Last updated on March 1, 2013
A former DOE assistant secretary for renewable energy, Robert Alvarez, has lately been spreading a lot of fearmongering about the stability of the spent fuel pool in reactor 4 at Fukushima. From the start of the accident a lot of question marks regarding the pool has been floating around, including the statement from the NRC chairman Jaczko that the pool might have run dry. Later is was however shown that the pool was never in any danger, it was never damaged in the earthquake and tsunami and it never ran dry. TEPCO released footage from the pool itself and its clear that it is intact and full of water.
The new rumors spread by Alvarez is that the spent fuel pools are in danger of collapsing and that somehow the entire cesium content of the spent fuel would spread uncontrollably, rather silly considering that not even the Chernobyl accident managed to spread more than 20-40% of the cesium inventory of the reactor despite exploding and burning in open air for days. No amount of zirconium fire can approach that.
Akio Matsumura has picked up on the issue and added some “spice” to it.
Many of our readers might find it difficult to appreciate the actual meaning of the figure, yet we can grasp what 85 times more Cesium-137 than the Chernobyl would mean. It would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival.
Chernobyl, as bad as it was, will likely not cause more than a couple of thousand extra fatal cases of cancer and so far no increase in cancer rates, except thyroid cancer, has been seen. Even if one where to assume that somehow magically all the Cesium would be released from all the pools, and assume it causes consequences 85 times as bad as Chernobyl, its still hard to see how it would be the “end of our civilization”. If one assumes 85 times as many people where to die then the accident would be about half as bad as the Banqiao hydropower disaster, China still exists as a nation! The Chernobyl exclusion zone is now a thriving wilderness and that makes it hard to understand how it would “destroy the world environment”. Chernobyl was in no way pleasant, but 85 times Chernobyl isn’t the end of the world. Amusingly Matsumura also quotes this from Alvarez:
The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel).
Well uhmmmm, civilization didn’t end and the world environment didn’t collapse due to that, so why would half again as much make the world kick the bucket? No this isn’t rocket science Mr Matsumura, but it seems you fail to grasp it anyway.
TEPCOs reply to the issues is a strong statement that the pool is in good health and that it could handle another earthquake of the same magnitude. Further the pool has been reinforced to the extend that it is even stronger now than before the accident.
The upper part of the Reactor Building of Unit 4 was damaged due to a hydrogen explosion. We confirmed the items below and affirm that the building, including its spent fuel pool will not collapse should another earthquake occur.
1) We measured the distance between the water surface of the spent fuel pool and the floor surface of the building, and confirmed that the building has not tilted.
2) Our analyses show that the building, including the spent fuel pool, will not collapse even if an earthquake equivalent (seismic intensity 6) to the Tohoku-Chihou-Taiheiyou-Oki Earthquake occurs in the area.
3) In addition, we have improved the seismic safety margin by 20% by reinforcing the bottom of the spent fuel pool.
4) We will regularly check the reactor building and the spent fuel pool four times per year to confirm their soundness.
Rod Adams mentions on his blog Atomic Insights that a detailed technical response to Alvarez claims are in the works and it will be very interesting to read it. The #4 spent fuel pool has obviously turned into a disappointment for the anti nuclear crowd since it never ran dry, it never released any activity and it seems to be holding up very well, so they continue to make up more and more fantastic scenarios on how it will fail.
More about the whole thing can be read on Idaho Samizdat and at Atomic Power Review.
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /var/www/nuclearpoweryesplease.org/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 18
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /var/www/nuclearpoweryesplease.org/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 42
So,you are saying 85x Chernobyl is no big deal?
Hahahahaha!
And Chernobyl only caused a couple of thousand cancer fatalities and nothing else?
Hahahahaha!
No,wait,don’t tell me-those extra million people whose lives were taken since then died of “radiation-phobia”?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
“Radiation-phobia”……….
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Excuse me Zemzem, but I think you got your fingers stuck on the “h” and the “a” key. Should we call for someone to come an release you?
When you get one hand free, try to click on the following link and read it before speaking of millions of dead:
http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/32/2/181
Million,not “millions”.
