorific.
    “Now, where does that leave us?

    * The plant is safe now and will stay safe.
    * Japan is looking at an INES Level 4 Accident: Nuclear accident with local consequences. That is bad for the company that owns the plant, but not for anyone else.
    * Some radiation was released when the pressure vessel was vented. All radioactive isotopes from the activated steam have gone (decayed). A very small amount of Cesium was released, as well as Iodine. If you were sitting on top of the plants’ chimney when they were venting, you should probably give up smoking to return to your former life expectancy. “

    (tags: science news japan nuclear energy engineering blogs world disaster)

3 comments

  1. I suggest one take a look at the generation III+ designs for reactors now being released. In particular the ESBWR, a boiling water reactor that is designed to run with no power for 72 hours, thru having pools of water surrounding the reactor that can be released into the reactor if the need arises. Apparently it is possible to design much safer reactors than the generation I plants that are having the problems. (Another item from looking at the schematics of proposed plants is the diesel generators are high up in the building so that a Tsunami should not affect them).

  2. Thanks for that, I would never have seen it otherwise.

    I remember just enough nuclear physics (and conversations with certain august persons I’ve lost contact with over the years) to have been scratching my head over several of the reports I read this weekend. And after reading that, it turns out that there were a bunch more I should have been scratching my head over.

  3. I should have written my “Idiot Media Commentators” blog, and maybe I will get around to it this week, but that article says a lot that I would say about the news coverage.

    (With one exception, and that was an extremely intelligent analysis by one person on CNN, but it appears he was not invited back.)

    I do, however, take exception to that article’s description of what happened at Chernobyl. IMHO, the explosion of that reactor was the result of large volumes of water (and other materials) turning to steam (and other vapors) almost instantly because the reactor went prompt critical. That is not exactly a “nuclear explosion”, but it certainly is not a chemical explosion due to accumulated hydrogen.

    My expectation is that, despite 30+ mrem/hr at the plant boundary at one point, the main cost will be the utter and total loss of the capital investment in several reactors, one of which was due for retirement but will now be much more expensive to take out of service.

    It certainly helped that prevailing winds are out to sea. It didn’t help that the engineering design decisions were not as robust as one would like, yet the same can be said of where some train tracks were located.

Comments are closed.