Tokyo 8.9 MAGNiTUDE &-nuclear reactor
- Thread starter Allen
- Start date
ellis8500
Member
Yes, there is a nuclear reactor in the EE building on the Purdue campus. It is in a sub-basement and it is a very small research reactor. Power output is about 1000 watts. I took a class in nuclear engineering at Purdue in 1970 and did have a tour of the reactor. It is the only one in Indiana. Most students don't even know it is there and many thousands walk over the top of it every day going to and from class.
Allen
Member
This one single event has brought a country to its knees, affected the stock exchange, and the whole world's economy. The Diablo Power Plant in CA is not made to withstand the 9.0 earthquake. Anything that effects the world's economy is bad planning by so-called intelligent minds. They've lost something like a third of their power because of this event.
Differen T
Member
If this is all it takes to bring the worlds third largest economy to its knees we are in trouble when California has the big one. It has the worlds seventh largest economy.
I saw an interesting segment on CNN interviewing a nuke plant expert. These plants are not designed based on the Richter Scale. They are designed based on the expected movement of the ground at the site. Even though the plant was designed for a 7.9 RS (a formula is used to get an approximate RC number) the ground movement. The plant survived and properly operated until the wave arrived. Ground movement reached only about half of the design parameter. In the coming weeks we will hear about all sorts of operational problems that the plant has had in past years. A cry will go out to stop all new nuke plants and shut down the 40 plus similar plants throughout the world, of which 20 are in the USA. Most of these plants are not on active fault lines or near the ocean. The design fault was the failure to anticipate the power of the ocean when locating the source of back up power.
When you see the adds on the tube from those against nuclear power ask yourself who paid for them. Then go look in the mirror because our tax dollars are still paying substitutes to the oil companies, even in the face of HIGH oil prices and record oil company profits. Coal is not innocent either, the mining destroys the environment through the acid that gets into our water supply, the air when burned and oh yea, it has also released more total radiation in the time its been used than all or out nuclear power plants, including accidents, combined. Natural gas, the clean fuel compared to burning coal and oil, but extraction in many gas requires a process called Hydrofracking. Millions of gallons of water, mixed with various chemicals, some toxic are pumped into deep wells under high pressure to release the trapped natural gas (its also done in some domestic oil fields). Enough of this contaminated water returns to the surface and allowed to run off into our water supply.
Our cars have born the brunt of cleaning up pollution. We are now getting to the point where in many parts of the country the air going into the engine is more polluted than the air coming out of the tail pipe. Our next automotive step is to bear the cost of converting autos to electric power, most of which will be produced by older industries supported by our tax dollars.
This is just another reason I asked my elected representatives to take a 10% pay cut. Its nothing more than a pin prick to most of them as the median net worth (assets exceed liabilities) of a congressman is around one million dollars. But it will remind them that we are watching their actions.
:soapbox:
Al
Corley
New Member
After thinking on it, I see that the real risk from Nuke power is where the radio active stuff falls when the reactor fails. I said "when", not "if", because as we have seen, SOMEtime, SOMEwhere, it will fail, for SOME reason or other. (It already has failed at 3 locations, and will fail again in the future.) So, the odds are all about prevailing winds, and where the bad stuff goes when it fails. Japan is actually pretty well off on this one, as the prevailing winds are out of the west, taking the bad stuff out over the ocean, and therefore not killing as many peeps as if the area to the west were heavily populated. (Sorry fishies.) Therefore, I suggest let's put all the new Nuke plants to come along our eastern coast (and make no mistake, they will be coming). This will send all the bad stuff that makes it accross the ocean over to Gerry.
As a Washington state inhabitant, I wish to thank all the folks on the east coast for volunteering for this, and I especially want to apologize to Gerry, who didn't get a vote on it ... (TOUNG IN CHEEK!)
Now at 70- 1 week years old, it doesn't matter so much to me, but I'd like my grand children and their grand children to still have 10 fingers and toes, 2 eyes, etc., and not be mutants, so I'm hoping that we get a handle on some other commercially viable way to make power soon. (And I'm not talking about angle plug aluminum heads on your 350!) This really is serious stuff!
Corley
PS We had a Nuke power plant 20 miles to the west of us that was decommisioned in 1993, but there are still 800 spent rods sitting there because they don't know what to do with them. Does that make any sense? The reactor core was shipped to Hanford and burried, the cooling tower imploded and now gone, but those radio active rods have no place to go...
As a Washington state inhabitant, I wish to thank all the folks on the east coast for volunteering for this, and I especially want to apologize to Gerry, who didn't get a vote on it ... (TOUNG IN CHEEK!)