Learn to read,dear boy.
Oh, we’re getting picky about details now, are we? Well, try to increase your attention span to more than 30 seconds and read the blog post and Balonov’s article again. Then please explain to us how these 85 times Chernobyl worth of radioactivity will disintegrate into tiny particles that will spread around the world (you will surely find some mechanism, you seem to be rather keen on it). Then give us some constructive criticism om Balonov’s article.
I read it, it’s bullshit. They try to discredit and yet they don’t actually present any real arguments or data.
We call this “reaction formation” attributing to others what your own actual weaknesses are. Pots shots and slander.
Epidemiologist and psychoanalyst as well?
Hey, he is almost as talented as Busby at this rate…
These concepts are simple, mostly high school stuff. it is similar to the same lies that nukers use, pretending that others cannot possibly understand nuclear concepts and radiation effects.
That goes right back to the ego of nukers.
@steveo77:disqus It was the profound level of your analysis, which you so eloquently managed to summarize into a single word, that impressed me.
People like you – anonymous ranters who are very sure of themselves but couldn’t argue you point if you life depended on it – is what makes it very easy to be in favour of nuclear power.
If you were honest you would admit that your support for nuclear technology has very little to do with how I sign my comments or whether I “rant”,or even that you think I’m too sure of myself-I suppose you think your mind is wide open?You hypocrite.
In the whole article above,and many others like it,I cannot detect even a tiny bit of concern for the people of Japan.
The only thing that worries you is the reputation of the technology that you are wedded to,and your career prospects should it be discredited.
The lack of concern for the people of Japan exposes you as the deeply unpleasant person that you are.
Hush, little friend, daddy’s busy with transfering the latest paycheck from TEPCO to his Swiss bank account.
So far we have seen none of your comments starting with a general call to a moment of silence in honor of all the tsunami victims and worried people. None of your humanitarian traits have been evident in any of your postings, I wonder why?
A moment of silence…..in a text based format?
How does that work?
If you are trying to be funny I suggest that you either:
A:try a lot harder…..
or
B:stop trying.
Classic deflection….focus on the tsunami as if the more visible disaster somehow makes the invisible nuke damage to our DNA and health less bad. Very weak attempt at a comeback.
@steveo77:disqus :Oh, our PV guy is an expert on DNA damage induced by radioactivity as well? Impressive, I lift my beret.
Ah yes, the people of Japan. I have a great deal of respect and concern fort heir well-being, and as a result I have nothing but contempt and repugnance for the anti-nuclear ghouls who try to exploit and increase their fears.
The clearest lesson of Chernobyl was that a nuclear accident is only so bad, but the reaction of society can make it far far worse by fostering feelings of anxiety, victimhood, hopelessness and isolation. The radiation has a limited effect but the lies and distortions of anti-nuclear exploiters can mislead people and governments into actions that make things significantly worse.
Cmon Michael….someone rants and therefore the opposite must be true? s
I will wash my mouth and then reply when I can form a coherent sentance without insults.
I see you desire civil discussion…. Has it occured to you that slinging insults doesnt really further your argument?
I refer you to my reply above-or you could just read it again,cover up the word “dickhead” with your finger and then you can explain to me why the statements from Tepco are to be regarded as inherently trustworthy despite the fact that Tepco are proven to lie,and why it is impossible for an earthquake of greater magnitude than the last to hit fukushima in the future.good luck with that.
TEPCO doesnt have a perfect track record of honesty. But compared to what the regular anti nukes write TEPCO looks like baby jesus… As far as structural integrity of a TEPCO plant, I find it likely that they know better than just about anyone else.
None of your statements are very relevant. Yes a worse quake can happen (i am sure even Sweden will someday in the far future will suffer a worse quake). Doesnt say squat about probability though, but you are so busy with insinuations that it probably never occured to you. If you wish civil discussion then act like an adult. If you are busy slinging insults then why not go somewhere else where people acctually care?
Hohoho?
I think we got a visit by Santa Claus. But he won’t get any presents this year, he should wash out his mouth first.
Insults and CAPS LOCK do not in any way carry a convincing argument.
Allright ,so remove the insults and what about the argument?
That the poster regards statements by Tepco as uncontroversial
despite the known fact that Tepco has made numerous false and deliberately misleading statements regarding Fukushima?
Deliberately false and misleading statements are known as lies in the vernacular.The poster regards the statements made by an organisation which is proven to lie as inherently trustworthy.My point about future earthquakes is not only convincing-it is irrefutable.Or are you saying otherwise?
Are you saying there is no possibility of an earthquake of greater magnitude hitting the region in the future?
Please tell,old bean.Tell me how there is no possibility of that happening.
The fact that you claim TEPCO has lied about other things does not carry any weight when it comes to judging the veracity about the fuel pool.
The fact that a larger earthquake might hit the region does not mean that fuel pool will or even could “collapse”.
And the fact that fuel pool might collapse for reasons hitherto unknown does not mean the end of civilization.
Your argument is lacking because all you put forth is “I say TEPCO lied, therefore everything I say may be true, even if it flies in the face of what they say”.
As far as you are aware have TEPCO lied about Fukushima?
Yes or no?
My argument is not “I say TEPCO lied, therefore everything I say may be true, even if it flies in the face of what they say”.
To claim this is my argument is dishonest,and reveals you,Michael,as a dishonest person.
I did not claim the fuel pool could “collapse”-to imply that I claimed this by using quotation marks is dishonest.
To imply that I claimed this would mean “the end of civilization” is dishonest.
The fact that TEPCO have lied about Fukushima does not mean that they must be lying in their statement about the fuel pool-nor did I claim this.To imply that I did is dishonest,Michael.
What it means is that they are an organisation with a track record of lying.
You have my email address-I will accept your apology for your dishonesty in misrepresenting me graciously,in the event that you should grow a conscience.
Wow, the same person who entered the discussion with calling us names in capital letters is now waiting for an apology. What next, a duel at dawn?
@72cb268608b7b4813956c5b400e48a74:disqus : “You are aware that the management of Tepco stand a very real possibility of facing criminal charges,and as such their statements are not to be treated with the sort of blind faith normally bestowed upon mediaeval popes?”
So instead we should rely on the statements from a well-known alarmist with inflated CV who already has faced criminal charges while serving in public office?
TEPCO is certainly not among our favorite companies (they pay us too little…), and there are a number of issues with them that should end up in court. So we do not trust everything they say automatically. We try to assess if what they say is reasonable, compare with what other people say, or use our own knowledge in order to check their statements.
They can still be wrong, and so can we, but if you rather prefer to trust the alarmists on the other side of the Pacific, who are so keen on exaggerating everything (even when they are right the truth does not seem to be enough for them), then why are you here? Isn’t ENENEWS good enough for you?
Thanks
Johan – good post !
Regarding
Tepco’s response that “Our
analyses show that the building, including the spent fuel pool, will not
collapse even if an earthquake equivalent (seismic intensity 6) to the
Tohoku-Chihou-Taiheiyou-Oki Earthquake occurs in the area” – I believe they
will have a hard time selling this (correct) statement, unless they explain a
bit about earthquakes, as I have attempted to do in a soon-to-be posted FB
note:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11686324/earthquakes_perspective_2012.docx
Everyone
remembers that the Mach 11, 2011 Tohoku earthquake was a magnitude 9, so when
they read that “the spent fuel
pool will not collapse even if an earthquake equivalent (seismic intensity 6)
.. occurs in the area,” they will immediately think that Tepco is trying to
deceive everybody.
People need to
be able to understand “shake maps,” or at the very least, the difference
between local shaking intensity, and the absolute earthquake magnitude – which
remains the same whether you are in north-eastern Japan or on the other side of
the earth, in South Africa.
In fact, the
distance of Fukushima from the M9 event epicentre was such that only a fairly
weak shaking was felt locally: According to the Modified Mercalli Intensity
scale, the cited local seismic intensity level of 6 has the following effects:
“Everyone feels the earthquake. People have difficulty walking, objects and
paintings fall down, plaster walls can crack, trees and bushes are shaken.
Minor damage can occur in poorly constructed buildings, but no structural
damage.”