Now at 70- 1 week years old, it doesn't matter so much to me, but I'd like my grand children and their grand children to still have 10 fingers and toes, 2 eyes, etc., and not be mutants, so I'm hoping that we get a handle on some other commercially viable way to make power soon. (And I'm not talking about angle plug aluminum heads on your 350!) This really is serious stuff!
Corley
PS We had a Nuke power plant 20 miles to the west of us that was decommisioned in 1993, but there are still 800 spent rods sitting there because they don't know what to do with them. Does that make any sense? The reactor core was shipped to Hanford and burried, the cooling tower imploded and now gone, but those radio active rods have no place to go...
Gerry
Well-Known Member
Corley.
No need to apologize. I have mentioned in the past that I worked for a US company that specialised in air sampling and monitoring. About 30% of my time in the UK was spent on Nuclear sites. The health physicist were always a very careful bunch. Taught me a lot about what to do and not do on a nuclear site. I have been through both hand and body monitors after being on the hot side of various installations. My experience is why I have kept out of this thread till now.
Needless to say I have no problem with Nuclear power. Many Many other processes are spewing pollutants in to our world at incredible rates that are just as harmful, but not as evocation in the mind of the public.
Take a look at batteries and see what they have inside them that gets thrown in to the garbage every day.
Got to stop now cause the soap box is starting to give way
Gerry
No need to apologize. I have mentioned in the past that I worked for a US company that specialised in air sampling and monitoring. About 30% of my time in the UK was spent on Nuclear sites. The health physicist were always a very careful bunch. Taught me a lot about what to do and not do on a nuclear site. I have been through both hand and body monitors after being on the hot side of various installations. My experience is why I have kept out of this thread till now.
Needless to say I have no problem with Nuclear power. Many Many other processes are spewing pollutants in to our world at incredible rates that are just as harmful, but not as evocation in the mind of the public.
Take a look at batteries and see what they have inside them that gets thrown in to the garbage every day.
Got to stop now cause the soap box is starting to give way
Gerry
I had a friend who worked on the Hanford (and other) nuke plant construction. him and his boss spent much of their time looking for bs jobs to do off in a far corner of the facility so they could smoke a few hooters in peace. very confidence inspiring for the rest of us.
Russ
Russ
blownt
Member
ain't figured how to attach the ppt file.........
We all need to be calm. The media is focusing on this because it is “big” news and not focusing on the loss of life and human suffering that is a bigger problem. The quake at Christchurch didn’t even make the news; the name probably scared the media away. This is from a friend who is a nuclear engineer, and who works here at Bechtel. Read the following, then look at the attached file:
Subject: Japan's "Nuclear Problem"
As an engineer with a degree in this field, having worked in the field for 20+ years, having worked on all four Texas reactors, plus 5 more in the US and the UK (damn I'm getting old!!) I feel uniquely qualified to comment on the scare the media is generating about the Japanese reactors.
The attached ppt slides are pretty good in explaining what happened and is happening. There are some things that are not stated since this is an industry paper, and the design is understood by those on the inside, so I'll fill in the blanks.
First, there is no danger of a nuclear explosion. The control rods tripped in as soon as power was lost, and the nuclear reaction was shutdown. However, there is still considerable residual heat in the core, and that's what the operators are trying to deal with.
There has been very little actual radiation release; only slightly above the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission dose limit for the general public (100mRem). For comparison, the average person receives around 350 mRem per year from background radiation, then you add to that the dental and medical x-rays (I'm WAY over the limit for the past year!!). These are just units of measure like a gallon or a pound. The radiation concern for someone living near the plant would be to inhale any radioactive products that get released, but that would be a very very small concern for the releases they've had so far.
There will be very little risk to the public for radiation release as long as they can keep the primary containment pressures below the design pressure (typically around 50 psig). They've pretty much done this so far, and should be able to continue.
The worst case scenario is they can't control the pressure and the primary containment would rupture at some point (like a pipe would rupture that was over pressured) and there would be uncontrolled release of radiation from the area of the rupture. The release would still be expected to be much less than say, Chernobyl. I'm betting on the likely case. If they can continue to do what they've been doing, the danger will subside as the residual heat is removed.
The reactors have been trashed with the high heat load and the injection of seawater. The most likely scenario is to just bottle it up, let it sit for a few years for the internal radiation to die down, then hire someone like Bechtel to come in and clean it up (Bechtel did Three Mile Island).