I repeat: “MINOR
DAMAGE CAN OCCUR IN POORLY COSTRUCTED BUILDINGS, BUT NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.”
It
is only at MMI level 8 that well-built structures like some parts of the
Fukushima plant start to be threatened: “Drivers have trouble driving. Houses
with weak foundations move. Large structures such as chimneys or buildings, can
twist and break. Well-built buildings suffer minor damage, unlike others which
suffer severe damage. Tree branches break. Hillsides may develop fissures if
the ground is wet. Water level in wells may change.”
Ground acceleration on the 11th March 2011 at the Daichi site was >25% over the design limit of the plant, the buildings still stand.
If the fuelpool (which is part of the foundation of the reactorbuilding, if memmory serves me correctly) can stand a hydrogen explosion, a piddly little earthquake is no worry.
But then try and convince the luddites about that?!
I don’t think that the hydrogen explosion had any significant effect on the reinforced concrete structure: It just blew away the sheet-metal secondary containment above it, and made the whole site look very bad — as if the eartquake did the damage, which it did not.
It is not surprising that the buildings still stand.
Nor is it surprising that antinukes are now trying to confuse the issue, insinuating that the rubble left by the hydrogen explosion was produced by the earthquake.
That way, they get to scare everyone into believing that even an Intensity VI shaking can wreck any nuke plant, anywhere else on the planet.
Its total BS, of course.
Silly argument, every plant is designed for the local geography, and besides, no one besides the Japanese use the”intensity” scale that I know of.
And yes mother nature can be a real bitch at times, even on Mothers day.
The fuel pool is perched 30M up on the reactor, they reinforced it with 30 little spindly poles “for convenience”
Sorry your credibility is shot.
Nice document, Jaro!
Please feel free to convert it to a blog post, or whatever — I will only be using the version I translated into French….
There are 12 plants in Japan that were so damaged by the earthquake, that they will probably never start again on technical reasons. They were not hit with tsunami.
Argument dismissed.
The co called Seismic Intensity Scale is qualitative / subjective. As opposed to the Richter scale which is quantitative.
Another method that nuke lies….confusing conversions and equivalencies.
And just because TEPCO says the plant will survive an intensity 6 (of which there is a very important distinction between lower 6 and upper 6 , and ignoring that distinction is the same as bald faced lying), just because TEPCI says so, has zero credibility, they are a zombie company.
There was a spent fuel pool at Chernobyl. Presumably it ran completely dry? Anyone have any idea what happened there?
Why do you presume that the SNF pool at Chernobyl ran dry ?
As far as I know, Chernobyl never lost off-site power.
Also, the burnup of Chernobyl fuel was lower than LWRs — more like a Candu reactor.
Combined with the on-line refuelling, the heat load in the SNF pool would tend to be lower than, say, Fukushima U4 offloading for the periodic refuelling outage.
Look through here….what in here gives you even the slightest hint that the structures are stable
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/f12np-gaiyou_e_2.pdf
—————————————–
In my little write-up, there is a video about the steel supports, they added.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2012/04/troll-type-silliness-saying-fuel-pool-4.html
Pro
Page 17 is the only relevant one, and that gives me absolutely no warm
fuzzy that this could take another 9 earthquake. ZERO.
What seismic is that rated for?
Like that reactor 1 cover….they built it for 65 MPH rated wind load, when Japan gets typhoons all the time…..hmmmm
I guess you can by seeing those pictures mentaly calculate the load it can take and I am sure your judgement by watching some pictures is far far superior to tepcos engineers. Tepcos analysis suggests it increases seismic margin by 20%, random online anti nuke troll thinks not. Whos judgement to trust? Tricky tricky…..
Yeah, there seems to be something about nutty conspiracy theorists that makes them believe that they are the perfect armchair civil engineers (cf. the “9-11 truth” theorists).
😀
Yeah,and they’re into crystals and dowsing too,those antinukes.All of them.And they smell,the dirty hippies.
LOL.!
OMFG YOU ARE SO FUNNY AND CLEVER BRIAN MAYS ROFL ROFL OMFG LOOOOL!!!!