Most reactors in the US are not this type, known as a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR). The ppt slides were made by Florida Power and Light, the owner of the Duane Arnold reactor. All the reactors in Texas and a large percentage in the US are known as Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR). Each has it's proponents but many believe the PWR is safer because of it's massive containment structure and some additional safety features. The new generation PWR's are even more passive and safe. Google AP1000 if you want to know more.
I will make one prediction.....the resurgent US nuclear industry will be strangled......again. The media will whip up the nuclear bogey and the projects under consideration will be shelved for several years. Having worked in both the nuclear industry and the oil and gas industry, I can say with certainty that the nuclear industry is safer than the oil and gas industry. About every year or two, we have some unit down on the ship channel blow up and kill people; we just had an explosion at one of the salt domes a couple of months ago. But that's (oil and gas) pretty familiar to most folks, so it's accepted, like driving a car and knowing you could be killed in an accident.
The result of the above is we'll continue to import oil and gas from unstable third world countries that don't like us. We'll continue the reliance on foreign oil, since we lack a national energy policy, and the backbone to create one.
The good news for me is that Japan is going to need a lot of gas to replace the power these three units would typically generate. So what's the closest source? Seems like an LNG plant in Western Australia would fit the bill pretty good
)
So that's my two cents.
(name removed)
We all need to be calm. The media is focusing on this because it is “big” news and not focusing on the loss of life and human suffering that is a bigger problem. The quake at Christchurch didn’t even make the news; the name probably scared the media away. This is from a friend who is a nuclear engineer, and who works here at Bechtel. Read the following, then look at the attached file:
Subject: Japan's "Nuclear Problem"
As an engineer with a degree in this field, having worked in the field for 20+ years, having worked on all four Texas reactors, plus 5 more in the US and the UK (damn I'm getting old!!) I feel uniquely qualified to comment on the scare the media is generating about the Japanese reactors.
The attached ppt slides are pretty good in explaining what happened and is happening. There are some things that are not stated since this is an industry paper, and the design is understood by those on the inside, so I'll fill in the blanks.
First, there is no danger of a nuclear explosion. The control rods tripped in as soon as power was lost, and the nuclear reaction was shutdown. However, there is still considerable residual heat in the core, and that's what the operators are trying to deal with.
There has been very little actual radiation release; only slightly above the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission dose limit for the general public (100mRem). For comparison, the average person receives around 350 mRem per year from background radiation, then you add to that the dental and medical x-rays (I'm WAY over the limit for the past year!!). These are just units of measure like a gallon or a pound. The radiation concern for someone living near the plant would be to inhale any radioactive products that get released, but that would be a very very small concern for the releases they've had so far.
There will be very little risk to the public for radiation release as long as they can keep the primary containment pressures below the design pressure (typically around 50 psig). They've pretty much done this so far, and should be able to continue.
The worst case scenario is they can't control the pressure and the primary containment would rupture at some point (like a pipe would rupture that was over pressured) and there would be uncontrolled release of radiation from the area of the rupture. The release would still be expected to be much less than say, Chernobyl. I'm betting on the likely case. If they can continue to do what they've been doing, the danger will subside as the residual heat is removed.
The reactors have been trashed with the high heat load and the injection of seawater. The most likely scenario is to just bottle it up, let it sit for a few years for the internal radiation to die down, then hire someone like Bechtel to come in and clean it up (Bechtel did Three Mile Island).
Most reactors in the US are not this type, known as a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR). The ppt slides were made by Florida Power and Light, the owner of the Duane Arnold reactor. All the reactors in Texas and a large percentage in the US are known as Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR). Each has it's proponents but many believe the PWR is safer because of it's massive containment structure and some additional safety features. The new generation PWR's are even more passive and safe. Google AP1000 if you want to know more.
I will make one prediction.....the resurgent US nuclear industry will be strangled......again. The media will whip up the nuclear bogey and the projects under consideration will be shelved for several years. Having worked in both the nuclear industry and the oil and gas industry, I can say with certainty that the nuclear industry is safer than the oil and gas industry. About every year or two, we have some unit down on the ship channel blow up and kill people; we just had an explosion at one of the salt domes a couple of months ago. But that's (oil and gas) pretty familiar to most folks, so it's accepted, like driving a car and knowing you could be killed in an accident.
The result of the above is we'll continue to import oil and gas from unstable third world countries that don't like us. We'll continue the reliance on foreign oil, since we lack a national energy policy, and the backbone to create one.
The good news for me is that Japan is going to need a lot of gas to replace the power these three units would typically generate. So what's the closest source? Seems like an LNG plant in Western Australia would fit the bill pretty good
)So that's my two cents.
(name removed)