Look at the design, it is silly. They did what was easily feasible, not what was necessary.
And just why the heck isn’t there better documentation readily available. That is part of the point. Show me 5 –30″ I beams sway braced with proper footings and columns and I will feel alot better than this spindly (lookup slenderness coefficient and buckling load, and consider the effect under a 9 earthquake) poles that were moved into place under human power.
Indeed that was their design criteria…”able to be installed under human power”, NOT what is appropriate to prevent an equivalent cesium release of 800 nuclear weapons.
To think that we shouldn’t second guess TEPCO engineers is absurd, like the guys who didn’t think, hey pipes freeze in winter, and frozen pipes break….and failed to protect pipes until 20 or 30 some were broke.
This is like the keystone cops
TEPCO is a zombie company, barely functioning, waiting for the relief of government takeover and back to their easy life knowing they have the entire resources of the taxpayer nation at their disposals to fund their bonuses and pensions.
Will Davis has also written about the spent fuel pools at ANS Nuclear Cafe:
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/05/16/spent-fuel-at-fukushima-not-dangerous/
Sad thing is that Fukushima AP1000 reactor design is sub-optimal on account of the use of Zirconia-clad solid fuel rods. Such an accident would not have occurred had Fukushima facility been based on Thorium LFTR. Thorium LFTR potentially produces nuclear waste that only needs to be stored 300 years, not 100000 years for conventonal nuclear waste. Thorium LFTR produces only 1% of the waste of conventional solid-fuel rod nuclear configurations. An additional benefit of Thorium LFTR is that it can be configrued to dispose of contemporary nuclear waste safely via transmutation. Fukushima shows very clearly the limitation and disadvantages of conventional nuclear reactor configurations. We need to progress to next-generation nuclear technology. Fukushima clearly illutrates how unsatisfactory conventional solid fuel rod nuclear configurations are in practice. The nuclear industry has to write off its conventional legacy investments and move on to next generation nuclear fission technology, namely Thorium LFTR.
Atomic power, natural-gas power, clean-coal power, and where possible, hydro-electric power are the future.
Starving Steve, Watsonville, California
If I may venture a bit off of the subject of atomic power ( which happens to not be an emitter of carbon-dioxide ) but stay on the subject of energy, carbon-dioxide, and climate change: I noticed yesterday that as the Northern Hemisphere of the Earth is near record warmth in the 2011/2012 year, much of the entire Southern Hemisphere is near record cold. In fact, the ice sheet bordering the continent of Antarctica is expanding outward. The Southern Ocean is colder than normal, too….. These interesting facts you don’t hear or read from the eco-bunch to-day. And their pronouncement that the entire world is warming omits the fact that most of the entire world’s climate stations are in the Northern Hemisphere, not in the Southern Hemisphere where the cooling is…..
The fact that a minor carbon-dioxide increase in the atmosphere appears to have had no affect upon recent climate ( little or no affect upon the average temperature of the world in recent decades ) argues strongly that not only is atomic energy going to be in the future for the world, but that fossil-fuel derived energy is going to be in the world’s energy future as well.
A different take on the issue is given by an expert on nuclear chemistry here:
http://markforeman.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/mike-adams/
http://cybertribenetwork.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/red-alert-fukushima-spent-fuel-pools.html
Interesting link, Marie. It is of course the exploding fuel pools that we see in the second picture, or? It is also reassuring to hear the person on the video referring to Arnie Gundersen, then it must surely be true. We are all doomed so let us pray, Marie, let us pray.
Now wait a minute, Marie. The link above the second picture reveals something very interesting (http://thecontrail.com/profiles/blogs/red-alert-fukushima-spent-fuel-pools-exploded-on-fire-now).
Among other interesting things it says: “THIS IS THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO BECAUSE OF THE THOUSANDS OF TONS OF PLUTONIUM CONTAINED IN THESE SPENT FUEL POOLS.”
Marie, this is terrific news, thousands of tons of plutonium in a few fuel pools, the fuel pools somehow turned into breeder reactors! Breeding by abandoning fuel pool, this is a Gen-IV concept that I have not heard about before.